"Turtle-man" McConnell, Ryan defend Khans amid Trump remarks
By Seung Min Kim
Senate Majority Leader Mitch "the Turtle" McConnell and Speaker Paul Ryan on Sunday waded into the controversy surrounding Donald Trump and his dismissive comments toward a Muslim-American couple whose son was killed in combat during the Iraq War.
Without mentioning the GOP nominee's name, McConnell subtly rebuked Trump's comments directed to Khizr Khan — who delivered a memorable speech condemning Trump's rhetoric toward Muslims on Thursday evening at the Democratic National Convention — and his wife, Ghazala.
But the Kentucky Republican declined to explicitly disavow the comments from Trump, who sparked yet another firestorm when he implied Ghazala Khan had stayed silent during the DNC speech because of her Muslim faith and accused Khizr Khan of having "no right" to critique Trump over his knowledge of the Constitution.
"Captain Khan was an American hero, and like all Americans, I’m grateful for the sacrifices that selfless young men like Capt. Khan and their families have made in the war on terror," McConnell said in a statement Sunday. "All Americans should value the patriotic service of the patriots who volunteer to selflessly defend us in the armed services."
In his own statement, Ryan also declined to name Trump.
"Many Muslim Americans have served valiantly in our military, and made the ultimate sacrifice," Ryan said Sunday afternoon. "Captain Khan was one such brave example. His sacrifice — and that of Khizr and Ghazala Khan —should always be honored. Period.”
But Democrats made it clear the tepid repudiations weren't enough. In a blistering statement Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) ripped the two Republican leaders, calling anything short of withdrawing their endorsements of Trump "cowardice."
Reid invoked McConnell's swift disavowal of former Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) in 2012, whose "legitimate rape" remarks during his candidacy for the U.S. Senate were widely condemned by top Republicans — and Reid said McConnell should be willing to do the same for Trump.
“This shouldn’t be hard," Reid said. "Donald Trump is a sexist and racist man who insults Gold Star parents, stokes fear of Muslims and sows hatred of Latinos. He should not be president and Republican leaders have a moral responsibility to say so."
Khizr Khan, an attorney from Charlottesville, Virginia, delivering a stirring and emotional speech in Philadelphia as he discussed his son, Capt. Humayun Khan, who was killed in 2004 while serving in Iraq. During his DNC remarks, Khan chastised Trump over his proposal to bar Muslims from entering the United States, adding: "You have sacrificed nothing, and no one."
In subsequent interviews, Khizr Khan has also singled out McConnell and Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for backing Trump and has urged the two powerful Washington Republicans to withdraw their support for the nominee.
McConnell made no indication that he would do so in his Sunday statement, and neither did Ryan. But both Republicans also stressed that they do not support Trump's proposed ban on Muslim immigrants coming into the United States.
"As I have long made clear, I agree with the Khans and families across the country that a travel ban on all members of a religion is simply contrary to American values," McConnell said.
Added Ryan: “America's greatness is built on the principles of liberty and preserved by the men and women who wear the uniform to defend it. As I have said on numerous occasions, a religious test for entering our country is not reflective of these fundamental values. I reject it."
August 01, 2016
Behind Saturn
What's behind Saturn? The first answer is the camera itself, perched on the Cassini spacecraft currently orbiting behind the planet with the most grand ring system in our Solar System. The unusual perspective places Cassini on the far side of Saturn from the Sun so that more than half of Saturn appears dark -- a perspective that no Earth-based observer could achieve. Behind Saturn, in the context of the featured infrared image, is Saturn's moon Tethys, visible as the small speck above the unusual hexagonal cloud pattern that encompasses Saturn's North Pole. Tethys actually orbits Saturn right in the ring plane, which places the 1000-km moon much farther from Cassini than the planet itself. Cassini has been studying Saturn and its moons for 12 years, but, unfortunately, its amazing mission will soon come to an end. In order to protect life that may exist on or inside Saturn's moons, the robotic spacecraft will be directed to crash into Saturn's thick atmosphere next September.
Five Years
Five Years Post-Launch, Juno Is at a Turning Point
Five years after departing Earth, and a month after slipping into orbit around Jupiter, NASA's Juno spacecraft is nearing a turning point. On July 31 at 12:41 p.m. PDT (3:41 p.m. EDT), Juno will reach the farthest point in its orbit of Jupiter for the first time, known as “apojove,” 5 million miles (8.1 million kilometers) from the giant planet. After that point, Jupiter's gravitational grip on Juno will cause the spacecraft to begin falling back toward the planet for another pass, this time with its scientific eyes wide open.
The spacecraft is currently executing the first of two long orbits prior to beginning its science mission. Each capture orbit is nearly two months long -- quite the wait for the mission's eager team of scientists -- but it's nothing compared to the long wait the team endured on the trek to Jupiter.
Juno launched on Aug. 5, 2011. The spacecraft took a long, looping path around the inner solar system to set up an Earth flyby, in which our planet's gravity flung the spinning probe onward toward Jupiter.
"For five years we've been focused on getting to Jupiter. Now we're there, and we're concentrating on beginning dozens of flybys of Jupiter to get the science we're after," said Scott Bolton, Juno principal investigator at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio.
Juno arrived at Jupiter on July 4, firing its main rocket engine as planned for 35 minutes. The flawless maneuver allowed Jupiter's gravity to capture the solar powered spacecraft into the first of two 53.4-day-long orbits, referred to as capture orbits. Following the capture orbits, Juno will fire its engine once more to shorten its orbital period to 14 days and begin its science mission.
But before that happens, on Aug. 27, Juno must finish its first lap around Jupiter, with a finish line that represents the mission's closest pass over the gas giant. During the encounter, Juno will skim past Jupiter at a mere 2,600 miles (4,200 kilometers) above the cloud tops.
Juno's science instruments were turned off during orbit insertion, to simplify spacecraft operations during that critical maneuver. In contrast, all the instruments will be collecting data during the Aug. 27 pass, which serves as a trial run before the mission gets to work collecting the precious data it came for.
"We're in an excellent state of health, with the spacecraft and all the instruments fully checked out and ready for our first up-close look at Jupiter," said Rick Nybakken, Juno project manager at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California.
With its powerful suite of science instruments, Juno will probe Jupiter's deep structure, atmospheric circulation and the high-energy physics of its magnetic environment. What Juno finds there will reveal important clues to Jupiter's formation and evolution, along with insights about how our planetary system and others are built.
Five years after departing Earth, and a month after slipping into orbit around Jupiter, NASA's Juno spacecraft is nearing a turning point. On July 31 at 12:41 p.m. PDT (3:41 p.m. EDT), Juno will reach the farthest point in its orbit of Jupiter for the first time, known as “apojove,” 5 million miles (8.1 million kilometers) from the giant planet. After that point, Jupiter's gravitational grip on Juno will cause the spacecraft to begin falling back toward the planet for another pass, this time with its scientific eyes wide open.
The spacecraft is currently executing the first of two long orbits prior to beginning its science mission. Each capture orbit is nearly two months long -- quite the wait for the mission's eager team of scientists -- but it's nothing compared to the long wait the team endured on the trek to Jupiter.
Juno launched on Aug. 5, 2011. The spacecraft took a long, looping path around the inner solar system to set up an Earth flyby, in which our planet's gravity flung the spinning probe onward toward Jupiter.
"For five years we've been focused on getting to Jupiter. Now we're there, and we're concentrating on beginning dozens of flybys of Jupiter to get the science we're after," said Scott Bolton, Juno principal investigator at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio.
Juno arrived at Jupiter on July 4, firing its main rocket engine as planned for 35 minutes. The flawless maneuver allowed Jupiter's gravity to capture the solar powered spacecraft into the first of two 53.4-day-long orbits, referred to as capture orbits. Following the capture orbits, Juno will fire its engine once more to shorten its orbital period to 14 days and begin its science mission.
But before that happens, on Aug. 27, Juno must finish its first lap around Jupiter, with a finish line that represents the mission's closest pass over the gas giant. During the encounter, Juno will skim past Jupiter at a mere 2,600 miles (4,200 kilometers) above the cloud tops.
Juno's science instruments were turned off during orbit insertion, to simplify spacecraft operations during that critical maneuver. In contrast, all the instruments will be collecting data during the Aug. 27 pass, which serves as a trial run before the mission gets to work collecting the precious data it came for.
"We're in an excellent state of health, with the spacecraft and all the instruments fully checked out and ready for our first up-close look at Jupiter," said Rick Nybakken, Juno project manager at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California.
With its powerful suite of science instruments, Juno will probe Jupiter's deep structure, atmospheric circulation and the high-energy physics of its magnetic environment. What Juno finds there will reveal important clues to Jupiter's formation and evolution, along with insights about how our planetary system and others are built.
Two Speeches
The Two Speeches That Explain American Politics Right Now
Forget the candidates—it’s Rudy vs. Cory you need to pay attention to.
By Michael Grunwald
The 2016 conventions featured a plagiarism scandal and a WikiLeaks scandal, a snub by Ted Cruz and a nonsnub by Bernie Sanders, Republicans chanting “lock her up!” and Democrats chanting “not a clue!” Republicans heard from the National Rifle Association, a Benghazi mom and Scott Baio; Democrats heard from Planned Parenthood, Black Lives Matter moms, and Meryl Streep. The parties nominated two well-known but not well-liked candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, as well as their less controversial two-syllable sidekicks, Mike Pence and Tim Kaine. There were high-profile speeches by six Trumps, three Clintons and two Obamas.
But if you want to understand the gulf between the two conventions and the two parties in just two speeches, you should watch Republican Rudy Giuliani’s fiery stem-winder in Cleveland and then Democrat Cory Booker’s exuberant address in Philadelphia. Giuliani, a 72-year-old white man who stepped down as mayor of New York 15 years ago, outlined a dark vision of fear and fury. Booker, a 47-year-old black man who is now a senator from New Jersey, delivered an optimistic message of love and togetherness. Neither high-energy, high-volume speech got much attention in real time, but both channeled the moods of their parties.
For the Republicans in Cleveland, that mood was scared and angry—and more precisely, angry about being scared. And the Giuliani New Yorkers remember as a moderate who was progressive on social issues and immigration and once endorsed Democrat Mario Cuomo for governor was nowhere to be found. He began his speech with a blunt description of a nation traumatized by out-of-control crime and a constant threat of terrorism, his voice rising with every sentence: “The vast majority of Americans today do not feel safe. They fear for their children. They fear for themselves. They fear for their police officers, who are being TARGETED!”
Moments later, Giuliani was screaming at the top of his lungs about the ingratitude of Black Lives Matter-style critics of police departments, often seeming to add multiple exclamation points to ordinary sentences. He noted that when you call the police, “they don’t ask if you’re black or white, THEY JUST COME TO SAVE YOU!!!” He led the crowd in a ferocious chant of “THANK YOU!” to police, somehow converting that anodyne courtesy phrase into a Democrats-don't-care attack line. He suggested President Obama has inflamed racial tensions, a common gripe among the overwhelmingly white delegates in Cleveland: “What happened to ‘There’s no black America, no white America, just AMERICA?’ WHAT HAPPENED TO IT? WHERE DID IT GO?
Booker’s speech a week later in Philadelphia—The City of Brotherly Love, as he pointed out—had a much cheerier vibe, and even though he’s deviated from liberal orthodoxy on some educational and financial issues, it had a Kumbaya liberal vibe, too. His theme was how every generation has worked together to make America a more perfect union—“more inclusive, more expansive, more just.” The Americans who signed the Declaration of Independence, he said, were also making a declaration of interdependence, “an extraordinary commitment to each other.” He repeatedly echoed Clinton’s “Stronger Together” slogan, declaring that rugged individualism didn’t beat the British, reach the moon, build the interstates, or map the human genome: “We did that together!”
That’s been a familiar (if slightly corny) sentiment in Obama’s speeches, but Booker took it even further into New Age hippie-talk, arguing that the ultimate patriotic American value is not mere tolerance but actual love. “You can’t love your country without loving your countrymen and countrywomen,” he said. “We don’t always have to agree, but we must be there for each other, we must empower each other, we must find common ground.” Love, he said, is even a source of national security. “Love recognizes that we need each other, that we as a nation are better together, that when we are divided we are weak, yet when we are united, we are strong.” Even in the depths of the Civil War, Booker reminded the cheering crowd, Abraham Lincoln promised “malice towards none and charity towards all.”
Giuliani is not exactly a malice-towards-none guy. But his snarling get-tough approach did help tame the mean streets of New York, ratcheting down crime and murder rates even as he frequently alienated minority communities. In Cleveland, he didn’t attribute that progress to common purpose or interdependence or love. He attributed it to his own heroic leadership. “I turned New York City into America’s safest city,” Giuliani said. “And what I did for New York, Donald Trump will do for America!”
This was another big theme in Cleveland, the notion that Trump will destroy ISIS, balance the budget, and Make America Great Again through his own sheer strength of will and excellence of brain. But Trump hasn’t provided much detail about his plans for achieving those goals, and his convention speakers (including his wife and children) didn’t provide much detail about what he's really like. Giuliani tried to fill in a few blanks, calling Trump “a man with a big heart,” but his evidence was laughably implausible. Trump often makes grandiose public pledges to charities, and The Washington Post has exposed how he almost never fulfills them, but Giuliani claimed he actually makes anonymous donations to charities, because he’s too humble to want his generosity known. “He asked not to be mentioned,” Giuliani said. “Well, I’m going to break my promise to him. I’m going to mention it.” He mentioned no specifics.
The Republicans spent less time at their convention talking up Trump than trashing Clinton as a two-faced criminal who threatens American security. Giuliani fervently joined the attack, accusing her of “dereliction of duty” in Benghazi, and of lying to the families of the victims. “RIGHT TO THEIR FACES!” he screamed. He also accused Obama of being too politically correct to utter the words “Islamic extremist terrorism,” which explained “why our enemies see us as weak and vulnerable.” He noted that “for the purposes of the media,” as if he wouldn’t have included caveats if he hadn’t been on the record, he wasn’t talking about all Muslims. But he worked himself into a frenzy over his desire to obliterate Muslim extremists: “You know who you are! AND WE’RE COMING TO GET YOU!!!”
There was nothing subtle or touchy-feely about Giuliani’s rhetoric. He was making an emotional call to arms, a daddy-party appeal to a frightened public. The closest he came to a policy argument was attacking Clinton’s willingness to accept Syrian refugees in the United States: “They’re going to come here and kill us!”
Booker is the former mayor of Newark, a Stanford University and Yale Law School graduate who chose to live in his city’s public housing as a public servant. He’s like an anti-Giuliani, with a sunny disposition and a savvy for social media, and while his speech was nearly as passionate as Giuliani’s, it was less muscular and more intellectual, less I than we, less kicking ass and more working in harmony. He quoted an African proverb: “If you want to go fast, go alone, but if you want to go far, go together.” He also quoted NYU law professor Bryan Stevenson on criminal justice reform and borrowed his closing theme of stubborn renewal—“you may trod me into the very dirt, but still, like dust, I rise”—from the poet Maya Angelou. While Giuliani and Trump stood entirely with the police over the recent turmoil, Booker not only called for more love for cops, but also for “courageous empathy” for anti-police protesters.
Booker’s kindergarten-teacher message of love and togetherness didn’t stop him from taking shots at Trump, but they were all about Trump’s offenses against love and togetherness. He portrayed the Republican nominee as a bully who mocks people and stokes fear, who made racist comments about Mexicans and sexist comments about women, who got rich in Atlantic City while stiffing his employees and creditors, who wants to keep Muslims out of America because of their religion.
“At our best, we stand up to bullies,” Booker said. “We fight those who seek to demean and degrade other Americans.”
Similarly, Booker’s pitch for Clinton was that she’s a We woman, that she’ll be a Together president, that she wants to lift the poor out of poverty at home and build coalitions through diplomacy abroad. “Hillary Clinton knows what Donald Trump betrays time and time again, that we are not a zero-sum nation,” Booker said. “It is not you and me. It is not one American against another American. It is you and I, together, interdependent, interconnected, with one single interwoven destiny.”
It’s an uplifting message, if perhaps a bit goofy, but it’s not clear how much it resonates after tragedies like San Bernardino, Orlando and Dallas. The Republicans are portraying America as a massive crime scene, even though violent crime is actually down nationwide, and terrorism as the catastrophe of our time, even though terrorists kill fewer Americans every year than lightning strikes. Trump is an extraordinarily unorthodox candidate, but the implication of his candidacy is that desperate times call for unusual approaches. He has described Obama’s America in remarkably apocalyptic terms, and Giuliani set the tone in Cleveland by describing 2016 as the last chance to stop Obama-ism.
“There’s no next election,” he said. “This is it. There’s no more time to revive this country.”
That was the heart of the Republican argument in Cleveland, that America is collapsing, and that Trump is the only hope to restore its greatness. It can work only if Americans are truly scared, which is one reason the GOP rhetoric is so scary. The Democratic message has been more nuanced—not that things are perfect, but that things are better, and that talking down a great country is a cynical political ploy. It’s that the world isn’t on fire, that the economy isn’t a mess, and that, as Clinton said in her own convention speech, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
“Cynicism is a refuge for cowards,” Booker said. “This is the home of the brave.”
Forget the candidates—it’s Rudy vs. Cory you need to pay attention to.
By Michael Grunwald
The 2016 conventions featured a plagiarism scandal and a WikiLeaks scandal, a snub by Ted Cruz and a nonsnub by Bernie Sanders, Republicans chanting “lock her up!” and Democrats chanting “not a clue!” Republicans heard from the National Rifle Association, a Benghazi mom and Scott Baio; Democrats heard from Planned Parenthood, Black Lives Matter moms, and Meryl Streep. The parties nominated two well-known but not well-liked candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, as well as their less controversial two-syllable sidekicks, Mike Pence and Tim Kaine. There were high-profile speeches by six Trumps, three Clintons and two Obamas.
But if you want to understand the gulf between the two conventions and the two parties in just two speeches, you should watch Republican Rudy Giuliani’s fiery stem-winder in Cleveland and then Democrat Cory Booker’s exuberant address in Philadelphia. Giuliani, a 72-year-old white man who stepped down as mayor of New York 15 years ago, outlined a dark vision of fear and fury. Booker, a 47-year-old black man who is now a senator from New Jersey, delivered an optimistic message of love and togetherness. Neither high-energy, high-volume speech got much attention in real time, but both channeled the moods of their parties.
For the Republicans in Cleveland, that mood was scared and angry—and more precisely, angry about being scared. And the Giuliani New Yorkers remember as a moderate who was progressive on social issues and immigration and once endorsed Democrat Mario Cuomo for governor was nowhere to be found. He began his speech with a blunt description of a nation traumatized by out-of-control crime and a constant threat of terrorism, his voice rising with every sentence: “The vast majority of Americans today do not feel safe. They fear for their children. They fear for themselves. They fear for their police officers, who are being TARGETED!”
Moments later, Giuliani was screaming at the top of his lungs about the ingratitude of Black Lives Matter-style critics of police departments, often seeming to add multiple exclamation points to ordinary sentences. He noted that when you call the police, “they don’t ask if you’re black or white, THEY JUST COME TO SAVE YOU!!!” He led the crowd in a ferocious chant of “THANK YOU!” to police, somehow converting that anodyne courtesy phrase into a Democrats-don't-care attack line. He suggested President Obama has inflamed racial tensions, a common gripe among the overwhelmingly white delegates in Cleveland: “What happened to ‘There’s no black America, no white America, just AMERICA?’ WHAT HAPPENED TO IT? WHERE DID IT GO?
Booker’s speech a week later in Philadelphia—The City of Brotherly Love, as he pointed out—had a much cheerier vibe, and even though he’s deviated from liberal orthodoxy on some educational and financial issues, it had a Kumbaya liberal vibe, too. His theme was how every generation has worked together to make America a more perfect union—“more inclusive, more expansive, more just.” The Americans who signed the Declaration of Independence, he said, were also making a declaration of interdependence, “an extraordinary commitment to each other.” He repeatedly echoed Clinton’s “Stronger Together” slogan, declaring that rugged individualism didn’t beat the British, reach the moon, build the interstates, or map the human genome: “We did that together!”
That’s been a familiar (if slightly corny) sentiment in Obama’s speeches, but Booker took it even further into New Age hippie-talk, arguing that the ultimate patriotic American value is not mere tolerance but actual love. “You can’t love your country without loving your countrymen and countrywomen,” he said. “We don’t always have to agree, but we must be there for each other, we must empower each other, we must find common ground.” Love, he said, is even a source of national security. “Love recognizes that we need each other, that we as a nation are better together, that when we are divided we are weak, yet when we are united, we are strong.” Even in the depths of the Civil War, Booker reminded the cheering crowd, Abraham Lincoln promised “malice towards none and charity towards all.”
Giuliani is not exactly a malice-towards-none guy. But his snarling get-tough approach did help tame the mean streets of New York, ratcheting down crime and murder rates even as he frequently alienated minority communities. In Cleveland, he didn’t attribute that progress to common purpose or interdependence or love. He attributed it to his own heroic leadership. “I turned New York City into America’s safest city,” Giuliani said. “And what I did for New York, Donald Trump will do for America!”
This was another big theme in Cleveland, the notion that Trump will destroy ISIS, balance the budget, and Make America Great Again through his own sheer strength of will and excellence of brain. But Trump hasn’t provided much detail about his plans for achieving those goals, and his convention speakers (including his wife and children) didn’t provide much detail about what he's really like. Giuliani tried to fill in a few blanks, calling Trump “a man with a big heart,” but his evidence was laughably implausible. Trump often makes grandiose public pledges to charities, and The Washington Post has exposed how he almost never fulfills them, but Giuliani claimed he actually makes anonymous donations to charities, because he’s too humble to want his generosity known. “He asked not to be mentioned,” Giuliani said. “Well, I’m going to break my promise to him. I’m going to mention it.” He mentioned no specifics.
The Republicans spent less time at their convention talking up Trump than trashing Clinton as a two-faced criminal who threatens American security. Giuliani fervently joined the attack, accusing her of “dereliction of duty” in Benghazi, and of lying to the families of the victims. “RIGHT TO THEIR FACES!” he screamed. He also accused Obama of being too politically correct to utter the words “Islamic extremist terrorism,” which explained “why our enemies see us as weak and vulnerable.” He noted that “for the purposes of the media,” as if he wouldn’t have included caveats if he hadn’t been on the record, he wasn’t talking about all Muslims. But he worked himself into a frenzy over his desire to obliterate Muslim extremists: “You know who you are! AND WE’RE COMING TO GET YOU!!!”
There was nothing subtle or touchy-feely about Giuliani’s rhetoric. He was making an emotional call to arms, a daddy-party appeal to a frightened public. The closest he came to a policy argument was attacking Clinton’s willingness to accept Syrian refugees in the United States: “They’re going to come here and kill us!”
Booker is the former mayor of Newark, a Stanford University and Yale Law School graduate who chose to live in his city’s public housing as a public servant. He’s like an anti-Giuliani, with a sunny disposition and a savvy for social media, and while his speech was nearly as passionate as Giuliani’s, it was less muscular and more intellectual, less I than we, less kicking ass and more working in harmony. He quoted an African proverb: “If you want to go fast, go alone, but if you want to go far, go together.” He also quoted NYU law professor Bryan Stevenson on criminal justice reform and borrowed his closing theme of stubborn renewal—“you may trod me into the very dirt, but still, like dust, I rise”—from the poet Maya Angelou. While Giuliani and Trump stood entirely with the police over the recent turmoil, Booker not only called for more love for cops, but also for “courageous empathy” for anti-police protesters.
Booker’s kindergarten-teacher message of love and togetherness didn’t stop him from taking shots at Trump, but they were all about Trump’s offenses against love and togetherness. He portrayed the Republican nominee as a bully who mocks people and stokes fear, who made racist comments about Mexicans and sexist comments about women, who got rich in Atlantic City while stiffing his employees and creditors, who wants to keep Muslims out of America because of their religion.
“At our best, we stand up to bullies,” Booker said. “We fight those who seek to demean and degrade other Americans.”
Similarly, Booker’s pitch for Clinton was that she’s a We woman, that she’ll be a Together president, that she wants to lift the poor out of poverty at home and build coalitions through diplomacy abroad. “Hillary Clinton knows what Donald Trump betrays time and time again, that we are not a zero-sum nation,” Booker said. “It is not you and me. It is not one American against another American. It is you and I, together, interdependent, interconnected, with one single interwoven destiny.”
It’s an uplifting message, if perhaps a bit goofy, but it’s not clear how much it resonates after tragedies like San Bernardino, Orlando and Dallas. The Republicans are portraying America as a massive crime scene, even though violent crime is actually down nationwide, and terrorism as the catastrophe of our time, even though terrorists kill fewer Americans every year than lightning strikes. Trump is an extraordinarily unorthodox candidate, but the implication of his candidacy is that desperate times call for unusual approaches. He has described Obama’s America in remarkably apocalyptic terms, and Giuliani set the tone in Cleveland by describing 2016 as the last chance to stop Obama-ism.
“There’s no next election,” he said. “This is it. There’s no more time to revive this country.”
That was the heart of the Republican argument in Cleveland, that America is collapsing, and that Trump is the only hope to restore its greatness. It can work only if Americans are truly scared, which is one reason the GOP rhetoric is so scary. The Democratic message has been more nuanced—not that things are perfect, but that things are better, and that talking down a great country is a cynical political ploy. It’s that the world isn’t on fire, that the economy isn’t a mess, and that, as Clinton said in her own convention speech, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
“Cynicism is a refuge for cowards,” Booker said. “This is the home of the brave.”
Self-inflicted wounds....
Trump's tough weekend
The self-inflicted wounds seemed to come fast and furious.
By Matthew Nussbaum
With an imaginary letter, a disputed invitation and controversial comments about a fallen soldier’s parents, Donald Trump’s weekend was not going well even before he seemed to endorse the Russian annexation of Crimea, in opposition to U.S. policy and international law.
This was a weekend Trump may hope to forget, and one Democrats will work hard to make sure voters remember. It seemed to demonstrate all of the flaws — trouble with the truth, an inability to let criticism go unanswered and a lack of knowledge of world affairs — that Republicans fear Trump will be unable to put behind him and that Democrats hope will be the billionaire’s undoing come November.
There was an attempt by some of Trump's top donors, reported by POLITICO on Friday, to arrange a meeting with Charles and David Koch, the deep-pocketed conservative donors who have so far shunned Trump. That attempt was rebuffed by the Kochs, sources told POLITICO. But Trump took to Twitter on Saturday night to say no, it was actually the Kochs who tried to arrange a meeting, but he rejected them.
There was Trump’s claim that the NFL sent him a letter complaining about the debate schedule. The NFL says no such letter exists.
And there were attacks on the family of the late Capt. Humayun Khan, insinuations that his mother was forbidden from speaking while onstage at the Democratic National Convention and a claim that his father had “no right” to disparage Trump.
All of that came before the airing of an interview Sunday in which Trump appeared to endorse the Russian annexation of Crimea, saying on ABC’s "This Week" that “the people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were.” He also stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin is “not going into Ukraine” before admitting “well, he’s there in a certain way.”
The series of events only complicates life further for those Republicans who have tied themselves to Trump. His running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who has a son in the Marines, said in a statement Sunday night that Capt. Khan and his family "should be cherished by every American." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan both released statements on the controversy praising Khan and distancing themselves from Trump — without actually naming Trump.
It was a weekend that could have been defined by better news for the Republican nominee. A Friday economic report showed disappointingly slow growth, prompting the front page of The Wall Street Journal on Saturday to declare the U.S. in the “weakest recovery since ’49.” The weekend was a moment for Trump to hammer home his message that President Barack Obama has failed as a steward of the economy.
But it was not to be.
The trouble began Saturday, when ABC aired segments of the “This Week” interview. In it, Trump claimed that Ghazala Khan, who stood by her husband’s side during his impassioned address at the DNC, was perhaps not allowed to speak.
"If you look at his wife, she was standing there,” Trump said. "She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.”
Ghazala Khan has said she did not speak because she still becomes overwhelmed when discussing her late son.
“Walking onto the convention stage, with a huge picture of my son behind me, I could hardly control myself. What mother could? Donald Trump has children whom he loves. Does he really need to wonder why I did not speak?” she wrote in an op-ed in The Washington Post on Sunday. “Donald Trump said that maybe I wasn’t allowed to say anything. That is not true. My husband asked me if I wanted to speak, but I told him I could not. My religion teaches me that all human beings are equal in God’s eyes. Husband and wife are part of each other; you should love and respect each other so you can take care of the family.”
Trump went on to contend that he, too, has made sacrifices, mentioning his work in business.
The condemnation of Trump’s remarks was swift and nearly universal.
“There's only one way to talk about Gold Star parents: with honor and respect. Capt. Khan is a hero. Together, we should pray for his family,” tweeted Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who has declined to endorse Trump.
Hillary Clinton hit Trump Sunday for what she called “insults and disparaging remarks about Muslims” directed at the Khans.
But the Trump campaign went further, releasing a statement Saturday night in which Trump called Capt. Khan “a hero to our country” but went on to say that Khan’s father had “no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution.”
As the criticism continued Sunday, Trump took to twitter again, writing: “I was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan at the Democratic Convention. Am I not allowed to respond? Hillary voted for the Iraq war, not me!”
In the clip released Saturday, Trump also said that the NFL had sent him a letter complaining that two of the three presidential debates were scheduled at the same time as NFL games. Earlier in the week, Trump had accused Clinton of attempting to rig the debates, which are scheduled by a nonpartisan commission; the dates had been set last September. Almost immediately Saturday, the NFL confirmed that no such letter had been sent.
Meanwhile, Trump tweeted Saturday evening to deny the report about requesting the meeting with the Kochs.
“I turned down a meeting with Charles and David Koch. Much better for them to meet with the puppets of politics, they will do much better!” he wrote.
The Kochs, and their deep-pocketed network, have kept a distance from Trump, and officials in the network have said they will devote resources to down-ballot races. The report that Trump sought a meeting undercut his previous criticism of the elite conservative donor class. His pronounced disdain for that group has won him plaudits from disenchanted voters, but that disdain seems to be fading as the Trump campaign reckons with the Clinton campaign’s financial edge.
A top Koch aide reiterated to POLITICO on Saturday night that no overtures had been made to meet with Trump, as far as the aide knew.
As Trump’s statements on the Khans landed on the front pages Sunday, the “This Week” interview contained another bombshell: Trump’s apparent support for the Russian annexation of Crimea and the claims — quickly withdrawn — that Putin had not made incursions into Ukraine.
This directly contradicts U.S. policy, codified in a 2014 law, that “condemn[s] the unjustified military intervention of the Russian Federation in the Crimea region of Ukraine.” That measure was approved by the Senate on a voice vote, passed the Republican-controlled House by 378-34 and was signed into law by Obama.
Jake Sullivan, one of Clinton’s top policy advisers, slammed Trump’s Crimea remarks.
“Today, he gamely repeated Putin’s argument that Russia was justified in seizing the sovereign territory of another country by force,” Sullivan said in a statement Sunday. “This is scary stuff. But it shouldn’t surprise us. This comes on the heels of his tacit invitation to the Russians to invade our NATO allies in Eastern Europe. And it’s yet more proof why Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit and totally unqualified to be Commander in Chief.”
With just over three months until the election, the weekend after the Democratic convention was a chance for Trump to steal back the spotlight. He did, though not in the way Republicans would have hoped.
The self-inflicted wounds seemed to come fast and furious.
By Matthew Nussbaum
With an imaginary letter, a disputed invitation and controversial comments about a fallen soldier’s parents, Donald Trump’s weekend was not going well even before he seemed to endorse the Russian annexation of Crimea, in opposition to U.S. policy and international law.
This was a weekend Trump may hope to forget, and one Democrats will work hard to make sure voters remember. It seemed to demonstrate all of the flaws — trouble with the truth, an inability to let criticism go unanswered and a lack of knowledge of world affairs — that Republicans fear Trump will be unable to put behind him and that Democrats hope will be the billionaire’s undoing come November.
There was an attempt by some of Trump's top donors, reported by POLITICO on Friday, to arrange a meeting with Charles and David Koch, the deep-pocketed conservative donors who have so far shunned Trump. That attempt was rebuffed by the Kochs, sources told POLITICO. But Trump took to Twitter on Saturday night to say no, it was actually the Kochs who tried to arrange a meeting, but he rejected them.
There was Trump’s claim that the NFL sent him a letter complaining about the debate schedule. The NFL says no such letter exists.
And there were attacks on the family of the late Capt. Humayun Khan, insinuations that his mother was forbidden from speaking while onstage at the Democratic National Convention and a claim that his father had “no right” to disparage Trump.
All of that came before the airing of an interview Sunday in which Trump appeared to endorse the Russian annexation of Crimea, saying on ABC’s "This Week" that “the people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were.” He also stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin is “not going into Ukraine” before admitting “well, he’s there in a certain way.”
The series of events only complicates life further for those Republicans who have tied themselves to Trump. His running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who has a son in the Marines, said in a statement Sunday night that Capt. Khan and his family "should be cherished by every American." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan both released statements on the controversy praising Khan and distancing themselves from Trump — without actually naming Trump.
It was a weekend that could have been defined by better news for the Republican nominee. A Friday economic report showed disappointingly slow growth, prompting the front page of The Wall Street Journal on Saturday to declare the U.S. in the “weakest recovery since ’49.” The weekend was a moment for Trump to hammer home his message that President Barack Obama has failed as a steward of the economy.
But it was not to be.
The trouble began Saturday, when ABC aired segments of the “This Week” interview. In it, Trump claimed that Ghazala Khan, who stood by her husband’s side during his impassioned address at the DNC, was perhaps not allowed to speak.
"If you look at his wife, she was standing there,” Trump said. "She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.”
Ghazala Khan has said she did not speak because she still becomes overwhelmed when discussing her late son.
“Walking onto the convention stage, with a huge picture of my son behind me, I could hardly control myself. What mother could? Donald Trump has children whom he loves. Does he really need to wonder why I did not speak?” she wrote in an op-ed in The Washington Post on Sunday. “Donald Trump said that maybe I wasn’t allowed to say anything. That is not true. My husband asked me if I wanted to speak, but I told him I could not. My religion teaches me that all human beings are equal in God’s eyes. Husband and wife are part of each other; you should love and respect each other so you can take care of the family.”
Trump went on to contend that he, too, has made sacrifices, mentioning his work in business.
The condemnation of Trump’s remarks was swift and nearly universal.
“There's only one way to talk about Gold Star parents: with honor and respect. Capt. Khan is a hero. Together, we should pray for his family,” tweeted Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who has declined to endorse Trump.
Hillary Clinton hit Trump Sunday for what she called “insults and disparaging remarks about Muslims” directed at the Khans.
But the Trump campaign went further, releasing a statement Saturday night in which Trump called Capt. Khan “a hero to our country” but went on to say that Khan’s father had “no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution.”
As the criticism continued Sunday, Trump took to twitter again, writing: “I was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan at the Democratic Convention. Am I not allowed to respond? Hillary voted for the Iraq war, not me!”
In the clip released Saturday, Trump also said that the NFL had sent him a letter complaining that two of the three presidential debates were scheduled at the same time as NFL games. Earlier in the week, Trump had accused Clinton of attempting to rig the debates, which are scheduled by a nonpartisan commission; the dates had been set last September. Almost immediately Saturday, the NFL confirmed that no such letter had been sent.
Meanwhile, Trump tweeted Saturday evening to deny the report about requesting the meeting with the Kochs.
“I turned down a meeting with Charles and David Koch. Much better for them to meet with the puppets of politics, they will do much better!” he wrote.
The Kochs, and their deep-pocketed network, have kept a distance from Trump, and officials in the network have said they will devote resources to down-ballot races. The report that Trump sought a meeting undercut his previous criticism of the elite conservative donor class. His pronounced disdain for that group has won him plaudits from disenchanted voters, but that disdain seems to be fading as the Trump campaign reckons with the Clinton campaign’s financial edge.
A top Koch aide reiterated to POLITICO on Saturday night that no overtures had been made to meet with Trump, as far as the aide knew.
As Trump’s statements on the Khans landed on the front pages Sunday, the “This Week” interview contained another bombshell: Trump’s apparent support for the Russian annexation of Crimea and the claims — quickly withdrawn — that Putin had not made incursions into Ukraine.
This directly contradicts U.S. policy, codified in a 2014 law, that “condemn[s] the unjustified military intervention of the Russian Federation in the Crimea region of Ukraine.” That measure was approved by the Senate on a voice vote, passed the Republican-controlled House by 378-34 and was signed into law by Obama.
Jake Sullivan, one of Clinton’s top policy advisers, slammed Trump’s Crimea remarks.
“Today, he gamely repeated Putin’s argument that Russia was justified in seizing the sovereign territory of another country by force,” Sullivan said in a statement Sunday. “This is scary stuff. But it shouldn’t surprise us. This comes on the heels of his tacit invitation to the Russians to invade our NATO allies in Eastern Europe. And it’s yet more proof why Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit and totally unqualified to be Commander in Chief.”
With just over three months until the election, the weekend after the Democratic convention was a chance for Trump to steal back the spotlight. He did, though not in the way Republicans would have hoped.
Clinton rebukes Trump
Clinton rebukes Trump over Khan comments
The Democratic nominee also blasts her foe for scapegoating others.
By Annie Karni
Hillary Clinton on Sunday delivered a forceful rebuke of Donald Trump for ridiculing Gold Star parents of Muslim faith, saying she does “tremble before those who would scapegoat other Americans.”
In her first public comments defending Khizr Khan, a Muslim who spoke powerfully at the Democratic National Convention last week about his son who was killed in Iraq protecting his unit, Clinton flatly rejected Trump’s pursuant attempts to ridicule Khan and his wife.
“Mr. Khan paid the ultimate sacrifice in his family, didn’t he?” Clinton said while speaking at an African-American church in Cleveland, in front of a crowd of about 200 churchgoers. “And what has he heard from Donald Trump? Nothing but insults and degrading comments about Muslims — a total misunderstanding of what made our country great, religious freedom, religious liberty. It’s enshrined in our Constitution, as Mr. Khan knows, because he’s actually read it.”
On Thursday night, ahead of Clinton’s speech accepting her party’s nomination, Khan brandished a copy of the Constitution and challenged Trump to read the document before insulting the country’s founding principles by pledging to ban Muslims from entering the United States. “Have you even read the United States Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy,” Khan said, addressing Trump and adding, “You have sacrificed nothing, and no one.”
Trump responded by heaping criticism on Khan’s wife, Ghazala, implying that she stood silently by her husband’s side during his DNC speech because her Muslim faith muzzled her from speaking out publicly. The Khans explained that Ghazala was simply too overcome with grief to speak in public about her dead son. (She penned a column for Sunday's Washington Postin which she said of Trump: "He doesn't what the word sacrifice means.")
Clinton told the crowd at the Imani Temple that she and her running mate, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, are both people of faith. Clinton is Methodist, and Kaine is a former Jesuit missionary of Catholic faith.
“I don’t begrudge anyone of any other faith, or no faith at all,” Clinton said. “But I do tremble before those who would scapegoat other Americans, who would insult people because of their religion, their ethnicity, their disability. That’s just not how I was raised. That’s not how I was taught in my church.”
Clinton is on the final leg of a three-day bus tour across Western Pennsylvania and Ohio.
At multiple stops in Pennsylvania on Saturday, she defended retired Gen. John Allen, who Trump labeled a “failed” general after he spoke at the DNC and validated Clinton as the only candidate with the national security experience necessary for the White House. On Saturday, her campaign issued a statement defending Khan. It carefully avoided mentioning Trump by name. Her remarks Sunday morning marked the first time she addressed the controversy caused by Trump's comments.
The Democratic nominee also blasts her foe for scapegoating others.
By Annie Karni
Hillary Clinton on Sunday delivered a forceful rebuke of Donald Trump for ridiculing Gold Star parents of Muslim faith, saying she does “tremble before those who would scapegoat other Americans.”
In her first public comments defending Khizr Khan, a Muslim who spoke powerfully at the Democratic National Convention last week about his son who was killed in Iraq protecting his unit, Clinton flatly rejected Trump’s pursuant attempts to ridicule Khan and his wife.
“Mr. Khan paid the ultimate sacrifice in his family, didn’t he?” Clinton said while speaking at an African-American church in Cleveland, in front of a crowd of about 200 churchgoers. “And what has he heard from Donald Trump? Nothing but insults and degrading comments about Muslims — a total misunderstanding of what made our country great, religious freedom, religious liberty. It’s enshrined in our Constitution, as Mr. Khan knows, because he’s actually read it.”
On Thursday night, ahead of Clinton’s speech accepting her party’s nomination, Khan brandished a copy of the Constitution and challenged Trump to read the document before insulting the country’s founding principles by pledging to ban Muslims from entering the United States. “Have you even read the United States Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy,” Khan said, addressing Trump and adding, “You have sacrificed nothing, and no one.”
Trump responded by heaping criticism on Khan’s wife, Ghazala, implying that she stood silently by her husband’s side during his DNC speech because her Muslim faith muzzled her from speaking out publicly. The Khans explained that Ghazala was simply too overcome with grief to speak in public about her dead son. (She penned a column for Sunday's Washington Postin which she said of Trump: "He doesn't what the word sacrifice means.")
Clinton told the crowd at the Imani Temple that she and her running mate, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, are both people of faith. Clinton is Methodist, and Kaine is a former Jesuit missionary of Catholic faith.
“I don’t begrudge anyone of any other faith, or no faith at all,” Clinton said. “But I do tremble before those who would scapegoat other Americans, who would insult people because of their religion, their ethnicity, their disability. That’s just not how I was raised. That’s not how I was taught in my church.”
Clinton is on the final leg of a three-day bus tour across Western Pennsylvania and Ohio.
At multiple stops in Pennsylvania on Saturday, she defended retired Gen. John Allen, who Trump labeled a “failed” general after he spoke at the DNC and validated Clinton as the only candidate with the national security experience necessary for the White House. On Saturday, her campaign issued a statement defending Khan. It carefully avoided mentioning Trump by name. Her remarks Sunday morning marked the first time she addressed the controversy caused by Trump's comments.
Trump tries to eat shit...
Trump tries to clean up on Crimea
By Nick Gass
Donald Trump attempted to clarify on Monday exactly what he meant in a recent interview in which he declared that Vladimir Putin would not invade Ukraine, despite the Russian strongman already having presided over the 2014 annexation of Crimea, which was recognized as part of Ukraine and is still not recognized by the United States.
"When I said in an interview that Putin is 'not going into Ukraine, you can mark it down,' I am saying if I am President. Already in Crimea!" Trump tweeted Monday morning.
In a subsequent tweet, Trump wrote, "So with all of the Obama tough talk on Russia and the Ukraine, they have already taken Crimea and continue to push. That's what I said!"
The tweets follow an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos aired Sunday in which Trump remarked of Putin, "He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down and you can put it down, you can take it anywhere you want."
"Well, he's already there, isn't he?" Stephanopoulos asked.
Trump responded that Putin is "there in a certain way, but I'm not there yet," noting that Barack Obama is still president and that "frankly, that whole part of the world is a mess under Obama, with all the strength that you're talking about and all of the power of NATO and all of this, in the meantime, he's going where -- he takes -- takes Crimea, he's sort of -- I mean..."
Appearing on "CBS This Morning" earlier Monday, former CIA Director Michael Hayden denounced Trump's comments as “devoid of facts and divorced from traditional American, traditionally European policy.”
"I mean, that was the violent change of a European border with the annexation of Crimea, which he says he might be fine with at some point in the future," said Hayden, who also served as director of the National Security Agency. "I mean, beyond just what’s happening in Ukraine, can you actually live in a Europe in which you can change borders based upon popular sovereignty? How much more violent would the continent become."
The Republican nominee indicated last week that he could recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea, which the United States has condemned.
"I'm going to take a look at it," Trump said on ABC. "But, you know, the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were. And you have to look at that, also."
By Nick Gass
Donald Trump attempted to clarify on Monday exactly what he meant in a recent interview in which he declared that Vladimir Putin would not invade Ukraine, despite the Russian strongman already having presided over the 2014 annexation of Crimea, which was recognized as part of Ukraine and is still not recognized by the United States.
"When I said in an interview that Putin is 'not going into Ukraine, you can mark it down,' I am saying if I am President. Already in Crimea!" Trump tweeted Monday morning.
In a subsequent tweet, Trump wrote, "So with all of the Obama tough talk on Russia and the Ukraine, they have already taken Crimea and continue to push. That's what I said!"
The tweets follow an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos aired Sunday in which Trump remarked of Putin, "He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down and you can put it down, you can take it anywhere you want."
"Well, he's already there, isn't he?" Stephanopoulos asked.
Trump responded that Putin is "there in a certain way, but I'm not there yet," noting that Barack Obama is still president and that "frankly, that whole part of the world is a mess under Obama, with all the strength that you're talking about and all of the power of NATO and all of this, in the meantime, he's going where -- he takes -- takes Crimea, he's sort of -- I mean..."
Appearing on "CBS This Morning" earlier Monday, former CIA Director Michael Hayden denounced Trump's comments as “devoid of facts and divorced from traditional American, traditionally European policy.”
"I mean, that was the violent change of a European border with the annexation of Crimea, which he says he might be fine with at some point in the future," said Hayden, who also served as director of the National Security Agency. "I mean, beyond just what’s happening in Ukraine, can you actually live in a Europe in which you can change borders based upon popular sovereignty? How much more violent would the continent become."
The Republican nominee indicated last week that he could recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea, which the United States has condemned.
"I'm going to take a look at it," Trump said on ABC. "But, you know, the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were. And you have to look at that, also."
Ignorance and arrogance
Khizr Khan: Trump’s statements ‘proof of his ignorance and arrogance’
By Louis Nelson
Just days after taking an unexpected star turn on the Democratic National Convention’s final night, the father of a Muslim army captain killed in 2004 in Iraq said Donald Trump’s bombastic rhetoric is “proof of his ignorance and arrogance.”
Once again appearing with his wife at his side, Khizr Khan Monday morning attacked the Republican nominee as unfit not just for the presidency, but for even the nomination of one of America’s two major political parties. He said he felt compelled to speak out at the Democratic National Convention because “we had been patiently subjected to the maligning of this candidate for a whole year. Enough is enough.”
Outside of Trump, Khan was overall complimentary of the Republican Party, which he described as equally patriotic as the Democratic Party. The problem, Khan said, is that while many in the GOP have been quietly critical of their party’s nominee, very few Republican leaders who might be in a position to influence Trump have been publicly critical of his comments.
Without providing any further detail, Khan said he was aware that House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had been among those who have privately urged Trump to tone down his anti-Muslim rhetoric. Monday morning, Khan called for them to go further.
“Every decent Republican has said — I apologize if I'm a little emotional about this — every Republican has rebuked his behavior, yet no one has stood up and said, enough, stop it, you will not be our candidate. In private they have done this. We are aware of it, that in private they have done this,” Khan said. “We will continue to speak up until this candidate behaves in a dignified manner deserving of the candidacy of this office.”
Khan first stepped into the public eye on the fourth and final night of the Democratic National Convention, delivering an impassioned speech with his wife at his side. He honored the memory of his son, Army Capt. Humayun Khan, who was killed in 2004 in Baghdad. But he also accused Trump of never having read the Constitution, offering to lend him the version of the document that Khan pulled from his jacket pocket on stage.
Trump seemed to take particular offense to the charge that he had never read the Constitution, firing back at Khan that the fallen soldier’s father had “no right” to go on stage in Philadelphia and make such an accusation on national television. Asked about Trump’s retort, Khan said it once again proved that the Republican nominee lacks an understanding of the basic tenants of America’s governing principles.
“He wants to have one set of rights for himself, and he wants to have another set of rights for others,” Khan said, reaching once again into his jacket for his pocket copy of the Constitution. “No, somebody should tell him that there is equal dignity, equal protection of law in this country. That is why that constitution came to play. I keep that in my pocket because I cherish this document. I wish somebody would read it to him. Certain fundamental values that enshrine in this document.”
Khan offered a warmer reception to the statement released late Sunday night by GOP vice presidential candidate Mike Pence, who attempted to shift the topic away from the Khan family’s fallen son and onto terrorism and immigration, more comfortable topics for the Trump campaign. Khan said he was “heartened” and “grateful” for the kind words Pence offered to his son and seemed to agree with the GOP ticket’s assertion of a need for stronger immigration controls.
“As far as the policy and tightening the policy, that is what we need. We already have those measures in place. Can we make them better? Of course we can make them better,” Khan said. “Are there better solutions? Of course there are better solutions. Let's go and implement them. Let's make those policies and implement them. But let's not create, strengthen the hands of enemies by these remarks, by these statements. Believe me, these statements strengthen their recruitment process.”
By Louis Nelson
Just days after taking an unexpected star turn on the Democratic National Convention’s final night, the father of a Muslim army captain killed in 2004 in Iraq said Donald Trump’s bombastic rhetoric is “proof of his ignorance and arrogance.”
Once again appearing with his wife at his side, Khizr Khan Monday morning attacked the Republican nominee as unfit not just for the presidency, but for even the nomination of one of America’s two major political parties. He said he felt compelled to speak out at the Democratic National Convention because “we had been patiently subjected to the maligning of this candidate for a whole year. Enough is enough.”
Outside of Trump, Khan was overall complimentary of the Republican Party, which he described as equally patriotic as the Democratic Party. The problem, Khan said, is that while many in the GOP have been quietly critical of their party’s nominee, very few Republican leaders who might be in a position to influence Trump have been publicly critical of his comments.
Without providing any further detail, Khan said he was aware that House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had been among those who have privately urged Trump to tone down his anti-Muslim rhetoric. Monday morning, Khan called for them to go further.
“Every decent Republican has said — I apologize if I'm a little emotional about this — every Republican has rebuked his behavior, yet no one has stood up and said, enough, stop it, you will not be our candidate. In private they have done this. We are aware of it, that in private they have done this,” Khan said. “We will continue to speak up until this candidate behaves in a dignified manner deserving of the candidacy of this office.”
Khan first stepped into the public eye on the fourth and final night of the Democratic National Convention, delivering an impassioned speech with his wife at his side. He honored the memory of his son, Army Capt. Humayun Khan, who was killed in 2004 in Baghdad. But he also accused Trump of never having read the Constitution, offering to lend him the version of the document that Khan pulled from his jacket pocket on stage.
Trump seemed to take particular offense to the charge that he had never read the Constitution, firing back at Khan that the fallen soldier’s father had “no right” to go on stage in Philadelphia and make such an accusation on national television. Asked about Trump’s retort, Khan said it once again proved that the Republican nominee lacks an understanding of the basic tenants of America’s governing principles.
“He wants to have one set of rights for himself, and he wants to have another set of rights for others,” Khan said, reaching once again into his jacket for his pocket copy of the Constitution. “No, somebody should tell him that there is equal dignity, equal protection of law in this country. That is why that constitution came to play. I keep that in my pocket because I cherish this document. I wish somebody would read it to him. Certain fundamental values that enshrine in this document.”
Khan offered a warmer reception to the statement released late Sunday night by GOP vice presidential candidate Mike Pence, who attempted to shift the topic away from the Khan family’s fallen son and onto terrorism and immigration, more comfortable topics for the Trump campaign. Khan said he was “heartened” and “grateful” for the kind words Pence offered to his son and seemed to agree with the GOP ticket’s assertion of a need for stronger immigration controls.
“As far as the policy and tightening the policy, that is what we need. We already have those measures in place. Can we make them better? Of course we can make them better,” Khan said. “Are there better solutions? Of course there are better solutions. Let's go and implement them. Let's make those policies and implement them. But let's not create, strengthen the hands of enemies by these remarks, by these statements. Believe me, these statements strengthen their recruitment process.”
McCain slams Trump
McCain slams Trump over Khan fight
By Louis Nelson
Sen. John McCain slammed Donald Trump Monday morning for feuding with the parents of a fallen Muslim soldier, offering perhaps his sternest rebuke yet of a candidate with whom he has clashed throughout the campaign process.
"In recent days, Donald Trump disparaged a fallen soldier’s parents. He has suggested that the likes of their son should not be allowed in the United States — to say nothing of entering its service,” McCain said in a statement released by his office Monday. “I cannot emphasize enough how deeply I disagree with Mr. Trump’s statement. I hope Americans understand that the remarks do not represent the views of our Republican Party, its officers, or candidates.”
Khizr and Ghazala Khan became the unexpected stars of the Democratic National Convention’s final day last week, delivering an emotional speech honoring their late son, Army Capt. Humayun Khan, and attacking Trump’s often-divisive rhetoric. Pulling a small pocket version of the Constitution from his jacket, Khizr Khan accused the Manhattan billionaire of having never read the document and offered to lend Trump his own copy.
Trump responded over the weekend that the family had “no right” to attack him from the convention stage in Philadelphia and took to Twitter Monday morning to counterprogram the Khans multiple morning TV news interviews.
In his statement, McCain said he was “morally bound to speak only to the things that command my allegiance,” specifically naming the Republican Party and the United States of America. He said he would not refrain from speaking up “simply because it may benefit others with whom I disagree,” presumably a reference to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
McCain himself was an early target of Trump’s, who said the longtime Arizona senator should not be considered a hero even though he was held as a prisoner of war for more than five years and tortured after his aircraft was shot down during the Vietnam War. Of the former Navy pilot and 2008 GOP presidential nominee, Trump said “He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”
The senator, who has offered a tepid endorsement of Trump but has otherwise steered clear of discussing presidential politics, seemed to create for himself a loophole through which he could escape that endorsement at a later date. Amid a call for Trump to change the tone of his rhetoric, McCain said that "while our Party has bestowed upon him the nomination, it is not accompanied by unfettered license to defame those who are the best among us."
"Lastly, I’d like to say to Mr. and Mrs. Khan: thank you for immigrating to America,” McCain said in closing his statement. “We’re a better country because of you. And you are certainly right; your son was the best of America, and the memory of his sacrifice will make us a better nation – and he will never be forgotten."
By Louis Nelson
Sen. John McCain slammed Donald Trump Monday morning for feuding with the parents of a fallen Muslim soldier, offering perhaps his sternest rebuke yet of a candidate with whom he has clashed throughout the campaign process.
"In recent days, Donald Trump disparaged a fallen soldier’s parents. He has suggested that the likes of their son should not be allowed in the United States — to say nothing of entering its service,” McCain said in a statement released by his office Monday. “I cannot emphasize enough how deeply I disagree with Mr. Trump’s statement. I hope Americans understand that the remarks do not represent the views of our Republican Party, its officers, or candidates.”
Khizr and Ghazala Khan became the unexpected stars of the Democratic National Convention’s final day last week, delivering an emotional speech honoring their late son, Army Capt. Humayun Khan, and attacking Trump’s often-divisive rhetoric. Pulling a small pocket version of the Constitution from his jacket, Khizr Khan accused the Manhattan billionaire of having never read the document and offered to lend Trump his own copy.
Trump responded over the weekend that the family had “no right” to attack him from the convention stage in Philadelphia and took to Twitter Monday morning to counterprogram the Khans multiple morning TV news interviews.
In his statement, McCain said he was “morally bound to speak only to the things that command my allegiance,” specifically naming the Republican Party and the United States of America. He said he would not refrain from speaking up “simply because it may benefit others with whom I disagree,” presumably a reference to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
McCain himself was an early target of Trump’s, who said the longtime Arizona senator should not be considered a hero even though he was held as a prisoner of war for more than five years and tortured after his aircraft was shot down during the Vietnam War. Of the former Navy pilot and 2008 GOP presidential nominee, Trump said “He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”
The senator, who has offered a tepid endorsement of Trump but has otherwise steered clear of discussing presidential politics, seemed to create for himself a loophole through which he could escape that endorsement at a later date. Amid a call for Trump to change the tone of his rhetoric, McCain said that "while our Party has bestowed upon him the nomination, it is not accompanied by unfettered license to defame those who are the best among us."
"Lastly, I’d like to say to Mr. and Mrs. Khan: thank you for immigrating to America,” McCain said in closing his statement. “We’re a better country because of you. And you are certainly right; your son was the best of America, and the memory of his sacrifice will make us a better nation – and he will never be forgotten."
Bernie's campaign manager
Bernie's campaign manager on what Hillary gets wrong
Jeff Weaver sits down for an 'Off Message' podcast to talk about comic books, Clintonism, and what Sanders understands about politics that she doesn't.
By Glenn Thrush
Hillary Clinton has an anger problem — she’s not angry enough at a time when 70 percent of voters think the country is on the wrong track.
One of the most conspicuous worriers is Jeff Weaver — architect of Sanders’ historic insurgency — who floated his doubt about Clinton like a retirement-party balloon during a sit-down for POLITICO’s “Off Message” podcast on the final day of the convention last week.
“I certainly think she can win, yes. ... But it’s going to be much closer than many people think,” Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager and close friend, told me. “I think some people on the Democratic side who think that, you know, Trump is such a buffoon that it’s already won — but I think he’s a very dangerous opponent and I think he certainly has the ability to win as well.”
Weaver was a ferocious (and sometimes snarling) Clinton foil during the primaries, but he’s no Bernie-or-Bust dead-ender. More than anyone other than the candidate himself, Weaver is responsible for monthlong negotiations that led to the runner-up’s effective (if somewhat graceless) convention-hall surrender, talks that gained significant concessions from Clinton on college aid, Wall Street reform and her commitment to back a public option retrofit for Obamacare.
Weaver, sitting in darkness when a thunderstorm knocked out power to POLITICO’s convention hub, told me something I hadn’t heard before: Sanders didn’t want to be tapped as Clinton’s vice president — and in that sense he was in complete accord with the party’s nominee.
“Bernie was never really that interested in being vice president,” Weaver told me. “Because he's a fierce advocate for what he believes, and, you know, often the role of vice president is to stand behind the president, nodding. ... I mean, Joe Biden sort of epitomizes the sort of dutiful vice president who, you know, supports the president regardless.”
But Weaver thinks Bernie was dead wrong: A Clinton-Sanders ticket would be a lot more effective in tapping the white working-class discontent mined by Trump (and Sanders) than Clinton-Kaine. “My personal view?” he answered when I asked whether Sanders would make a better veep candidate.
“Yeah, sure. Of course. I do. Absolutely.”
Weaver, who was reared in New England but lives in Virginia’s D.C. burbs, describes himself as a mostly faithful Democrat and says that he’s voted for Tim Kaine for Senate.
When I asked him whether his boss had become a “capital D Democrat” after the primaries, he was more equivocal. “In some ways, sure,” he said of Sanders’ partisan fealty. “I would call him an independent Democrat.” He also likes “sewer socialist” — Sanders’ moniker as Burlington’s waste-pipe obsessed mayor.
Weaver has come a long way from Vermont. He’s gone from backbencher's coat-holder to national political player, and thinks Clinton would be foolish not to fold Sanders’ passionate message into her own. Her basic problem, he told me, is a cramped narrowness as a politician, and he painstakingly explained how his boss gets it and Clinton doesn’t, at least not yet.
The nominee (and her staff of White House policy veterans) think of solutions in terms of tweaking existing programs, which alienates change-hungry voters, especially as Clinton pitches herself as a third-term Obama with a more muscular foreign policy.
“One of the problems that the Clinton people have, which is more of a process problem than a substance problem, is that their packaging often is very wonky and not clear enough,” he told me. “You have to be able to talk about your 20-page policy in a bumper sticker. Do you know what I mean? We had policies but we also had the bumper sticker that represented those policies. … Trump has bumper stickers but no policies.”
Sanders, in Weaver’s telling, isn’t naïve or overly vague, as Clinton charged during the primaries. He was clever enough to know that voters don’t need to be shown how the engine works to buy the car.
“Bernie thinks about it backwards — what is the outcome that he wants, right?" he said. "So if it was free tuition of public colleges and universities, that becomes the starting point and then you work backwards from there in terms of how you design the policy to fit the outcome that you want, as opposed to noodling around policy and then seeing what the outcome is.”
He added: “Bernie is very much in favor of creating simple, universal programs.”
Weaver's two defining characteristics are witty Yankee reserve and a body-and-soul belief in Sanders’ brand of pragmatic socialism. There’s also something vaguely monastic (or, at least, cinematically monastic in a “Name of the Rose” way) about the 50-year-old Weaver, with that fringe of white hair circumnavigating his bare dome and thin, trimmed beard bracketing wry, at times fanatical, eyes.
The best political operatives — even the ones who project buttoned-up efficiency — tend to be a little eccentric, combining aggressiveness and creativity in equal measure. Weaver may be an outsider (he wears his suits uncomfortably, like a shopkeeper forced to appear in small-claims court) but he, too, fits the artist-assassin mold.
Just about everything you need to know about Weaver (and why he’s Sanders’ most trusted adviser, next to the senator’s wife, Jane) was more or less summed up by his three turbulent years at Boston University in the ’80s. Here was a kid from sleepy, rural Vermont who wanted to make an impact — with skull against wall, if necessary. As a freshman he signed up for the Marines ROTC chapter before getting swept up in the progressive movements of the day. By junior year, he was booted out of school for setting up an anti-apartheid shantytown on campus and blocking cops dispatched to tear it down.
A concurrent stream of his life was fantasy — in tights. From an early age, he submerged himself in classic comic books: His grandmother bought him his first Justice League flimsy from a dime-store spinner rack, he recalled. He loves the early Spiderman series, the stark, minimalist first frames drawn by illustrator Steve Ditka, who created the superhero with his better-known partner Stan Lee.
“I grew up in a small town,” said Weaver, who was otherwise parsimonious with autobiographical detail. “I’m from St. Albans, Vermont, and, you know, they took you to another place.”
In 2009, after two decades on Sanders’ staff (he began as a driver for the then-Burlington mayor and rose to become chief of staff in Sanders’ House office), he needed a break from the indefatigable Bernie and started a successful, seven-employee comic-book store in Falls Church, Virginia, which specializes in the Comic Con convention trade. When you get Weaver’s cellphone voice mail, he identifies himself as proprietor of Victory Comics, and, like the pen-and-ink heroes he idolizes, it serves as a sort of docile alter ego for his take-no-prisoners political persona.
“I do own a screen-worn “Beneath the Planet of the Apes” gorilla uniform,” he tells me, adjusting his large-framed glasses. “I have not worn it. No, no. It’s made for a much smaller person than me.”
Sanders and Weaver are both emotional guys, their friends say, but they share a common reticence about expressing themselves in public. Weaver’s stems from his northern upbringing, whereas in Sanders’ case it seems like a reaction to a childhood in the gabby, Woody Allen Brooklyn of the 1950s.
It took me a good five minutes for me to get Weaver to concede that the Tuesday roll call in Philly — which featured a dozen or more emotional testimonials to Sanders by supporters — personally moved the candidate beyond the recognition that he had moved the party to the left.
“That’s not his shtick,” he said.
But Sanders was clearly “verklempt,” I countered.
“OK … I'm sure to be standing there in front of the Democratic Convention with a sea of people with Bernie signs, really sort of validated what he has been talking about for the last 15 months in this campaign, but the last 40 years of his life, 50 years.”
History is as important to Weaver as it is to Sanders. And his beef, he told me, is less with Hillary Clinton, who has proved to be a progressive and accommodating partner, than with her husband. If anything, he’s committed to ensuring that the wife take a sledgehammer to her husband’s moth-eaten Clintonism, the centrist Third Way vision that spawned NAFTA, welfare reform and the dismantling of Hillary Clinton’s health-care crusade.
“I think we’re back now more into the historic trajectory of the Democratic Party, more towards sort of the social Democratic Party, and I think it’s heading in that direction,” Weaver added, before leaving to watch Clinton’s nomination speech.
“I think the ’90s were really an aberration.”
Jeff Weaver sits down for an 'Off Message' podcast to talk about comic books, Clintonism, and what Sanders understands about politics that she doesn't.
By Glenn Thrush
Hillary Clinton has an anger problem — she’s not angry enough at a time when 70 percent of voters think the country is on the wrong track.
One of the most conspicuous worriers is Jeff Weaver — architect of Sanders’ historic insurgency — who floated his doubt about Clinton like a retirement-party balloon during a sit-down for POLITICO’s “Off Message” podcast on the final day of the convention last week.
“I certainly think she can win, yes. ... But it’s going to be much closer than many people think,” Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager and close friend, told me. “I think some people on the Democratic side who think that, you know, Trump is such a buffoon that it’s already won — but I think he’s a very dangerous opponent and I think he certainly has the ability to win as well.”
Weaver was a ferocious (and sometimes snarling) Clinton foil during the primaries, but he’s no Bernie-or-Bust dead-ender. More than anyone other than the candidate himself, Weaver is responsible for monthlong negotiations that led to the runner-up’s effective (if somewhat graceless) convention-hall surrender, talks that gained significant concessions from Clinton on college aid, Wall Street reform and her commitment to back a public option retrofit for Obamacare.
Weaver, sitting in darkness when a thunderstorm knocked out power to POLITICO’s convention hub, told me something I hadn’t heard before: Sanders didn’t want to be tapped as Clinton’s vice president — and in that sense he was in complete accord with the party’s nominee.
“Bernie was never really that interested in being vice president,” Weaver told me. “Because he's a fierce advocate for what he believes, and, you know, often the role of vice president is to stand behind the president, nodding. ... I mean, Joe Biden sort of epitomizes the sort of dutiful vice president who, you know, supports the president regardless.”
But Weaver thinks Bernie was dead wrong: A Clinton-Sanders ticket would be a lot more effective in tapping the white working-class discontent mined by Trump (and Sanders) than Clinton-Kaine. “My personal view?” he answered when I asked whether Sanders would make a better veep candidate.
“Yeah, sure. Of course. I do. Absolutely.”
Weaver, who was reared in New England but lives in Virginia’s D.C. burbs, describes himself as a mostly faithful Democrat and says that he’s voted for Tim Kaine for Senate.
When I asked him whether his boss had become a “capital D Democrat” after the primaries, he was more equivocal. “In some ways, sure,” he said of Sanders’ partisan fealty. “I would call him an independent Democrat.” He also likes “sewer socialist” — Sanders’ moniker as Burlington’s waste-pipe obsessed mayor.
Weaver has come a long way from Vermont. He’s gone from backbencher's coat-holder to national political player, and thinks Clinton would be foolish not to fold Sanders’ passionate message into her own. Her basic problem, he told me, is a cramped narrowness as a politician, and he painstakingly explained how his boss gets it and Clinton doesn’t, at least not yet.
The nominee (and her staff of White House policy veterans) think of solutions in terms of tweaking existing programs, which alienates change-hungry voters, especially as Clinton pitches herself as a third-term Obama with a more muscular foreign policy.
“One of the problems that the Clinton people have, which is more of a process problem than a substance problem, is that their packaging often is very wonky and not clear enough,” he told me. “You have to be able to talk about your 20-page policy in a bumper sticker. Do you know what I mean? We had policies but we also had the bumper sticker that represented those policies. … Trump has bumper stickers but no policies.”
Sanders, in Weaver’s telling, isn’t naïve or overly vague, as Clinton charged during the primaries. He was clever enough to know that voters don’t need to be shown how the engine works to buy the car.
“Bernie thinks about it backwards — what is the outcome that he wants, right?" he said. "So if it was free tuition of public colleges and universities, that becomes the starting point and then you work backwards from there in terms of how you design the policy to fit the outcome that you want, as opposed to noodling around policy and then seeing what the outcome is.”
He added: “Bernie is very much in favor of creating simple, universal programs.”
Weaver's two defining characteristics are witty Yankee reserve and a body-and-soul belief in Sanders’ brand of pragmatic socialism. There’s also something vaguely monastic (or, at least, cinematically monastic in a “Name of the Rose” way) about the 50-year-old Weaver, with that fringe of white hair circumnavigating his bare dome and thin, trimmed beard bracketing wry, at times fanatical, eyes.
The best political operatives — even the ones who project buttoned-up efficiency — tend to be a little eccentric, combining aggressiveness and creativity in equal measure. Weaver may be an outsider (he wears his suits uncomfortably, like a shopkeeper forced to appear in small-claims court) but he, too, fits the artist-assassin mold.
Just about everything you need to know about Weaver (and why he’s Sanders’ most trusted adviser, next to the senator’s wife, Jane) was more or less summed up by his three turbulent years at Boston University in the ’80s. Here was a kid from sleepy, rural Vermont who wanted to make an impact — with skull against wall, if necessary. As a freshman he signed up for the Marines ROTC chapter before getting swept up in the progressive movements of the day. By junior year, he was booted out of school for setting up an anti-apartheid shantytown on campus and blocking cops dispatched to tear it down.
A concurrent stream of his life was fantasy — in tights. From an early age, he submerged himself in classic comic books: His grandmother bought him his first Justice League flimsy from a dime-store spinner rack, he recalled. He loves the early Spiderman series, the stark, minimalist first frames drawn by illustrator Steve Ditka, who created the superhero with his better-known partner Stan Lee.
“I grew up in a small town,” said Weaver, who was otherwise parsimonious with autobiographical detail. “I’m from St. Albans, Vermont, and, you know, they took you to another place.”
In 2009, after two decades on Sanders’ staff (he began as a driver for the then-Burlington mayor and rose to become chief of staff in Sanders’ House office), he needed a break from the indefatigable Bernie and started a successful, seven-employee comic-book store in Falls Church, Virginia, which specializes in the Comic Con convention trade. When you get Weaver’s cellphone voice mail, he identifies himself as proprietor of Victory Comics, and, like the pen-and-ink heroes he idolizes, it serves as a sort of docile alter ego for his take-no-prisoners political persona.
“I do own a screen-worn “Beneath the Planet of the Apes” gorilla uniform,” he tells me, adjusting his large-framed glasses. “I have not worn it. No, no. It’s made for a much smaller person than me.”
Sanders and Weaver are both emotional guys, their friends say, but they share a common reticence about expressing themselves in public. Weaver’s stems from his northern upbringing, whereas in Sanders’ case it seems like a reaction to a childhood in the gabby, Woody Allen Brooklyn of the 1950s.
It took me a good five minutes for me to get Weaver to concede that the Tuesday roll call in Philly — which featured a dozen or more emotional testimonials to Sanders by supporters — personally moved the candidate beyond the recognition that he had moved the party to the left.
“That’s not his shtick,” he said.
But Sanders was clearly “verklempt,” I countered.
“OK … I'm sure to be standing there in front of the Democratic Convention with a sea of people with Bernie signs, really sort of validated what he has been talking about for the last 15 months in this campaign, but the last 40 years of his life, 50 years.”
History is as important to Weaver as it is to Sanders. And his beef, he told me, is less with Hillary Clinton, who has proved to be a progressive and accommodating partner, than with her husband. If anything, he’s committed to ensuring that the wife take a sledgehammer to her husband’s moth-eaten Clintonism, the centrist Third Way vision that spawned NAFTA, welfare reform and the dismantling of Hillary Clinton’s health-care crusade.
“I think we’re back now more into the historic trajectory of the Democratic Party, more towards sort of the social Democratic Party, and I think it’s heading in that direction,” Weaver added, before leaving to watch Clinton’s nomination speech.
“I think the ’90s were really an aberration.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)