Tag: United States Politics

 

  POLITICS & POLICY  

  • Ro Khanna confident of winning Primary in California

    Ro Khanna confident of winning Primary in California

    Ro Khanna is in a pitched battle against an eight-term Democrat, who has been in public office for 35 years, is confident of winning the California’s 17th Congressional District Primaries on June 7.

    According to a San Francisco Bay Area CBS affiliate, KPIX polls, the already hotly-contested race for the highly contested seat may be tighter than expected. Honda is said to have had 31 percent sup port and 25 percent polled for the challenger Ro Khanna, shrinking the lead to 6 percent. In 2014, Honda outpaced Khanna by 20 percentage points.

    Ro Khanna is a Lecturer in Economics at Stanford University and was part of the Obama Administration. He is running for Congress against Mike Honda in Silicon Valley and seen by Roll Call and Politico as likely to win.

    Several Indian Americans are running for local, state, congressional and other seats throughout California in the June 7 primary, keep reading The Indian Panorama for regular updates.

    Honda, who is now entrenched in an ongoing ethics investigation by the House Ethics Committee, had narrowly beat the Indian American attorney from Fremont, Calif., in the 2014 race for the same seat. “Congressman Honda and his office gave special favors to donors,” Khanna said in the KPIX report. “So it started as this investigation about the mingling of staff but it became something much worse.”

    Throughout the campaign, Khanna has steadfastly turned away donations from lobbyists, corporations and Political Action Committees, signing a pledge in refusal of their money. That comes at a cost, with funding increasingly hard to come by, Khanna said in the report. He added that only nine people running for federal offices throughout the country are doing what he is doing.

    Despite that, Khanna has outraised Honda and holds nearly $2 million in the bank while Honda, needing to spend much of his raised money on legal fees, has roughly $800,000 cash in hand. Khanna has been endorsed by many who previously sided with Honda in 2014, such as California Secretary of State Alex Padilla and San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo. President Barack Obama abstained from making an endorsement, previously having endorsed Honda.

    “The difference between this cycle and last is Ro Khanna now has a new line of attack, and he was only within striking distance last election,” said one Bay Area Democrat who has not endorsed in the race. “It’s going to be close.”

    Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, a Khanna supporter, believes that Silicon Valley voters are paying close attention to the Honda ethics probe. “For the people that come to this Valley to start businesses, they know the big competitive advantage is the rule of law, transparency, honesty, a level playing field and merit — not who you know,” Rosen said. “It’s merit that rises to the top, and Ro is a person of merit.”

    Khanna, who spent a couple of years in Washington as a deputy assistant secretary in Obama’s Commerce Department, lost to Honda last cycle by just 3.6 percentage points. But for Khanna, the son of Indian immigrants, there is a risk of going too negative this time around.

    Meanwhile, it was ironic that some members of the Indian American community gathered at the Zutshi home on May 15 for a “meet and greet” event supporting Mike Honda. The event was cohosted by state Senator Bob Wieckowski, Toni Shellen and Jeevan Zutshi. “Unlike his competitor, a perennial candidate, Mike Honda has a fabulous record of service,” Jeevan Zutshi told the gathering.

    His views were echoed by other Indian Americans present who felt that Indian American candidates must not run against those who have served the Indian American community for decades, according to a press release. Other activists who spoke were Tara Sreekrishnan, Jean Holmes, Henry Hutchins, Tejinder Dhami, Bridgette Hendrikson and Kameshwar Eranki.

    California’s 17th Congressional District includes much of California’s Silicon Valley cities such as Sunnyvale, Cupertino and Santa Clara, as well as north San Jose, Milpitas, Fremont and Newark. Khanna and Honda are expected to have a rare intraparty battle in November, with both progressive candidates expected to advance past California’s June 7 primary, in which the top two candidates move on to the general election regardless of party.

  • Hillary Clinton’s email nightmares are back and are likely to get much worse

    Hillary Clinton’s email nightmares are back and are likely to get much worse

    As the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton struggles to lock down the Democratic presidential nomination, her infamous email controversy is back.

    The State Department’s inspector general recently released its report on the email practices of Clinton and a number of other past secretaries of state.

    The report badly complicates Clinton’s past explanations about the server and whether she complied fully with the laws in place governing electronic communication. And it virtually ensures that Clinton’s email practices will be front and center in Donald Trump’s fusillade of attacks against her credibility and honesty between now and Nov. 8.

    The inspector general, in a long awaited review obtained Wednesday, May 25, by The Washington Post in advance of its publication, found that Clinton’s use of private email for public business was “not an appropriate method” of preserving documents and that her practices failed to comply with department policies meant to ensure that federal record laws are followed.

    The report says Clinton, who is the Democratic presidential front-runner, should have printed and saved her emails during her four years in office or surrendered her work-related correspondence immediately upon stepping down in February 2013. Instead, Clinton provided those records in December 2014, nearly two years after leaving office.

    For a candidate already struggling to overcome a perception that she is neither honest nor trustworthy, the IG report makes that task significantly harder. No one will come out of this news cycle — with the exception of the hardest of the hard-core Clinton people — believing she is a better bet for the presidency on May 25 than she was on May 23.

    Clinton remains blessed that Republicans are on the verge of nominating Donald Trump, a candidate whose numbers on honesty, trustworthiness and even readiness to lead are worse — and in some cases, far worse — than hers. But Trump’s task of casting her as “Crooked Hillary” just got easier.


    Here are the most critical parts of the State Department inspector general report on Clinton’s email use as reported by Washington Times:

    The State Department’s independent watchdog released an 83-page report Wednesday to lawmakers concluding that Hillary Clinton’s email practices did not comply with department policies.

    Below are some of the most revealing parts of the findings:

    1. The report concludes that Clinton’s use of a personal email account was “not an appropriate method.” This knocks down a key argument made in Clinton’s defense — that because she had emailed State Department officials on their government accounts, records of her communications were preserved.

    imrs.php.jpg

    2. In January 2011, there were two hacking attempts on the Clinton email system in one day. An adviser to President Bill Clinton tried to shut down the server each time.

    imrs.php.jpg

    3. There were warnings issued to senior State Department officials that hackers were targeting personal email accounts. Below, an excerpt from a March 11, 2011, memo written by the assistant secretary of diplomatic security.

    imrs.php.jpg

    4. The audit also covered Clinton’s aides, some of whom did not cooperate when asked to respond to a questionnaire about email use. Some of the aides used their personal email accounts extensively for official business.

    imrs.php.jpg

    5. The package of emails turned over by Clinton was “incomplete.”

    6. IT security officials were concerned about Clinton’s use of personal email and held meetings to discuss the need to preserve records and security. One staff member said the security director said the email system had been approved by state’s legal staff. The IG did not find evidence that the department’s legal adviser had reviewed or approved Clinton’s email system. 

    Another staff member who raised issues was told that their mission was “to support the Secretary, and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”

    7. The report also criticizes Colin Powell’s handling of official emails during his tenure as secretary of state, saying it was also “not an appropriate method” for preserving emails that are part of the federal record. When asked to defend her email system, Clinton has said that her predecessors also used personal accounts.

     

    But the report also notes that by the time Clinton became secretary of state, the guidance on email use was much more detailed, suggesting that pointing to Powell is not an entirely fair comparison.

    imrs.php.jpg


     

  • Donald Trump beats Clinton in new poll

    Donald Trump beats Clinton in new poll

    WASHINGTON (TIP): Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has for the first time edged out his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in a latest poll even as majority of respondents have an high unfavorable opinion of both the aspirants.

    This is for the first time in a poll that Trump is seen ahead of Clinton, albeit within a margin of error.

    Fox News, in its latest national polls, found that Trump has the support of 45 per cent of the potential general election votes, while Clinton has the support of 42 per cent.

    Trump emerged as the presumptive nominee of the Republican party after winning the Indian elections early this month.

    He is the only GOP candidate left in the race, which early this year was crowded with 16 more White House aspirants including well established Senators and Governors.

    Clinton, however, is yet to clinch the nomination as her sole rival Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont is giving a tough fight by winning a number of States and preventing her from acquiring enough delegate to become the presumptive nominee.

    Sanders, according to the Fox News, is still ahead of Trump.

    In a hypothetical match up, Sanders has support of 46 per cent of the respondents as against 42 per cent for Trump, Fox News said.

    However, a key highlight of the latest poll is the high unfavorable view of both Trump (56 per cent) and Clinton (61 per cent).

    Earlier Clinton’s negative rating was 58 per cent and Trump’s was at 65 per cent. “The standard for unpopular presidential candidates has been Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan in 1980, but we have two new champions,” said Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who conducts the Fox News Poll with Democratic pollster Chris Anderson.

    “Clinton and Trump rate lower than disastrous candidates like Mondale or Dole,” he said. Trump leads Clinton by 55 to 31 per cent among whites.

    On the other hand Clinton has a commanding lead over Trump when it comes to black (90 to seven per cent) and Hispanics (62 to 23 per cent).

    Fox News had surveyed 1021 registered voters between May 14-17.(PTI)

  • Clinton Sanders split wins as they slug it out to bitter end

    Clinton Sanders split wins as they slug it out to bitter end

    WASHINGTON (TIP): Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders split primary wins in Kentucky and Oregon respectively on May 15 as they continued an internecine electoral slugfest that is driving Democratic Party grandees to despair.

    Party stalwarts fear the prolonged intra-party fracas, which is now getting bitter, is starting to cost the party campaign time, money, and votes, even as the Republican Party begins to rally around Trump after he worsted his rivals, and has pretty much wrapped up the nomination. Trump himself has started taunting Hillary Clinton for not being able to shake off Sanders.

    But the 72-year old self-professed socialist Senator from Vermont is just refusing to fade out despite trailing Clinton by a huge margin in the race towards the 2383 delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination. On Tuesday, he notched up another impressive in the liberal state of Oregon (54.5-45.5) while narrowly losing Kentucky by only a few thousand votes to Clinton (46.8-46.3).

    The win did little to change the delegate count because of the way the system is designed, with the party establishment awarding pledged delegates proportionally to votes secured, and the un-pledged delegates leaning heavily towards Clinton, leaving her 2291-1528 ahead.

    But Sanders has refused to back down. He has promised to take the fight all the way to California, among the last state to primary on June 7 (on the day Prime Minister Modi is scheduled to arrive in Washington DC), leaving the Democratic party with the enervating prospect of seeing another three weeks of bloodletting, even as Trump and the Republicans get their act together.

    In fact, the tension within the Democratic Party has increased even as Sanders’ chances of winning the nomination, despite the massive popular grassroots support he has, is decreasing.

    Over the weekend, Sanders’ supports erupted in anger when the Nevada Democratic Party began awarding delegates to Clinton, accusing party stalwarts of rigging the system.

    Chaos and vandalism followed at the meeting keynoted by Clinton surrogate Barbara Boxer, a retiring California Senator who is also related to her, with some Sanders’ supporters accused of issuing death threats to party veterans favoring Clinton.

    Sanders called the allegations “nonsense” even as he reveled in massive public adulation on the west coast where he will make his last stand.

    Some of his supporters concede that he has only a theoretical chance now of winning the nomination (he has to win 855 of the 946 delegates still in play, which means he has to beat Clinton by something like 85-15 in the remaining primaries), but they want him to remain in the fray if only to influence the Clinton platform (manifesto) with the outside chance she may draft him as her running mate (or cabinet colleague if she wins, as Obama did with Hillary).

    But current feud is driving party stalwarts crazy because it is distracting them from also recapturing the Senate, where the Republicans have a 54-46 advantage, but Democrats see many vulnerable GOP candidates in the 34 Senate races (one-third of the Senate also goes to polls on Nov.8)

    “If Clinton can’t put Sanders away, can she beat Trump?” was the headline of one oped, among the many that reflected on whether the lack of fervor and passion among her flock, unlike that exhibited by supporters of Sanders and Trump, would be her undoing. (PTI)

  • High Tea, not Muslim-Ban grudges, needed between London Mayor Sadiq Khan and Donald Trump

    High Tea, not Muslim-Ban grudges, needed between London Mayor Sadiq Khan and Donald Trump

    United States and Great Britain have a Special Relationship that transcends leaders, rhetoric and time.

    Donald Trump has announced an intention to bar Muslims from the United States, with some exceptions, including for the new mayor of London. Both prime minister David Cameron and mayor Khan have objected to the Muslim Ban. Donald Trump has taken umbrage from their opposition, and declared a desire to keep a grudge.

    I suggest instead of grudges, High Tea between Sadiq Kahn & Donald Trump will serve to restore decorum in the comity of nations and respect between the faiths.”

  • Indian American Neera Tanden Leads Clinton Campaign In Slamming Trump’s Policies

    Indian American Neera Tanden Leads Clinton Campaign In Slamming Trump’s Policies

    WASHINGTON:  Indian American Neera Tanden (@neeratanden) on Wednesday, May 11, led the Hillary Clinton campaign in slamming the economic policies of Donald Trump, Republican presidential presumptive nominee, and alleging that this poses threat to the economic future of women and families.

    “Make no mistake: Trump’s divisive comments about women’s health are a direct threat to our dignity and economic security,” said Ms Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

    “Trump is now trying to cover up the bald spots in his economic plan but women can see for themselves and women can see through his comb over,” said Ms Tanden who was joined by Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland.

    The two said that the trillions in tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires and corporations laid out in Trump’s tax plan would be an enormous boon for the top one per cent of earners, made at the expense of working families, seniors and the health of the economy.

    Trump’s plan would give USD 3 trillion over 10 years or more than 35 per cent of its tax breaks to millionaires, enough money to ensure Medicare and Social Security’s solvency for the next 75 years, repair the ailing infrastructure, or raise every person now living in poverty up to the poverty line.

    Trump would give multi-millionaires in the top 0.1 per cent like himself a raise of USD 1.3 million a year, or USD 100,000 a month.

    Ms Tanden alleged Trump’s ideas are not the only risk his presidency would pose for the economic future of women and families around this country.

    “His tax plan gives USD 3 trillion to millionaires, that’s enough to make Social Security and Medicare solvent for 75 years. Women, who rely disproportionately on Social Security, can’t afford such an irresponsible giveaway,” Ms Tanden said.

    Ms Tanden and Mikulski said Trump still opposes raising the minimum wage because he believes “wages are too high” and recently said he doesn’t favor a federal floor for the minimum wage, which could leave many workers subject to a lower minimum wage.

    At a time when two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women, this issue is critical to working families, they said. “I’m with Hillary because I know that she’s the only candidate who will make fighting for women and families her priority,” Mikulski said.

  • Hillary Clinton’s campaign slams Donald Trump for mocking Indians

    Hillary Clinton’s campaign slams Donald Trump for mocking Indians

    WASHINGTON (TIP): Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has slammed Republican frontrunner Donald Trump for mocking an Indian call centre worker during an election rally this week, saying it shows disrespect towards the community and is reflective of his divisive rhetoric.

    “Donald Trump mocking Indian workers is just typical of his disrespect that he has shown to groups across the spectrum,” said John Podesta, chairman of the Clinton Campaign.

    “He has run a campaign of bigotry and division. I think that’s quite dangerous for the country when you think about the fact that you need friends, allies. The kind of campaign he is running breeds disrespect across the globe and breeds division and danger here at home,” he told reporters in Germantown, Maryland after formally launching ‘Indian- Americans for Hillary’, an effort by the community to rally behind the Democratic presidential front runner.

    Podesta was reacting to Trump’s apparent use of a fake Indian accent to mock a call centre representative in India during a campaign rally in Delaware this week.

    The real estate tycoon said that he called up his credit card company to find out whether their customer support is based in the US or overseas.

    At the same time, he described India as a great place, asserting that he is not angry with Indian leaders.

    Meanwhile, an Indian-American entrepreneur also hit out at Trump, calling his comments “demeaning”.

    “When Donald Trump fakes the accent of an Indian at the help desk, it is demeaning and demonising to me personally,” said Frank Islam, a top Indian-American bundler in the Clinton campaign who has helped raised more than USD 100,000 for her.

    A resident of Maryland, Islam is part of the newly launched ‘Indian-Americans for Hillary’.

    He also disagreed with the remarks of Republican Governor from Maine, Paul LePage, who had said that Indian workers are “worst” and “hardest” to understand. “I do not know, where he got that impression. I consider Indian-Americans very hard working and they aim high,” he said. “I consider Indian-Americans to be thoughtful, constructing, hardworking and resilient. So I do not agree with him,” Islam said, adding that the community played a key role in strengthening the country.

  • Obama is more popular than Reagan

    Obama is more popular than Reagan

    For a leader regularly written off by the press as a lame duck 18 months ago, President Obama has tallied some major wins during his second term, and voters have taken notice. He’s normalized relations with Cuba, implemented a historic Iranian nuclear deal, signed a global climate pact with nearly 200 nations, overseen the continued success of Obamacare, all while the economy has recorded 73 straight months of job growth.

    No wonder that polls point toward a Democrat succeeding him in the White House.

    So why isn’t there more media credit directed his way? Is the press making the mistake of reading off the Republican campaign script this year, which insists America is teetering on collapse? (Obama joked at the White House Correspondents Dinner: “The end of the Republic has never looked better.”)

    Whatever the reasons, let’s note there hasn’t been a media rush to document Obama’s strong standing in recent weeks. CNN last month timidly suggested, “there’s some evidence that the public is viewing Obama … more fondly.” The first clue?Obama’s approval rating hit a three-year high of 53 percent, according to Gallup. (He boasts a staggering 66 percent approval rating today among voters 18-29.)

    Obama’s strong showing has remained steady since March: Gallup on Monday pegged his approval rating at 52 percent.

    Note that the president’s approval rating dropped down to 40 percent just 18 months ago during the midterm election cycle in 2014, which means he’s ridden a 13-point surge over the last year-and-a-half. Doesn’t that qualify as news?

    The president averaged a nearly 50 percent approval rating from January 20 through April 19, his 29th quarter in office, according to Gallup. That 29th quarter represents “one of the higher quarterly averages in his presidency to date.” That’s especially remarkable considering second terms are not traditionally kind to presidential approval ratings.

    Recall that our previous two-term president left office with a 22 percent approval rating, while his vice president signed off with a thumbs-up from 13 percent of voters.

    What’s also impressive is that in today’s hyper-partisan environment, Obama has been able to boost his standing while getting almost no support from Republican voters.

    “Obama is the first president since polls existed to have never gone above 25 percent approval from the other side,” noted Paul Waldman at the American Prospect. Obama’s approval among Republicans currently stands at just 14 percent, according to Gallup. Given today’s rugged political terrain, “If a president can stay at 50 percent, he should be counted a remarkable success,” Waldman argued.

    But don’t look for lots of media tributes. The truth is, during his two terms the press has repeatedly worked to depict Obama’s standing as being on the decline, and often downplaying his success. (Also, good news is no news.) As Media Matters noted in 2010, “Beltway scribes today have made it plain that when it comes to Obama and polling, good news is no news.”

    And when Obama’s standing did fall, the press eagerly piled on, as I laid out after Democratic losses in 2014: Right after the election, a November Economist editorial announced, “Mr. Obama cannot escape the humiliating verdict on his presidency.” Glimmers of hope after the midterms were no reason to think Obama had “somehow crawled out of the dark place that voters put him,” the Washington Post assured readers. (Post columnist Dana Milbank has recently tagged Obama as a hapless “bystander” who’s “turning into George W. Bush.”) And a McClatchy Newspapers headline declared, “President Obama Is Now Truly A Lame Duck”.

    So it’s not surprising the same press corps is in no rush today to detail Obama’s recent surge in popularity, and in fact seems to tiptoe around it.

    In January, The New York Times looked ahead to Obama’s final year in office and stressed, “polls show doubts about his handling of critical issues.” Contrasting his second term with Bill Clinton’s and Ronald Reagan’s, the Times insisted Obama began the year “without the advantages of popularity that Reagan and Mr. Clinton had.”

    In other words, both Reagan and Clinton were very popular during their final year in office, but Obama was not. Yet recently, Obama’s Gallup approval rating slightly exceeds Reagan’s from the same point in the Republican’s eighth year in office.

    Obama’s Gallup rating April 25-May 1, 2016: 51 percent. Reagan’s Gallup rating May 2-May 8, 1988: 50 percent.

    So where are the media acknowledgements? (In the press, Reagan is often used as shorthand for a universally popular president.) In recent months, the Times has made only a few passing references to Obama’s approval ratings, according to Nexis.

    In early March, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that Obama’s approval rating had risen to 51 percent, up from 45 percent in December. Big news, right? Nope. The Post reported that 51 percent fact in the ninth paragraph and devoted just one sentence to his surge.

    Here’s another example: Last June when a CNN poll found that Obama’s approval rating dipped to 45 percent, CNN played the data as big news (“President Barack Obama’s job approval numbers are sinking”), complete with the taunting headline “Bush Now More Popular Than Obama.”

    But more recently, when CNN polling pegged Obama’s approval at 51 percent, CNN downplayed the news. CNN’s polling write-up about the survey included just one sentence noting the president’s surge.

    And in a recent 8,000-word opus, Politico outlined what it claims to have been Obama’s “failure” to communicate his agenda, and what “went wrong” inside the White House. It wasn’t until 7,000 words into the feature that Politico acknowledged Obama’s approval rating recently hit a three-year high. Politico also never mentioned that Obama’s approval today matches that of Reagan’s, who was known as The Great Communicator.

    To date, Obama’s second term has been a broad success, and lots of voters agree. When’s the press going to take note?

    (The author, a former senior writer for Salon, is the author of “Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush.”)

  • Anti-Trump Forces Build Shadow Third-Party Campaign

    Anti-Trump Forces Build Shadow Third-Party Campaign

    WASHINGTON (TIP): Anti-Donald Trump strategists are working behind the scenes to build the foundation for a third-party run even as the Republican Party takes steps toward unifying around the presumptive GOP candidate, says an ABC report.

    A small but dedicated group of Republicans say they’ve begun to cultivate donors in hopes of mounting a viable third-party challenge to a likely Hillary Clinton-Trump showdown that some strategists say has fed broad demand for an alternative option.

    “I think we’ll end up in a situation where we do see somebody who’s a conservative alternative to Trump and Mrs. Clinton come November,” Rick Wilson, a veteran Republican operative, said on ABC News’ “Powerhouse Politics” podcast.

    While Texas’ state ballot deadline passed this week and others are fast approaching, Wilson downplayed ballot access hurdles, citing legal precedent for rolling back early deadlines. The real challenge, he said, is fielding the appropriate candidate.

    “We recognize that finding that person who can pick up the mantle of the third party, who is also electable and compelling and has a great personal narrative, is a difficult lift,” he said. “It’s a lot harder than the ballot access question by an order of magnitude.”

    Another Republican at the heart of the effort, Weekly Standard editor and ABC News Contributor Bill Kristol, has tweeted about having discussed the possibility of a third party run with Mitt Romney, Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, and former Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn. Kristol, Wilson, as well as GOP strategist Joel Searby, are heading up the effort, but it also involves donors and about a dozen other strategists.

    Sasse said he is not interested in running, but has bemoaned the two likely candidates and called for a third option in an open letter, writing “WHY is that the only choice?” Similar efforts by this same group to recruit Gen. James Mattis, a retired Marine Corps General, also have not come to pass.

    A source close to third party discussions told ABC News that Trump’s position as presumptive nominee explains why the third-party effort has now sprung into force.

    “It’s very realistic,” the source said when asked if it was possible to mount this type of effort in May. “We already have a number of serious and capable donors ready to help and while it is very difficult to do this, it is not complicated. It’s a pretty straightforward process. There are a number of signatures needed and a legal process in each state. We are focused on the timeline and while it’s difficult, it’s not a problem that can’t be solved by hard work and resources.”

    The same source said they are working on recruiting a candidate: “There are a lot of people who would like to run for president, but only a few that are truly qualified and could mount a bid of this stature this late in the game. We are focused on a very small number of candidates who would fit that profile.”

    Matt Kibbe, a former head of the fiscal-conservative group FreedomWorks who led a super PAC supporting Rand Paul in the GOP presidential primary, suggested there’s broad demand for an alternative to a Clinton-Trump matchup.

    “I think Libertarians, a lot of [Tea Party members], a lot of constitutional conservatives, and probably less relevantly establishment Republicans, are looking for another option as well,” said Kibbe, who has traditionally voted Republican but plans to attend the GOP, Democratic, and Libertarian conventions in search of a candidate, and is open to likely Libertarian nominee former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson.

    Some conservative leaders have cast doubt about the chances of a realistic third-party option as more party members make peace with Trump as their nominee.

    Al Cardenas, the former president of the American Conservatives Union and currently a senior partner at the lobbying firm Squire Patton Boggs, said talk of a third option has waned.

    “It’s a combination of lacking a superstar willing to do so, and a sense that the party will fare better in general election, down ticket, if it’s not split at top of the ticket,” Cardenas said. Many conservatives are more focused on keeping GOP majorities in Congress, with Trump on the presidential ticket, Cardenas said.

    The anti-Trump forces’ uphill climb may have grown steeper today as House Speaker Paul Ryan narrowed the gap between himself and Trump, with the two issuing a joint statement saying their meetings in Washington, D.C., signaled a “positive step” toward unifying the Republican Party.

    Other conservative leaders have also warmed to Trump. Despite the GOP nominee’s inconsistencies on whether he supports raising tax rates on the wealthy, Grover Norquist, the top anti-tax activist in Washington, D.C., defended Trump in an interview with CNBC, saying he is “not at all concerned that any taxes are going up at all” with Trump as president.

    But anti-Trump activist Wilson said the third-party movement can emerge and beat Clinton.

    “A large number of Republicans — 55 percent of the people that have cast their vote in the Republican primary or caucus this year — have done so against Donald Trump,” he said. “Now some of those folks are going to go to him [and] settle for Trump. But that’s because right now they don’t have a conservative alternative before them who can provide them with answers on how you preserve the Republican and conservative movement without it being simply a Hillary operation.”

  • Indian American Neera Tanden Leads Clinton Campaign In Slamming Trump’s Policies

    Indian American Neera Tanden Leads Clinton Campaign In Slamming Trump’s Policies

    WASHINGTON:  Indian American Neera Tanden on Wednesday led the Hillary Clinton campaign in slamming the economic policies of Donald Trump, Republican presidential presumptive nominee, and alleging that this poses threat to the economic future of women and families.

    “Make no mistake: Trump’s divisive comments about women’s health are a direct threat to our dignity and economic security,” said Ms Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

    “Trump is now trying to cover up the bald spots in his economic plan but women can see for themselves and women can see through his comb over,” said Ms Tanden who was joined by Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland.

    The two said that the trillions in tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires and corporations laid out in Trump’s tax plan would be an enormous boon for the top one per cent of earners, made at the expense of working families, seniors and the health of the economy.

    Trump’s plan would give USD 3 trillion over 10 years or more than 35 per cent of its tax breaks to millionaires, enough money to ensure Medicare and Social Security’s solvency for the next 75 years, repair the ailing infrastructure, or raise every person now living in poverty up to the poverty line.

    Trump would give multi-millionaires in the top 0.1 per cent like himself a raise of USD 1.3 million a year, or USD 100,000 a month.

    Ms Tanden alleged Trump’s ideas are not the only risk his presidency would pose for the economic future of women and families around this country.

    “His tax plan gives USD 3 trillion to millionaires, that’s enough to make Social Security and Medicare solvent for 75 years. Women, who rely disproportionately on Social Security, can’t afford such an irresponsible giveaway,” Ms Tanden said.

    Ms Tanden and Mikulski said Trump still opposes raising the minimum wage because he believes “wages are too high” and recently said he doesn’t favor a federal floor for the minimum wage, which could leave many workers subject to a lower minimum wage.

    At a time when two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women, this issue is critical to working families, they said. “I’m with Hillary because I know that she’s the only candidate who will make fighting for women and families her priority,” Mikulski said.

  • Trump’s Win will have Consequences

    Trump’s Win will have Consequences

    Trump’s opponent, Ted Cruz’s wife had said that her husband’s candidacy was showing America, “the face of God, whom they serve”. But in reality many Americans were reminded of Elmer Gantry, a sleazy 1920s sociopathic preacher from the film Elmer Gantry. Most Americans were not ready for Ted Cruz’s kind of ultra-conservatism. They are worried about jobs. So to paraphrase Bill Clinton, “it is jobs, stupid.”

    Trump had declared that his idea was to bring new blood in the party and change its base and outlook. He never spared an opportunity to provoke his rivals, party leadership and media personalities, who inevitably retaliated.

    The anti-Trump movement spent more than $75 million on broadcast TV alone. He also weathered nearly 64,000 television advertisements critical of him. Media was also campaigning against him and giving favorable coverage to his opponents. All this has come to a naught. Now Trump is going to be the Republican nominee. He achieved this victory on his own, in spite of opposition from the Republican Party bosses, who are then left with no option but to back him. The leadership did not realize that people are tired of all politicians and do not trust them. Their false promises do not impress anyone. The longer a politician is in office, the more disliked he is. People are fed up with politicians with the same rhetoric and talking points, refusing to accept and learn from the mistakes and make changes and focus on improving the job situation. In 2014, the Republicans secured the largest majority in the House since 1928, and by winning nine seats, regained the Senate majority for the first time in eight years. They also took pride in having control of 31 governorships.

    Nevertheless, the so-called establishment could not find any capable aspirant who could be a match for Trump, who had never held any public office. Trump has shown that the party leadership is out of touch.

    The recent campaign has brought out the anger of young people, as they are the victims of modernization, international trade deals and shrinking economy with consequent loss of jobs. The income level has gone down, widening the gap between the rich and the ordinary people.

    Germany, which had faced the same problem, woke up quite early and made provisions to train the affected workers in new technology. Hence, Germany was equipped to face the problems generated by the international trade agreements.

    Neither the Obama administration nor the Republican Congress nor the Senate did anything to address this issue. Therefore, the Republican Party as well as Hillary Clinton are finding it difficult to face the angry youth in their own parties. The Republican leadership as well as Hillary all these years have indulged in pep talk and made tall promises which have failed to revive the economy.

    So it is no wonder that while the Republican Party leadership has to eat humble pie, Hillary has also not secured the nomination yet because people do not really like her or trust her. She, of course, would get the required number of delegates in the remaining states, especially in California. But the victory will not be glorious.

    Trump says that his ability to make deals and fix problems is the key to his remarkable success in business. But the eventual final campaign would not be easy for either Trump or Hillary. All these days Trump has scrupulously avoided giving details of his economic policy or his international agenda.

    His “America First” slogan has roused nationalist fervor but it would result in a protectionist policy. It is true that all international trade agreements have some unpalatable clauses but they also boost trade and economy. It is curious that while multi-billionaire Trump’s “America-First” policy is another name for protectionism; the self-proclaimed socialist, Sanders, also wants to tread the same path. Some economists have pointed out that various welfare schemes put forward by Sanders would have to be backed up by heavy taxation, resulting in the increase in inflation and the cost of living.

    So far, democratic white youth nationwide have favored Sanders and brought Hillary’s favorability numbers significantly down. While Trump has won the nomination race, he does not mix with the African-Americans like Hillary does. He has alienated Hispanics and Muslims, which make a very large chunk of population. The language which Trump has used so far, is dangerous. In November, no matter who wins, Hillary or Trump, the problems facing either of them would be enormous and very intricate because of their history and the way in which they have conducted themselves so far.

    For instance, it is believed that Hillary is willing to compromise. But some, who know her, say that it is true but at times she is very adamant. When her husband was the President, he put forward a plan for healthcare, which would have been accepted by the Congress with some amendments. But Hillary was adamant, hence the plan failed to pass.

    The situation in the country demands a conciliatory tone as well as behavior. Obama generally kept aloof from the members of both parties and also leaders of other countries. Nevertheless, he did follow a conciliatory policy on crucial matters.

    Hillary or Trump would have to face a not-so-friendly Congress and the Senate. It is quite possible that Sanders and some other Senators would keep up pressure on the future Clinton administration. It would need a great deal of acumen not to be populist and disturb the balance.

    Hillary has been branded as someone, who is close to the financial circles. No President could afford to be an antagonist of these circles; but to keep a balance requires great deal of skill. While Hillary, first as the First Lady, then as the Senator, had relations with members of both houses of Congress., Trump would be totally new to the Congress and the administration. He, of course, has been the head of a big commercial conglomerate. But as the head of the state, he would have to run the administration, be answerable to the Congress as well as people, which is quite different from running a company. Thus, the new President would have to face a volatile situation and many challenges.

    (Govind Talwalkar - The author is a former Editor of ‘Maharashtra Times’)
  • Hillary Clinton calls voting for Iraq war ‘a mistake’

    Hillary Clinton calls voting for Iraq war ‘a mistake’

    WASHINGTON (TIP): The US Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton said on April 21 her greatest political regret is “voting to give President Bush authority in Iraq”.

    It is in contrast to her stand in the 2008 campaign, during which Clinton defended her “Yes” vote for the Iraq war as a way to give the then President George W. Bush authority to deal with Iraq.

    “It did not turn out the way that I had thought it would, based on what he had said,” she said of the Iraq war during a town hall event aired live on the ABC “Good Morning America” programme Thursday morning.

    Hillary Clinton joined “Good Morning America” two days after winning the New York Democratic primary. She took questions from the two hosts of ABC and questions from the audience.

    “And I regret that. And I said that it was a mistake and, obviously, is something that I wish hadn’t turned out the way it did.” she added.

    During the campaign, the Democratic candidate has often been criticized for her vote in support of the Iraq war when she served as the US Senator from New York State.

    Her Democratic nomination rival, Bernie Sanders, said earlier that “the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely and led to the rise of al-Qaeda and to (the emergence of) IS.”

    “I think that (the Iraq war) was one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the history of the United States,” Sanders said.

    Apart from the Iraq war, Clinton has kept giving different answers for what she thinks is her greatest regret in politics, including not overhauling the healthcare system earlier and the 2012 attacks killing four Americans in Benghazi, Libya.

  • WHY THE BJP MATTERS

    WHY THE BJP MATTERS

    The question I have been asked most often over the last two months is this: what do you think of Donald Trump?

    It is easy to answer: I do not think of Donald Trump. But the question I have been asked most often the last twenty years is far more difficult to evade: ‘What do you think of the BJP?’ Because I do think of the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) quite often, and I am afraid that what I think of the BJP is different from what both its Hindutva supporters and its Leftist opponents think of it.

    While most Hindutva supporters celebrate the BJP as the epitome of ‘Hindu’ -which they then equate with ‘national’ -values, staunch Leftists critique the BJP as a proto-fascist party, or at least a party with fascist tendencies. On the other hand, I see the BJP as a collocation of conservative, capitalist, neo-liberal, cultural nationalist, religious and reactionary groups and tendencies. Some of these can assume a proto-fascist expression, but then so could communism, under people like Stalin.

    The fact remains that the BJP has traditionally collected various groups, and what Leftists see as its ‘fascist’ face is still only an aspect of a vast collocation of political ideologies. True, all these ideologies are at least conservative and ‘Right-leaning’. But that cannot be used to dismiss the BJP because all modern democracies contain Left- and Right-leaning parties.

    [inlinetweet prefix=”WHY THE BJP MATTERS” tweeter=”” suffix=””]Space for an alternative[/inlinetweet]

    Actually, one can argue that, to an extent, the rise of a party like the BJP in postcolonial India was inevitable and necessary. That is so because Third World countries usually gained independence under a Leftist umbrella. This was partly historical: Leftist ideologies were ascendant in the period, c. 1940s to 1970s, when most of these Third World countries shook off the yoke of European colonization. This was also partly ideological: as the pre-Independence history of both ‘Hindu nationalist’ and ‘Islamic’ groups in India shows, Rightist parties were often complicit in colonial politics.

    Hence, when the postcolonial nation -India, Turkey or Egypt – is born, it is born under a sky that rains modern ‘Leftist’ rhetoric. The realities on the ground might not be socialist or even Leftist, but the rhetoric always tends to be. This is very different from the trajectory of modern nations in the First World: these have almost always grown from a monarchical position to that of conservatism and economic liberalism, followed by socialist and Leftist critiques. The BJP in India was inevitable because a large political space – conservative, economically liberal, religious, reactionary -which existed, for better and for worse, had little open representation in the Indian Parliament.

    Of course, the Congress was there and it was always a party of the middle – as Leftists and Rightists note, both in terms of accusation. Despite the Congress being a party of the middle, it retained a Leftist rhetoric. The BJP grew partly in response to this rhetoric, and partly because the rhetoric was often empty. But again, the matter is not as simple as my friends on the Left sometimes assume.

    For instance, from the time of Indira Gandhi onwards, the Congress stopped being a cadre-based party. It became a top-heavy party, and has remained so. Various communist parties were cadre-based, but they either had limited following or took a turn towards violent revolutionary politics -which made their cadres disappear as a democratic force. In this light, it is difficult to deny that the BJP is the most obviously cadre-based party in India today.

    The fact that the BJP has Narendra Modi as its face and the Congress has Rahul Gandhi is proof of this fact. It has become very difficult for party members to rise up the Congress hierarchy especially after Nehru, while this is relatively possible in the BJP. I recall Congress offices in small towns like Gaya even as late as the 1970s: they used to hum with activity and people. Today only BJP offices retain that atmosphere. In this sense again, it is problematic when the Left dismisses the only cadre-based national political party in India as ‘proto-fascist’.

    [inlinetweet prefix=”WHY THE BJP MATTERS” tweeter=”” suffix=””]The enemies within[/inlinetweet]

    And yet the dangers are there. The BJP is running the danger of suppressing its conservative, economically liberal and even culturally nationalist components in favor of a reactionary religious trend that can, and sometimes does, assume fascist dimensions. The current confrontations in certain national universities are an indication of this, as well as the tendency to resort to violence and threats against its opponents.

    I have always believed that there was the need for a party like the BJP in India, because there is always a need, at least in the current phase of human history, for parties that espouse conservative, economically liberal, cultural nationalist and even religious perspectives. That is one side of the political divide, and on the other side there is just as much of a need for parties that are called Leftist – socialist, Marxist, culturally liberal, Green, etc. This is a necessary argument that can never be terminated – except by violence on one side or the other.

    Today, some segments in the BJP are permitting this violence to take place, and hence they are targeting those essential hotbeds of free discussion, universities. This is a sad and dangerous trend. I can see why academics are worried: from Nazi Germany and Stalinist U.S.S.R. to Rightist Chile, Argentina, etc., the takeover of fascist groups from within otherwise legitimate ‘Leftist’ or ‘Rightist’ party positions always commenced with an attack on students, academics and universities.

    If I were a BJP voter, I would be worried about the soul of my party. The condition of India in the near future might come to depend on the ability of the BJP to negotiate its own complex nature.

    (Tabish Khair’s new novel, Jihadi Jane, will be published in India in June)

  • Trump and Clinton win New York primaries, solidify positions

    Trump and Clinton win New York primaries, solidify positions

    NEW YORK (TIP): Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the Republican and Democratic party frontrunners for US presidential nominations, have won their respective primaries in New York state.

    New York helped both front-runners to solidify their lead. Mr. Trump won a commanding victory with 60% of the votes and scooped up most of his home state’s 95 delegates. John Kasich, the governor of Ohio, came a distant second with 25% of the votes and Mr. Cruz scored a measly 15%. “Thank you New York! I love you!”, Mr. Trump tweeted shortly after polls closed. In his short victory speech at Trump tower, his gleaming palace in Manhattan, the real-estate mogul thanked his family and his team and then declared that “we don’t have much of a race anymore…Senator Cruz is just about mathematically eliminated”.

    Mrs. Clinton won an equally convincing 58%of the votes with the remaining 42% going to Mr. Sanders. There were 291 Democratic delegates at stake in New York; Mrs. Clinton bagged most of them. She had fought a surprisingly tough battle in the city, which she considers her home state, against Mr. Sanders, who hails from Brooklyn. In the two weeks since she lost in Wisconsin on April 5th, she campaigned tirelessly in the streets of the Big Apple. She danced the merengue in a Latino neighborhood in Washington Heights and devoured an ice-cream concoction called “Victory Mac Daddy” at an ice-cream parlor in the East Village. Meanwhile Mr. Sanders stuck to holding large rallies in Prospect Park and Washington Square Park, attracting tens of thousands of mostly young people.

    Have the two front-runners wrapped up their respective nominations? They haven’t, though Mrs. Clinton is now very nearly unbeatable. Shedding her usual caution, she declared in her victory speech that “the race for the Democratic nomination is in the home stretch and victory is in sight”. She also reached out to Sanders supporters, telling them that “there is much more that unites us than divides us”. Mr. Trump on the other hand needs to continue to win in five important contests on the east coast next week (Pennsylvania, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Maryland), in Indiana and most crucially in California, where voters go to the polls on June 7th and 172 delegates are at stake. He knows that he still has only a narrow path to get the 1,237 pledged delegates needed to avoid a contested convention in Cleveland, which is why he keeps whining about the “rigged” delegate system. Speaking to reporters on Staten Island on the weekend, Mr. Trump said he hoped that the July convention would “not involve violence”. “And I don’t think it will,” he said. “But I will say this: It’s a rigged system. It’s a crooked system. It’s a hundred-percent crooked.”

    The New York vote was reportedly marred by voting irregularities, with numerous accounts of thousands being inexplicably stripped from voter rolls. This prompted the New York City comptroller to announce an audit to identify the problems in the primary vote. Mr. Sanders’ team probably rightly assumed that their candidate was especially affected by (often young) voters being barred from voting. “We are deeply disturbed by what we’re hearing from polling places across the state”, said a statement by the Sanders campaign. “From long lines and dramatic understaffing to longtime voters being forced to cast affidavit ballots and thousands of registered New Yorkers being dropped from the rolls, what’s happening today is a disgrace.”

    Mr. Kasich was not in New York any more after the polls closed on April 19th, moving on to Maryland. He had done his bit of campaigning and eating in New York-he prompted snarky comments when he attacked a slice of pizza with a fork though he did better with chicken soup with replace and apple strudel. He won the island of Manhattan, where Mr. Trump is widely disliked, but did far less well than Mr. Trump in rural areas in upstate New York, which has been hit hard by job losses in recent years. Mr. Cruz would dearly like Mr. Kasich to quit the campaign, but the plucky Ohio governor thinks he can win a contested convention. Others want him to stay in the race merely to keep a voice of reason in the Republican contest. Mr. Cruz had also moved on to the next state, spending the evening of April 19th in Pennsylvania. He had offended New Yorkers when he attacked Mr. Trump in Iowa because of his “New York values” and however much he tried to qualify his insult in subsequent months, New Yorkers paid him back with a poor result. By now Mr. Cruz, like Mr. Kasich, has no chance of winning the required 1,237 pledged candidates to win the nomination. And, like the governor, he is staying in because he thinks he has a chance to win a contested convention.

    Clinton seems to have locked up the Democratic race with a commanding win in the Empire State. She now leads Sanders by more than 250 pledged delegates leaving the superdelegates aside for the moment.

    Sanders’ hope to win the race is effectively over. He would have to win a far larger share of the remaining delegates than he already has. Even his loyalists beganacknowledging on the night of the primary that Sanders could no longer catch Clinton in delegates. However, there’s a good case for him to stay in the race right until the Democratic National Convention scheduled for July.

    For Donald Trump, a commanding win in New York-he won 90 of the 95 available delegates – delivering a massive blow to his critics since New York is considered to be the largest immigrant inhabited state-provides much-needed stability to a campaign that’s been in wild flux for weeks, roiled by losses, delegate troubles, and internal power struggles. The fact that Ted Cruz, his closest rival, was shut out entirely, makes the win sweeter for him and reinforces that he is the front-runner.

    Yet Trump dreams are far-fetched as he needs 1,237 delegates to clinch the Republican nomination. He’d have to win about 63 percent of the delegates still on the board. That’s a higher proportion than what he’s won so far, but the field is smaller now, and the map ahead is thought to favor him, including as it includes several northeastern states and California. Trump has excelled in states with higher numbers of moderates.

    Ted Cruz, meanwhile, is now mathematically eliminated from reaching 1,237, though he was practically denied that chance long ago. His hope is to keep Trump from getting there on the first ballot at the convention, and then snatch the nomination out from under him on subsequent ballots. That’s why Cruz has put so much effort into state conventions where delegates are selected, and he’s been very successful at placing his own loyalists in slots-much to Trump’s chagrin. As for John Kasich, the measly five delegates he won in New York doesn’t help him much. He’s still hoping for a miracle on the floor in Cleveland, as the party magically recognizes him as the strongest general-election candidate and crowns him the nominee. Good luck, governor.

    But what if Trump doesn’t actually need to get to 1,237?

    Vote now on www.theindianpanorama.news/poll

  • Donald Trump and ‘Official Racism’ era in politics

    Donald Trump and ‘Official Racism’ era in politics

    The Republican Party and the “conservative establishment” do not disagree with Trump’s racism, xenophobia, prejudice and bigotry toward Hispanic and Latino immigrants, non-whites, Muslims and women. They are just embarrassed and aghast that Donald Trump has dropped the mask of racist gentility and exposed the racist id of today’s Republican Party and movement conservatism for the world to see.

    Republican Party elites are nervous about Donald Trump because he has taken their “polite” “dog whistle” racism and replaced it with a loud speaker.


    Donald Trump

    As the world looks on askance at the freakishness of the US presidential election, it is worth bearing in mind that a large number of Americans feel much the same sense of unease.

    To outside eyes, the rise of Donald Trump especially looks like the ultimate “Only in America” story, but many of his compatriots wish it was a “Not in America” phenomenon.

    For all the billionaire’s dominance in the Republican race, for all the free airtime lavished upon him by the media, polls repeatedly suggest that he is the most unpopular presidential candidate in modern history.

    A recent survey conducted for the Washington Post and ABC News showed that 67% of voters have an unfavorable view of him.

    What’s also striking about the polling data is that the more exposure the billionaire gets, the higher his negatives soar, whether it is women angered by his misogyny, Latinos upset by his racial demagoguery, African-Americans who don’t take kindly to being called “the blacks” or fellow Republicans who believe he will lead their party off a cliff.

    Donald Trump is the preferred candidate of white supremacists. Online and in other spaces, they have anointed him their champion in the 2016 presidential race.

    [inlinetweet prefix=”” tweeter=”” suffix=””]

    Trump & KKK (David Duke) Connection, that he knows nothing about…

     

    [/inlinetweet]

    LIAR LIAR – “Just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke, OK?” Trump said. Trump was pressed three times on whether he’d distance himself from the Ku Klux Klan — but never mentioned the group in his answers.

    “I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists,” he said. “So I don’t know. I don’t know — did he endorse me, or what’s going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists…”

    Despite what he said, Trump apparently did know Duke in 2000 — citing him, as well as Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani — in a statement that year explaining why he had decided to end his brief flirtation with a Reform Party presidential campaign.

    “The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not the company I wish to keep,” Trump said in a statement reported then by The New York Times. …

    Politics is not about people but about parties and their ideology; political parties are a type of “brand name” that voters associate with a specific set of policies, ideas, personalities and moral values. Consequently, the types of voters who are attracted to a given political party also tells us a great deal about how it is perceived by the public. And in a democracy, the relationship between voters, elected officials and a given political party should ideally be reflected by the types of policies the latter advances in order to both win and stay in power.

    By these criteria, the post-civil rights era Republican Party is the United States’ largest white identity organization, one in which conservatism and racism are now one and the same thing.

    In the 2012 election, 89 percent of Republican voters were white. While the Republican Party routinely anoints a professional “best black friend” (Herman Cain in 2012; Ben Carson in 2016; Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele in 2009) who serves in the role as human chaff to deflect charges of racism, non-whites are a minuscule part of the GOP’s electoral coalition and base. This is reflected by how Republican voters are much more likely to be racially resentful toward black Americans and also manifest what is known as “modern” or “symbolic racism.”

    Even more troubling, research by Brown University political scientist Michael Tesler demonstrates that “old-fashioned racism” has actually increased among Republican voters since the election of Barack Obama.

    New Tactics but same old agenda – Birth of The Southern Strategy

    The Southern Strategy, with its mix of coded and overt anti-black and brown racism, is a script that is closely adhered to by the broader right-wing news entertainment propaganda machine.

    The Southern Strategy was desperately deployed against the United States’ first black president, Barack Obama. From “birtherism” to claims that Obama is “traitor” who “hates Americans,” the rampant disrespect and obstructionism that Republicans have shown toward him, as well as the panoply of both overt and subtle racist attacks by conservatives against Obama’s person (and family) are all outgrowths of the Southern Strategy.

    The Age of Obama also gave rise to the Tea Party movement. As an extreme wing within an already extremist and revanchist Republican Party, Tea Party members and their sympathizers were/are extremely hostile to Barack Obama and the symbolic power of a black man leading “their” White America. The Tea Party demand that “they want their country back” is both a direct claim of white privilege and constitutes a worldview where whiteness is taken to be synonymous with being a “real American.”

    Not all Republicans are racists. But racists are more likely to be Republicans.

    Donald Trump knows this to be true. He has built a political campaign around that fact.

    Ultimately, Republican Party elites are nervous about Donald Trump because he has taken their “polite” “dog whistle” racism and replaced it with a loud speaker.

    The Republican Party and the “conservative establishment” do not disagree with Trump’s racism, xenophobia, prejudice and bigotry toward Hispanic and Latino immigrants, non-whites, Muslims and women. They are just embarrassed and aghast that Donald Trump has dropped the mask of racist gentility and exposed the racist id of today’s Republican Party and movement conservatism for the world to see.

  • ARE REPUBLICANS RACISTS?

    ARE REPUBLICANS RACISTS?

    The Republican Party and the “conservative establishment” do not disagree with Trump’s racism, xenophobia, prejudice and bigotry toward Hispanic and Latino immigrants, non-whites, Muslims and women. They are just embarrassed and aghast that Donald Trump has dropped the mask of racist gentility and exposed the racist id of today’s Republican Party and movement conservatism for the world to see.

    Republican Party elites are nervous about Donald Trump because he has taken their “polite” “dog whistle” racism and replaced it with a loud speaker.


    Donald Trump

    As the world looks on askance at the freakishness of the US presidential election, it is worth bearing in mind that a large number of Americans feel much the same sense of unease.

    To outside eyes, the rise of Donald Trump especially looks like the ultimate “Only in America” story, but many of his compatriots wish it was a “Not in America” phenomenon.

    For all the billionaire’s dominance in the Republican race, for all the free airtime lavished upon him by the media, polls repeatedly suggest that he is the most unpopular presidential candidate in modern history.

    A recent survey conducted for the Washington Post and ABC News showed that 67% of voters have an unfavorable view of him.

    What’s also striking about the polling data is that the more exposure the billionaire gets, the higher his negatives soar, whether it is women angered by his misogyny, Latinos upset by his racial demagoguery, African-Americans who don’t take kindly to being called “the blacks” or fellow Republicans who believe he will lead their party off a cliff.

    Donald Trump is the preferred candidate of white supremacists. Online and in other spaces, they have anointed him their champion in the 2016 presidential race.

    Trump & KKK (David Duke) Connection, that he knows nothing about…

    LIAR LIAR – “Just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke, OK?” Trump said. Trump was pressed three times on whether he’d distance himself from the Ku Klux Klan — but never mentioned the group in his answers.

    “I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists,” he said. “So I don’t know. I don’t know — did he endorse me, or what’s going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists…”

    Despite what he said, Trump apparently did know Duke in 2000 — citing him, as well as Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani — in a statement that year explaining why he had decided to end his brief flirtation with a Reform Party presidential campaign.

    “The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not the company I wish to keep,” Trump said in a statement reported then by The New York Times. …

    Politics is not about people but about parties and their ideology; political parties are a type of “brand name” that voters associate with a specific set of policies, ideas, personalities and moral values. Consequently, the types of voters who are attracted to a given political party also tells us a great deal about how it is perceived by the public. And in a democracy, the relationship between voters, elected officials and a given political party should ideally be reflected by the types of policies the latter advances in order to both win and stay in power.

    By these criteria, the post-civil rights era Republican Party is the United States’ largest white identity organization, one in which conservatism and racism are now one and the same thing.

    In the 2012 election, 89 percent of Republican voters were white. While the Republican Party routinely anoints a professional “best black friend” (Herman Cain in 2012; Ben Carson in 2016; Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele in 2009) who serves in the role as human chaff to deflect charges of racism, non-whites are a minuscule part of the GOP’s electoral coalition and base. This is reflected by how Republican voters are much more likely to be racially resentful toward black Americans and also manifest what is known as “modern” or “symbolic racism.”

    Even more troubling, research by Brown University political scientist Michael Tesler demonstrates that “old-fashioned racism” has actually increased among Republican voters since the election of Barack Obama.

    New Tactics but same old agenda – Birth of The Southern Strategy

    The Southern Strategy, with its mix of coded and overt anti-black and brown racism, is a script that is closely adhered to by the broader right-wing news entertainment propaganda machine.

    The Southern Strategy was desperately deployed against the United States’ first black president, Barack Obama. From “birtherism” to claims that Obama is “traitor” who “hates Americans,” the rampant disrespect and obstructionism that Republicans have shown toward him, as well as the panoply of both overt and subtle racist attacks by conservatives against Obama’s person (and family) are all outgrowths of the Southern Strategy.

    The Age of Obama also gave rise to the Tea Party movement. As an extreme wing within an already extremist and revanchist Republican Party, Tea Party members and their sympathizers were/are extremely hostile to Barack Obama and the symbolic power of a black man leading “their” White America. The Tea Party demand that “they want their country back” is both a direct claim of white privilege and constitutes a worldview where whiteness is taken to be synonymous with being a “real American.”

    Not all Republicans are racists. But racists are more likely to be Republicans.

    Donald Trump knows this to be true. He has built a political campaign around that fact.

    Ultimately, Republican Party elites are nervous about Donald Trump because he has taken their “polite” “dog whistle” racism and replaced it with a loud speaker.

    The Republican Party and the “conservative establishment” do not disagree with Trump’s racism, xenophobia, prejudice and bigotry toward Hispanic and Latino immigrants, non-whites, Muslims and women. They are just embarrassed and aghast that Donald Trump has dropped the mask of racist gentility and exposed the racist id of today’s Republican Party and movement conservatism for the world to see.

  • The voice of the American Left

    The voice of the American Left

    It was 6.45 p.m. and Neal Meyer was not sure how many people would turn up for the Jacobin reading group on a cold, rainy day. As the magazine’s outreach coordinator, he was used to seeing around 60 readers at their monthly session held in the New York City borough of Brooklyn.

    But in the next 15 minutes, the ground floor hall of the venue, a neighborhood school, was crammed with at least 50 people. Many of them looked like regulars – men and women mostly in their late 20s or early 30s, including schoolteachers, coding professionals, union organizers, journalists, and graduate students.

    In the five years since its launch, the New York-based publication, which prides itself in being a leading voice of the American Left, has made many within the U.S. and outside sit up and take notice. It has drawn high praise from the likes of Noam Chomsky who called the magazine “a bright light in dark times”.

    Getting off the ivory tower

    Mr. Meyer divided the crowd into four smaller groups and directed them into different classrooms, each with a facilitator. The group was going to discuss Erik Olin Wright’s essay ‘How to Be an Anticapitalist Today’ and Ralph Miliband’s classic ‘The Coup in Chile’.

    Participants discussed the readings, often drawing parallels to social movements in the U.S. For them, reflecting on Miliband’s strategies for transitioning into socialism also meant using the analysis to think of ways to sustain the Bernie Sanders momentum at home. The discussion went on for an hour and a half.

    “Don’t study collective action alone,” Jacobin exhorts its readers on its website. Clearly, the message has had the desired effect. Readers of the magazine now meet in over 40 cities in the U.S. and Canada, and in cities across Europe and Australia.

    At 8.40 p.m., Mr. Meyer signaled us to wind up, assuring that the discussion would, as usual, continue at a pub a couple of blocks away. At one level, they intensely debated some contemporary political questions. At another, they were hanging out as if at a campus party, peppering their analysis with ready wit and sarcasm. In a sense, that’s also the vibe of the magazine – something its now 26-year-old founder-editor and publisher Bhaskar Sunkara has consciously cultivated.

    “Jacobin draws on the old tradition of ‘No-bullshit Marxism’. Don’t talk about ‘dialectics’, [but] try to explain things as clearly as possible. We lay out our framework and then let people critique it,” Mr. Sunkara told me earlier, when I met him on the terrace of Jacobin’s red-paneled offices in Brooklyn.

    Even the inspiration for the magazine’s name came from Trinidadian activist-writer C.L.R. James’s book on the Haitian revolution, The Black Jacobins, which Mr. Sunkara read as a school boy. He found it in his parents’ library – they were of Indian origin and lived in Trinidad before moving to the U.S. a year before he was born. It was George Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984 that gradually led Mr. Sunkara, in his teens, to thinkers like Leon Trotsky. At 17, he was an active member of Democratic Socialists of America whose blog he edited.

    The idea of Jacobin was born in the summer of 2010. Mr. Sunkara strongly felt the need for a publication that would present socialist ideas in an easy-to-read, jargon-free style. Today, the magazine is known for exactly that, in addition to sleek design and bold colors. Its contributors range from PhD students to seasoned scholars, all of them writing in an easy and engaging style. “I contrast that with the efforts of more academic Leftists or literary publications that came out of the Left in the past decade. They were consciously or unconsciously trying to speak to a more rarefied elite, whereas Jacobin strives to be more accessible.”

    Its growing popularity is evidenced in the 15,000 paid subscriptions that the quarterly print edition of the magazine currently has, and the nearly one million unique visitors its website records every month. Subscriptions are the primary source of revenue driving the non-profit venture. The model, the amount of subscribers and online traffic, and the staff that Jacobin has been able to maintain – Mr. Sunkara thinks all that has been possible because they are drawing from beyond the existing Left in the country.

    Sanders and the socialist surge

    More so now, with the heightened interest in socialist ideas following Mr. Sanders’s surge. “We understood that the American people were just not exposed to these ideas…[or] to a politician who was willing to speak to their problems and also pose solutions in the form of actual, economic demands and redistribution.” The Vermont Senator, he said, deserved much credit for pushing income inequality to mainstream political discourse – an important shift in the U.S. where socialism and communism have for long been politically taboo and where even liberal voices are considered dangerously left wing.

    The focus also shifted from the individual to broader structures and systems. “It is hard to overstate how personalized the American discourse was. When times are good, some of what is compelling about America is reflected in the bootstrap, individualistic rhetoric. When times are bad, it is often very sad to see people blaming themselves for things that are obviously not their fault, like massive unemployment.”

    Mr. Sanders has been chiefly instrumental to such a shift, but that does not mean everything he says is appealing. Mr. Sunkara finds some aspects of Mr. Sanders’s platform to be “at best uninspiring and at worst slightly retrograde” – such as his “isolationist” foreign policy stance that lacks a wider critique of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and the role of the U.S. “It is necessary to put pressure on Sanders on those platforms, especially if he has an outside chance of becoming the Democratic [presidential] nominee.”

    Many supporters share his optimism, especially after Mr. Sanders made important gains in the primaries. Even though mainstream American media underplayed or, in many cases, dismissed them. “Many of the establishment liberal types, from whom a lot of the media classes are drawn, are concerned about losing control of their party or losing a general election.”

    Mainstream U.S. media’s coverage of Mr. Sanders is hardly surprising, given its tendency to stay away from class analysis. Liberal publications have taken strong positions against racial discrimination from time to time, but Mr. Sunkara would qualify even that. “They are fine with race being used as long as it is kept as purely symbolic, or as long as it is connected to diversity without a class content. If I were to say we want more of black working-class kids in universities and we do that by massive programs of redistribution, I am sure that would elicit a different response.”

    Despite all that, income inequality is a hot topic in this election and is politicizing thousands of young Americans. “Some of this is good. For example, the Sanders campaign or Black Lives Matter, [an activist movement that campaigns against violence towards black people], but others [are] bad – the kind of anger and resentment seething around the [Donald] Trump campaign, which is disproportionately drawing white working-class voters and others.” According to him, the only way these voters could be won over to the Left is if Mr. Sanders had a chance to speak to them in a general election.

    Jacobin, however, will continue to speak to them. “In a country with such a small, explicitly socialist Left, we are the ambassadors for these sets of ideas,” Mr. Sunkara said.


    Meera SrinivasanBy Meera Srinivasan – (The author was the IWMF Elizabeth Neuffer Fellow 2015-16)

  • Why are American Voters so angry?

    Why are American Voters so angry?

    Americans are generally known for having a positive outlook on life, but with the countdown for November’s presidential election now well under way, polls show voters are angry. This may explain the success of non-mainstream candidates such as Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders. But what is fuelling the frustration?

    A CNN/ORC poll carried out in December 2015 suggests 69% of Americans are either “very angry” or “somewhat angry” about “the way things are going” in the US.

    And the same proportion – 69% – are angry because the political system “seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power, like those on Wall Street or in Washington,” according to a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll from November.

    Many people are not only angry, they are angrier than they were a year ago, according to an NBC/Esquire survey last month -particularly Republicans (61%) and white people (54%) but also 42% of Democrats, 43% of Latinos and 33% of African Americans.

    Candidates have sensed the mood and are adopting the rhetoric. Donald Trump, who has arguably tapped into voters’ frustration better than any other candidate, says he is “very, very angry” and will “gladly accept the mantle of anger” while rival Republican Ben Carson says he has encountered “many Americans who are discouraged and angry as they watch the American dream slipping away”.

    Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders says: “I am angry and millions of Americans are angry,” while Hillary Clinton says she “understands why people get angry”.

    Here are five reasons why some voters feel the American dream is in tatters

    Economy

    “The failure of the economy to deliver real progress to middle-class and working-class Americans over the past 15 years is the most fundamental source of public anger and disaffection in the US,” says William Galston, an expert in governance studies at the Brookings Institution think tank.

    Although the country may have recovered from the recession -economic output has rebounded and unemployment rates have fallen from 10% in 2009 to 5% in 2015 – Americans are still feeling the pinch in their wallets. Household incomes have, generally speaking, been stagnant for 15 years. In 2014, the median household income was $53,657, according to the US Census Bureau -compared with $57,357 in 2007 and$57,843 in 1999 (adjusted for inflation).

    There is also a sense that many jobs are of lower quality and opportunity is dwindling, says Galston. “The search for explanations can very quickly degenerate into the identification of villains in American politics. On the left it is the billionaires, the banks, and Wall Street. On the right it is immigrants, other countries taking advantage of us and the international economy -they are two sides of the same political coin.”

    Immigration

    America’s demographics are changing – nearly 59 million immigrants have arrived in the US since 1965, not all of whom entered the country legally. Forty years ago, 84% of the American population was made up of non-Hispanic white people – by last year the figure was 62%, according to Pew Research. It projects this trend will continue, and by 2055 non-Hispanic white people will make up less than half the population. Pew expects them to account for only 46% of the population by 2065. By 2055, more Asians than any other ethnic group are expected to move to US.

    “It’s been an era of huge demographic, racial, cultural, religious and generational change,” says Paul Taylor, author of The Next America. “While some celebrate these changes, others deplore them. Some older, whiter voters do not recognize the country they grew up in. There is a sense of alien tribes,” he says.

    The US currently has 11.3 million illegal immigrants. Migrants often become a target of anger, says Roberto Suro, an immigration expert at the University of Southern California. “There is a displacement of anxiety and they become the face of larger sources of tensions, such as terrorism, jobs and dissatisfaction. We saw that very clearly when Donald Trump switched from [complaining about] Mexicans to Muslims without skipping a beat after San Bernardino,” he says, referring to the shooting in California in December that left 14 people dead.

    Washington

    When asked if they trust the government, 89% of Republicans and 72% of Democrats say “only sometimes” or “never”, according to Pew Research. Six out of 10 Americans think the government has too much power, a survey by Gallupsuggests, while the government has been named as the top problem in the US for two years in a row – above issues such as the economy, jobs and immigration, according to the organization.

    The gridlock on Capitol Hill and the perceived impotence of elected officials has led to resentment among 20 to 30% of voters, says polling expert Karlyn Bowman, from the American Enterprise Institute. “People see politicians fighting and things not getting done – plus the responsibilities of Congress have grown significantly since the 1970s and there is simply more to criticize. People feel more distant from their government and sour on it,” she says.

    William Galston thinks part of the appeal of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is down to frustration with what some see as a failing system. “So on the right you have someone who is running as a ‘strong man’, a Berlusconi and Putin, who will get things done, and on the left you have someone who is rejecting incrementalism and calling for a political revolution,” he says.

    Ted Cruz, who won the Republican caucuses in Iowa, is also running as an anti-establishment candidate. “Tonight is a victory for every American who’s watched in dismay as career politicians in Washington in both parties refuse to listen and too often fail to keep their commitments to the people,” he said on Monday night.

    America’s place in the World

    America is used to being seen as a superpower but the number of Americans that think the US “stands above all other countries in the world” went from 38% in 2012 to 28% in 2014, Pew Research suggests. Seventy percent of Americans also think the US is losing respect internationally, according to a 2013 poll by the center.

    “For a country that is used to being on top of the world, the last 15 years haven’t been great in terms of foreign policy. There’s a feeling of having been at war since 9/11 that’s never really gone away, a sense America doesn’t know what it wants and that things aren’t going our way,” says Roberto Suro. The rise of China, the failure to defeat the Taliban and the slow progress in the fight against the so-called Islamic State group has contributed to the anxiety.

    Americans are also more afraid of the prospect of terrorist attacks than at any time since 9/11, according to a New York Times/CBS poll. The American reaction to the San Bernardino shooting was different to the French reaction to the Paris attacks, says Galston. “Whereas the French rallied around the government, Americans rallied against it. There is an impression that the US government is failing in its most basic obligation to keep country and people safe.”

    Divided nation

    Democrats and Republicans have become more ideologically polarized than ever. The typical (median), Republican is now more conservative in his or her core social, economic and political views than 94% of Democrats, compared with 70% in 1994, according to Pew Research. The median Democrat, meanwhile, is more liberal than 92% of Republicans, up from 64%.

    The study also found that the share of Americans with a highly negative view of the opposing party has doubled, and that the animosity is so deep, many would be unhappy if a close relative married someone of a different political persuasion.

    This polarization makes reaching common ground on big issues such as immigration, healthcare and gun control more complicated. The deadlock is, in turn, angering another part of the electorate. “Despite this rise in polarization in America, a large mass in the middle are pragmatic. They aren’t totally disengaged, they don’t want to see Washington gridlocked, but they roll their eyes at the nature of this discourse,” says Paul Taylor. This group includes a lot of young people and tends to eschew party labels. “If they voted,” he says, “they could play an important part of the election.”

  • The Obama Doctrine: Middle East out, Asia in

    The Obama Doctrine: Middle East out, Asia in

    “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference,” the 20th-century theologian Reinhold Niebuhr once famously wrote. Arguably, this very much sums up the United States President Barack Obama’s foreign policy doctrine and his valuation of American priorities in various regions.

    In fact, the president has been always open about the profound influence of Niebuhr’s works, affectionately declaring in an interview, “I love him. He’s one of my favorite philosophers.”

    Obama saw himself as a perfect antithesis to the George W Bush administration, which combined coercive unilateralism with a missionary zeal to supposedly spread US-style democracy in the Middle East and beyond.

    The Bush era disasters heavily undermined neo-conservatism, paving the way for the rise of more calibrated realists such as Obama, who appreciated the limits of US power and the virtues of strategic patience.

    As the Obama administration enters its twilight months in office, questions over its legacy and long-term historical significance have gained momentum.

    The most salient aspect of Obama’s foreign policy, one could argue, is his gradual retrenchment from the Middle East, where the US has been hopelessly overstretched, in favor of an accelerating pivot to Asia, where booming economies and a rising China are reshaping the global order.

    Not long ago, prominent journalists such as James Traub were quick to portray Obama as a deflated, demoralized idealist, who “has been well and truly mugged by reality”.

    Multiple crises, from Russia’s annexation of Crimea to the rise of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS), seemed to have undermined the US power, and extinguished Obama’s hopeful vision of an orderly, rule-based international order.

    Asia is simultaneously a region where there is the greatest opportunity for expanded trade and investments and also where the US confronts its greatest rival, China.

    In the Middle East, the Arab winter and the deadlock in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations swept away the wellspring of optimism generated by Obama’s historic Cairo speech, where he unsuccessfully promised a new relationship between the US and the Muslim world. But soon it became clear that Obama had some foreign policy tricks up his sleeve.

    Obama managed to pull off an improbable and highly controversial nuclear agreement with Iran, while normalizing relations with communist Cuba and becoming the first US president to visit Cuba in almost a century.

    True to his early promise of reaching out to historical foes, Obama oversaw a qualitative shift in Washington’s approach to former foes such as Tehran. But as Obama admits in his long interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, he has been committed to decouple from the conflict-ridden Middle East.

    Recognizing the US failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, where its military interventions have created failed states and havens for extremism, Obama refused to even enforce his own redline on Syria, when the Bashar al-Assad regime was accused of using chemical weapons against its own population. Clearly, he had little appetite for additional US military entanglements in the region.

    Amid rising Saudi-Iranian rivalry, he has even encouraged Arab allies “to find an effective way to share the neighborhood [with Iran] and institute some sort of cold peace”, giving birth to a post-American order in the region.

    Instead, Obama, who was raised in Indonesia and Hawaii, has been primarily interested in augmenting US strategic footprint in the Asia-Pacific region, where “[the US] can do really big, important stuff”, which have “ramifications across the board.”

    Under Obama, who has visited Asia more than any of his predecessors in recent memory, the US has established cordial ties with former foes such as Vietnam and Myanmar, built strategic partnership with key Muslim countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia, upgraded high-level dialogue with China, negotiated a major regional trade pact – the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement -and overseen a major improvement in its approval ratings.

    The revived interest of the US in Asia is based on a belief that “the relationship between itself and China is going to be the most critical” in the 21st century. More fundamentally, Obama believes that the future of the US and the world will be decided in the Asia-Pacific region, which is “filled with striving, ambitious, energetic people”.

    Exasperated by persistent anti-Americanism in the Middle East, Obama enthusiastically cites how Asians are pragmatists who are willing to work with the US and are committed to “build businesses and get education and find jobs and build infrastructure.”

    In short, Asia is, simultaneously, a region where there is the greatest opportunity for expanded trade and investments and also where the US confronts its greatest rival, China.

    There are, however, concerns that the US may have missed the train, for it faces an uphill battle in maintaining its hegemony in Asia, especially as a resurgent Beijing gradually carves out a new Sino-centric order in East Asia.

    In economic terms, China is the leading trading partner of almost all East-Asian countries, while it is set to transform into the pillar of infrastructure development in Asia, thanks to major development initiatives such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Maritime Silk Road plan. China is the new economic pivot around which Asia revolves.

    Overseeing decades of rapid military modernization, Beijing is also progressively pushing US naval forces out of its adjacent waters, upending centuries of Western military hegemony in Asia.

    Some of Obama’s likely successors are far from helpful. Demagogues such as Donald Trump, who is calling for a return to 19th-century American mercantilism, is undermining Asia’s confidence in the US and its reliability as a superpower.

    Ultimately, it remains to be seen whether Obama’s renewed focus on the region has been enough to prevent a post-American order in Asia. Yet one should credit him for becoming the first truly Pacific president in the White House, reorienting US foreign policy from the troubled Middle East to a promising Asia. This will be his greatest foreign policy legacy.


    The author is a specialist in Asian geopolitical/economic affairs and author of Asia’s New Battlefield: US, China, and the Struggle for Western Pacific. He can be reached at @Richeydarian

     

  • Trump, Clinton add to their lead with wins in Arizona

    Trump, Clinton add to their lead with wins in Arizona

    WASHINGTON(TIP): Under the shadow of overseas violence, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton padded their leads on Tuesday with victories in Arizona and attacked each other as the 2016 presidential contest turned into a clash over who could best deal with Islamic extremism.

    Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders scored a win in Utah’s Democratic caucuses, claiming victory in the Western state as he tries to keep pace with Clinton who has a seemingly insurmountable lead in the delegate count. He netted some delegates in Utah, but not enough to make up for his loss to Clinton in Arizona.

    Long lines and high interest marked primary elections across Arizona, Utah and Idaho that were largely an afterthought for much of the day as the world grappled with a new wave of bloody attacks in Europe. The Islamic State group claimed responsibility for blasts at the airport and a subway train in Brussels that left dozens dead and many more wounded.

    “This is about not only selecting a president, but also selecting a commander-in-chief,” Clinton said in Seattle as she condemned Trump by name and denounced his embrace of torture and hardline rhetoric aimed at Muslims. “The last thing we need is leaders who incite more fear.”

    Trump, in turn, branded Clinton as “Incompetent Hillary” in an interview with Fox News as he discussed her tenure as secretary of state. “Incompetent Hillary doesn’t know what she’s talking about,” the billionaire businessman said. “She doesn’t have a clue.”

    The back and forth between the front-runners came amid a frenzy of activity from voters eager to make their voices heard in the 2016 election.

    In Utah, caucus-goers were dispatched by poll workers to local stores with orders buy reams of paper and photocopy fresh ballots amid huge turnout. The state Democratic Party’s website crashed due to high traffic.

    In Arizona, voters waited two hours or more in some places to cast primary ballots, while police were called to help control traffic.

    The results from Arizona didn’t bode well for Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republicans Ted Cruz and John Kasich. They are running out of time to slow Trump and Clinton’s march toward acquiring all the delegates needed to claim their parties’ nominations at the parties’ national conventions in July.

    Trump’s Arizona victory gives him all of the state’s 58 delegates, while Arizona awards its delegates proportionally on the Democratic side.

    As voters flooded to the polls, the presidential candidates lashed out at each other’s foreign policy prescriptions, showcasing sharp contrasts in confronting the threat of Islamic extremism.

    Clinton – and Trump’s Republican rivals – questioned the Republican front-runner’s temperament and readiness to serve as commander in chief, and condemned his calls to diminish U.S. involvement with NATO.

    Addressing cheering supporters in Seattle, Clinton said the attacks in Brussels were a pointed reminder of “how high the stakes are” in 2016.

    Cruz seized on Trump’s foreign policy inexperience while declaring that the U.S. is at war with the Islamic State group.

    The ultraconservative Texas senator also issued a statement following the Brussels attacks that it was time for law enforcement to “patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized,” without providing more details.

    Trump’s brash tone has turned off some Republican voters in predominantly Mormon Utah, where early returns suggest Cruz has a chance to claim more than 50 percent of the caucus vote – and with it, all 40 of Utah’s delegates. Trump could earn some delegates should Cruz fail to exceed 50 percent, in which case the delegates would be awarded based on each candidate’s vote total.

    Arizona’s win gives Trump a little less than half the delegates allocated so far. That’s still short of the majority needed to clinch the nomination before the party’s national convention this summer.

    However, Trump has a path to the nomination if he continues to win states that award all or most of their delegates to the winner. Overall, Trump has accumulated 739 delegates, Cruz has 425 and Kasich 143. It takes 1,237 delegates to win the nomination.

    On the Democratic side, Clinton’s delegate advantage is even greater than Trump’s.

    The former secretary of state is coming off last week’s five-state sweep of Sanders, who remains popular among his party’s most liberal and younger voters but needs to improve his performance if he expects to stay relevant.

    The Vermont senator, now trailing Clinton by more than 300 pledged delegates, had targeted Tuesday’s races as the start of a comeback tour.

    He, too, addressed the world’s security threat: “We will stand as a nation with our allies and our friends and people all over this world,” he told supporters in San Diego. “We will stand with them and we will together crush and destroy ISIS.”

    For the evening, Clinton stands to win at least 45 delegates to at least 34 for Sanders based on the results in Arizona and Utah.

    To date, Clinton has a delegate lead of 1,208 to Sanders’ 878, based on primaries and caucuses. Clinton has at least 1,675 delegates to at least 904 for Sanders when including superdelegates – elected lawmakers and party officials who can cast votes at the convention for any candidate.

  • Reworking Ties with US

    Reworking Ties with US

    The front runners -Republican Donald Trump and Democratic Hillary Clinton.Irrespective of who wins, the tilt is towards India
    The front runners -Republican Donald Trump and Democratic Hillary Clinton.Irrespective of who wins, the tilt is towards India

    American presidential elections get international attention because of worldwide interest in who is going to become the most powerful leader on the international stage. The US presidential elections in 2012 were less exciting than usual, because of the widespread belief that President Obama would be re-elected. We are now witnessing party primary elections, in which a flamboyant billionaire with a mercurial temperament, Donald Trump, has captured worldwide attention. Trump, a property baron, owns a network of hotels, casinos, golf courses and other properties. He has, paradoxically, struck a chord among blue-collared workers, who feel their jobs threatened by immigrants. His populist response has been to advocate building a wall across the US-Mexico border and banning immigration of Muslims, whom he labels collectively as terrorists.

    Hillary Clinton’s primary opponent, former Senator Bernie Sanders, has likewise, espoused the cause of ending free trade arrangements and called for tighter control over Wall Street. Sanders alleges that unemployed and blue-collar workers suffer, because of excessive trade liberalization and the unholy nexus between politicians (including Hillary) and the financial, business and industrial barons of Wall Street. The tactics Trump and Sanders have adopted have won huge support from insecure blue-collar workers, making life difficult and the competition unexpectedly tough, for Clinton. Despite this, Hillary is expected to win the Democratic Party nomination, unless she encounters difficulties, because of alleged misdemeanors during her tenure as Secretary of State. Trump could likewise sail through as the candidate of the Republican Party. A word of caution on the upcoming elections is called for. The Republican Party could land itself in a mess, if its establishment chooses to ignore the political verdict and nominates an eminent party politician to replace Trump as its presidential candidate.

    Trump has moved far away from the Republican Party in his views on several foreign policy issues. He has criticized military intervention in Iraq, Syria and Libya and voiced his opposition to such military intervention abroad. He remains ambivalent on his approach to Israel, though he will inevitably fall in line with conventional thinking on the Jewish state. Interestingly, Trump vows to build bridges with President Vladimir Putin, while Hillary remains steadfastly hostile to the Russian leader. Both Hillary and Trump have suspicions and misgivings about China, with Trump repeatedly asserting that China got rich at the cost of American industry and its working class. The two frontrunners hold opposing views on liberalizing trade, with Trump claiming that liberalization damages the livelihood of American workers.

    While Trump has expressed serious misgivings and suspicions about the Islamic world in general, he has expressed specific reservations about the behavior of Pakistan. Quite unexpectedly, Trump has answered his critics on their charge that he is anti-immigrant and racist by suggesting that he has great admiration for Indians, who are hardworking, intelligent and innovative. He has suggested that Indian students who come for studies in US universities should be allowed to stay on and work.

    The eight years of the Clinton presidency included some of the worst years in India-US relations. The Clinton administration turned the heat on India to give up its nuclear program. It pressured Russia to end space cooperation with India. It promoted a worldwide effort to cripple our economy after our nuclear tests and failed. In its early years, the Clinton administration even made overtures to the Hurriyat in Kashmir. On the other hand, the George Bush presidency saw a remarkable turnaround in India-US relations. American pressure after 9/11 forced the Musharraf dispensation to sue for a ceasefire in J&K and end cross-border infiltration in the state. This continued till the last days of the Bush presidency. Global nuclear sanctions against India ended, as the Bush administration used all its persuasive powers to get the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group to end sanctions on India. Shortly thereafter, at US initiative, India was welcomed into new global economic forums, like the G20.

    While President Obama had pledged to strengthen the US-India strategic partnership, his approach to India has been largely transactional, seeking greater Indian purchases of US weapons, while doing very little to turn the squeeze on Pakistan to end terrorism targeting India and Afghanistan. Intelligence sharing with India has been episodic and sometimes duplicitous, given the delay and reluctance with which intelligence information on the revelations of David Headley was shared with us. More importantly, the US is actively partnering Pakistan and China to bring about “reconciliation” with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Well-placed Afghans complain bitterly of the pressures they are facing from this US-China-Pakistan axis, to keep making concessions to the Taliban. Interestingly, even some in the Obama administration are concerned about what is transpiring.

    The world is now seeing an opportunistic move by the Obama administration to persuade India to back US efforts to rein in the Chinese in the Western Pacific, given China’s expanding maritime border claims on South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia. At the same time, the Obama administration is joining China and turning a blind eye to Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in Afghanistan. What the Obama administration is thereby doing, is to seek India’s support to curb Chinese maritime claims in the Asia-Pacific, even as its colludes with China to determine the future of Afghanistan, in a manner that furthers Pakistan’s regional ambitions. There has been much talk, but little action by the Obama administration to curb Pakistan-sponsored terrorism.

    Hillary has taken a personal interest in relations with India. Unlike her husband, and John Kerry, her viscerally anti-Indian successor, as Secretary of State, Hillary did respond in a friendly manner to India’s concerns and policies across both its eastern and western land and maritime borders. This was evident in her approach to India’s role in the ASEAN Regional Forum. She chose to call a spade a spade when it came to Pakistan-sponsored terrorism leading to the emergence of extremist outfits that threated Pakistan itself, with the words: “You cannot nurture vipers in your backyard and expect that they will bite only your neighbor”. In these circumstances, we can expect a more mutually beneficial relationship with the US, after the coming presidential elections.


    ParthasarathyBy G Parthasarathy – (The author is a former diplomat)

  • Terror Strikes Europe Again: After Paris, it is Brussels Now

    Terror Strikes Europe Again: After Paris, it is Brussels Now

    At least 30 people are dead following a suicide attack at Zaventem airport and at a metro station in Brussels. Some experts are inclined to see the Tuesday morning blasts as Islamist terrorists’retaliation for the arrest a few days ago of Salah Abdeslam, one of the masterminds of last year’s terror strikes in Paris. The terrorists have managed to disrupt totally a city that is headquarters and home to a vast European Union bureaucracy. Though anticipating accurately as and when a terror group would show its hand is a hazardous call, nonetheless the Brussels security establishment has once again been found to be underequipped to track down and neutralize terror networks that were linked to last year’s Paris outrage.

    The Tuesday carnage has, rightly, been condemned as a cowardly act. There is never a justification for any terror act. It must have come as a rude shock to the European political class that has refused to take note of its vast restive ethnic communities, emotionally locked into conflict zones of the troubled Middle-East. Globalization of grievances, resentments, weapons and terror skills has created enclaves of potentially troublesome immigrants in every European country. After Paris and now Brussels, Europe will face a difficult test. For decades European diplomats and leaders have lectured the rest of the world on how ethnic minorities must be treated; now the same very European elites find themselves befuddled and bedeviled as they deal with Islamist groups. The security establishments throughout Europe will renew their case for partly dismantling the openness that defines the European Union. The terror-induced trauma would take its toll of European sense of equilibrium.

    Unhappily, right-wing sentiments and prejudices have already captured large slices of European imagination. Political parties and leaders who pander to xenophobia and aggressive nationalism have gained significant electoral space. These gains in Europe have emboldened the likes of Donald Trumps in America. Advocacy of muscular right-wing solutions, in turn, strengthens the hand of the extremist. Democratic voices in Europe must not lose their confidence and certitude.

  • A Win for the Front-Runners

    A Win for the Front-Runners

    Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner and Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner have won some crucial primary victories in Florida, Ohio, Illinois, North Carolina and Missouri. Marco Rubio, a much-touted candidate by the Republican Party leaders and the media, who was defeated in his own state of Florida, where he won only in his own county. He has now suspended his campaign. It is no surprise that he lost, as he was nothing but an empty suit.

    On the Democratic side, Hillary had a clean sweep in the southern states. With the addition of the big states like Ohio, Illinois and Florida, she now has almost a commanding lead. Donald Trump cannot claim such an advantage.

    Hillary’s rival, Bernie Sanders, is trailing behind and is not expected to reach the minimum number of the delegates required to secure the nomination, which is now easy for Hillary. But he has posed a challenge to the Democratic front-runner. On the side of the Grand Old Party (GOP), it is a strange spectacle. Though the front-runner, Trump, has emerged victorious in many states, the Republican leadership is not happy, as Trump is a threat to the establishment which might not have envisaged that Trump, who had never actively participated in active politics, would get so much support from the voters.

    The New Yorker has defied the imagination and now is the leader among the three contenders. All this is indicative of the pervading disillusionment of the supporters of the Republican Party.

    The leaders and those near to them were initially confident about the candidacy of Jeb Bush, former Ohio Governor. But internally he had several enemies and the Republican voters had enough of Bush.

    After the demise of Jeb’s campaign, the Republican leadership stood behind Rubio. He had nothing to offer to the voters. He was talking about the 21st century but his views were that of the 19th century. Trump savaged him, retaliating Rubio crossed all norms of decency and used foul language.

    Republicans are not happy with Ted Cruz, the senator from Texas. He has no friends in the Party and in the Senate. He calls them the “Washington Cartel”. Both Cruz and Rubio are the products of the Tea Party, which is the cause of the present dissentions and decline of the Republican Party.

    Sanders is able to pose a challenge to Hillary Clinton, because, though 74 years old, he represents the angry age group between 18 and 35, of present-day America. Of course, they are mainly White. These young people feel that they have been neglected and have not benefited by the creation of new wealth.

    They are also angry that the CEOs of the big companies are awarded millions even when they fail the companies. Sanders says that he has a message and would not withdraw from the race. But he does not seem to want to analyses his message in light of the reality. He criticizes the Wall Street and wants the state ownership of those institutions. But state ownership is also not above board. Clement Attlee, when he was the Prime Minister of UK, once observed that people like Harold Laski had written books on the grammar of politics but were ignorant of the practice of politics. Sanders’ speeches remind us of Attlee’s observations.

    The young African-Americans and Latinos are not visibly so inclined as are the Whites and that is why Sanders’ crowd generally is white. He has failed to get the support of the blacks, who overwhelmingly support Hillary. She even gained about 80 per cent in some black constituencies. That is because she and her husband kept a constant personal contact with blacks and the Latinos. Bill Clinton, while president, had implemented some measures which were beneficial to the blacks.

    After Obama had won the presidential race handsomely, the Republican Party stalwarts decided to take steps to reform the party, to make it more inclusive and diverse. But the report to that effect was put aside. Instead, the most reactionary new element, the Tea Party, got hold of the GOP, which is why the last seven years have witnessed the disruptive record of the Republican Party. Now, the Party leadership is praying and plotting to stop the front-runner, Trump, from getting the required number of delegates and the nomination. They want to bring in their chosen candidate. That may split the party. The Republican Party is in a fix. It does not want either Trump or Cruz and the third candidate, Kasich, has won nowhere, except in Ohio, his own state. The Republican party in the House and the Senate, unmindful of the changes in the world, is still obsessed with the cold war politics and so all the while talks about dominating the world. The American people, themselves, by and large are tired of the war. President Obama’s slow withdrawal of the troops from several theatres of war is welcomed by them. The American leadership has to rise to the occasion and adjust to the changing world which wants cooperation and exchange of ideas and not lectures and least of all orders. The refugee problem has been handled by Europe itself and it has not asked for help and guidance from America.

    The Democratic Party also has its problems. The recent campaign for the primaries has revealed several drawbacks of the party and its leadership. The rise of Sanders, who has no party base, shows the party leadership is docile. Sanders is not a winnable nominee but no other candidate has come forward. Hillary Clinton would win the nomination, but ordinary voters all the while would be worried of her credibility gap. She had changed her positions every now and then. Moreover, the fund-raising craze of the Clinton family foundation has no limit, which is also a problem. At the moment people are not happy with any of the candidates. Most people are fed up with the politicians.

  • Mr. Trump, blaming Islam amounts to barking at the wrong tree

    Mr. Trump, blaming Islam amounts to barking at the wrong tree

    I want to assure Mr. Trump that Islam does not hate America, nor does Islam kill people, just as Guns don’t kill, but individuals do.

    Mr. Trump is seeking guidance when he says, “we have to get to the bottom of it” and I am pleased to offer my services to coach him in Islam and Muslim psyche.

    Jesus did not give permission to Christians to go on the crusades, inquisitions, genocides of Native Americans, Holocaust, Bosnia and massacres etc.? It is not Christians, but the men who did not get Christianity committed those crimes.

    Muhammad did not give permission to Muslims to gas the Kurds, commit 9/11, genocide of people in Darfur? He did not give permission to the ISIS animals to forcibly subject Christian, Yazidi and Shia women to sex abuse?  It is not Muslims, but the men who did not get Islam committed those crimes.

    If we are inclined to believe in that non-sense, we have a serious responsibility to find the truth, and truth shall set us free.

    Bad things happen because those creeps did not get their religion right.

    Who do you blame, religion or the creeps?

    If you blame the creeps what happens? You’ll hunt them down wherever you can find them, and punish according to restore trust in the society, so no one can live in apprehension or tensions.

    If you blame the religion what happens? Mr. Trump, nothing happens! It is the dumbest thing to blame the religion!  Religion is not a being, it is an intangible item, and you cannot shoot, kick, beat, thrash, hang, kill or bury a religion. Let’s not bark at religion, it does not good and no problem will be solved except aimless barking.

    Problem remains, people will continue to remain apprehensive and fearful of each other. Let’s find solutions to these problems.

    We are indeed committed to build a cohesive America, where no American has to live in Apprehension or fear of each other.


    (The author is a community consultant, social scientist, thinker, writer, news maker, and a speaker on Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, politics, terrorism, human rights, India,  Israel-Palestine and foreign policy. He is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. Visit him in 63 links at www.MikeGhouse.net for his writings at TheGhousediary.com)

  • No, Trump, Islam Doesn’t Hate America

    No, Trump, Islam Doesn’t Hate America

    Donald Trump told CNN that Islam hates America. Like the Muslims who fight and die for, and otherwise serve, this country? Outrageous.

    Donald Trump’s interview to CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Wednesday, March 9 has invited sharp reactions. Trump had said, “I think Islam hates us”.

    Donald Trump took his anti-Muslim jihad to a new, bone-chilling level on Wednesday night. That’s when he declared to CNN’s Anderson Cooper that “Islam hates us.” Trump is wrong, but let me blunt. I hate Trump. Not because he demonizes Muslims, but because he’s a threat to our nation’s soul.

    If Trump truly thinks “Islam hates us,” then he should tell that to the families of Muslim Americans who have died for our country. I doubt Trump has the balls to tell the family of U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan, who received the Purple Heart and is buried in Arlington National Cemetery after being killed in Iraq in 2004. And let’s see Trump tell that to the family of Corp. Kareem Khan, who also received the Purple Heart and is buried in Arlington after giving his life in 2007 in defense of our nation.

    “We have to be very vigilant. We have to be very careful. And we can’t allow people coming into this country who have this hatred of the United States,” Trump said. The real estate tycoon-turned politician made headlines in December when he called for a temporary ban on Muslimsentering the US “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

    Does Trump even have the courage to tell the Muslims who have volunteered to serve our nation, including my cousin who served in the U.S. Marines, that they hate America?In fact, almost 6,000 Muslims are currently serving in our armed forces fighting to ensure that all Americans-not just ones of certain faiths-have the same rights.

    Will Trump tell the Muslims serving in our Congress, Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, that they hate America? Will he say that to the thousands of Muslims serving as police officers, paramedics, judges, schoolteachers, and others in professions designed to help the people of our nation?

    Nah, Trump won’t ever do that because bullies are cowards. But what Trump despicably did during his interview on CNN was to paint all Muslims as potential threats to our country. “It’s very hard to define” and “very hard to separate” the good from the bad Muslims, “because you don’t know who’s who,” Trump stated.

    I want you to think about what Trump is saying here. The GOP frontrunner is telling Americans to fear every single Muslim because any one of them might be plotting to kill you and your family. If you believe Trump’s words, what’s the next likely step?Trump has already proposed policies to discriminate against Muslim Americans, which polls show his supporters overwhelmingly support. What could be in store next for American Muslims?

    Maybe because I recently read an article saying that Trump, according to his ex-wife, kept by his bedside a book of Hitler’s speeches that the Fuhrer gave during his ascent to power, I couldn’t help but wonder, what did Jews living in Germany when Hitler first sought office think? Did they dismiss his extreme rhetoric as nothing more than political talk to get the support of people? Or were they frightened, like many Muslim Americans are today?

    To be clear, I’m am in no way saying that if he became president, Trump would be like Hitler, seizing emergency powers and worse. But perhaps we need to pause as a nation when Anne Frank’s stepsister, Eva Schloss, an Auschwitz survivor, warned us in January that Trump “is acting like another Hitler by inciting racism.”

    But Trump’s hate has not just been about Muslims. His campaign from Day One can best be best summed up as putting minorities back in their place. That’s why we have seen white supremacists flock to Trump’s side. For example, the vile white supremacist leader Jared Taylor, a man who publicly endorsed Trump and has made robocalls on Trump’s’ behalf, wrote a few months ago: “Donald Trump may be the last hope for a president who would be good for white people.”

    And Trump has given these hatemongers exactly what they have been dreaming of for years. He has stirred up hate versus Latinos, implying that they were coming to rape your wives and daughters. He has defended his white supporters in November beating up a Black Lives Matter protester and calling the man a “monkey” and the n-word. And we just saw Trump refuse to denounce the support of former Klan leader David Duke.

    But let’s return to Trump’s comment that Islam hates us. Is there a fraction of Muslims who hate our nation? No doubt. Is that because of Islam, a religion that came into being over a thousand years before America was founded? The counter-terrorism experts I have spoken to have made it clear that the anger directed against our nation is generally grounded in foreign policy grievances or personal issues such as wanting to join an organization that makes them feel a sense of self-worth. But there is a fraction of radical religious leaders who will try to teach younger Muslims that somehow America is a religious-based enemy. We must be united to countering their hateful message, not divided along religious lines as ISIS hopes we become.

    Perhaps Trump is simply making the remarks about Muslims now because the GOP race is tightening and he knows bashing Muslims plays well with the GOP base. Trump noted as much after Ben Carson stated in October that no Muslim should be president of the United States, and he got a big boost in the polls. Trump then remarked, Carson’s “been getting a lot of ink on the Muslims… I guess people look at that and they probably like it.” Within weeks Trump began first using Muslims as a scapegoat.

    Or perhaps Trump’s info comes from Frank Gaffney, whose poll Trump read from on the campaign trail about alleged hatred of Muslims. Gaffney is a discredited figure whom the Southern Poverty Law Center recently listed as the leader of an Anti-Muslim group. And Gaffney has also been a supporter of the very same White Supremacy leader, Jared Taylor, who has been campaigning for Trump. As the SPLC notes, Gaffney invited Taylor on his radio show and has heaped praise upon his work that promotes “anti-Black and anti-Latino racists.”

    No, Islam doesn’t hate America. But Trump clearly hates American values.


    (The author is a former lawyer turned political comedian and writer, is the host of The Dean Obeidallah show on SiriusXM radio. He co-directed the comedy documentary The Muslims Are Coming! His blog is The Dean’s Report)