Adding outrageous insult to homicide

 
Tamir Rice was the 12 year old African-American boy who was fatally shot by a certifiably unqualified, rookie policeman for playing in a public park with a toy gun -- which the inexperienced, panicky officer just assumed was real and that Tamir was about to shoot him.

We wouldn't even know about the case, because the officers lied in their report to cover up what really happened.  Only there was one of those ubiquitous security video monitors scanning the area.

It wasn't enough to overcome the rigged system that allows police officers to hear all the evidence against them presented to a grand jury -- and then to give their own story to the same grand jury without being questioned by the victim's attorney.   And, so, of course, no indictment was brought against the officer in this case of police-inflicted homicide.

That's all bad enough.   But now -- it's hard to even write this -- the City of Cleveland has filed a creditor's claim against the Tamir Rice estate for a past due $500 bill for emergency medical treatment for this boy for his gunshot wounds from the City of Cleveland's policeman who killed him.

The city had already had to apologize to the Rice family last year for a legal filing that blamed Tamir for his own death.  Can you think of anything else that they can do to mishandle this case any worse than has been done?

Ralph

"A different kind of politics is possible . . . "

OK, so this came as a letter from MoveOn.org, raising money for Bernie Sanders.   But read the message.   It's a pretty exciting prospect.

Anyway, here's the letter.   See what you think.

Bernie Sanders just won New Hampshire in a landslide.
Not long ago, this would've seemed like, yes, a dream. Now it's a reality. And—can you believe it?—if we come together now, we have a chance to redefine politics for a generation.

In New Hampshire, Bernie won among just about everyone. Women and men, middle class and working class and poor, middle-aged and—most of all, in a blowout—young voters.

Bernie won among those who believe the system is rigged, and that the government should work for everyone. Turns out, that's a huge majority of New Hampshire Democrats.

There used to be a time when Democratic politicians were afraid of their own shadows. Not anymore. From now on, every Democrat can see, clear as day, that an unapologetic progressive agenda is a road to victory.

Yes, this is actually happening. And if the millions of us who've stepped up keep this going, and millions more join the movement, it will keep happening—all across the country.

Until someone shows that something can be done, nobody believes it can be done.

But the movement backing Bernie is busting through political myths one after another. We're showing that a different kind of politics is possible. And if a different kind of politics is possible, another world is possible, too.

What an exciting prospect.  I even begin to see some appeal to some of those voters now in the Republican camp who aren't necessarily there because they are conservative -- but because they want something fundamentally different in politics and government.

Ralph

NH: big night for Sanders, Trump, Kasich

Fascinating night of election returns and analysis in New Hampshire with big wins for Sanders, Trump, and Kasich, all of whom exceeded expectations.   As of this writing (Tuesday at midnight), 81% of the vote has been counted.

Bernie Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton by 60% to 39%.   He won in seemingly disparate demographic groups:  both gun owners and those who consider themselves "very liberal."  He of course won with young people under 30 by 85%.

According to exit polls, Sanders won 77% of Independents.  He won big with those who said these factors were of major importance to them:   honesty (92%), wants an outsider (89%), cares about people (81%), and worried about the economy (71%).  But here's the surprise:   he beat Clinton with women voters by 53% to 47%.

On the Republican side, Trump won with 35%, with Kasich taking second place with 16%.   Cruz, Bush, and Rubio were still battling it out for 3rd-4th-5th places around 11-12%, all within 1% of each other -- although the Cruz-Bush-Rubio order, slim as it is, has stuck throughout the evening.

Christie came in 6th place at 8%, with Fiorino at 4% and Carson at 2%.   Christie had earlier said he would be going to South Carolina tonight.  After the returns were so disappointing for him, his campaign announced he would be going back to New Jersey to reevaluate the strategy. 

Here are some additional thoughts about the results:

1.  By choosing Sanders and Trump, New Hampshire sent a clear message.   It was a repudiation of the establishment and the status quo -- and that includes political, economic, and the media.

2.  Christie's attack in the debate hurt Rubio, knocking him out of the second place win he needed in NH.   But it actually hurt Christie himself (as I suggested on Tuesday), and now it looks like he will probably be dropping out.

3.  Sanders' better-than-expectations win in New Hampshire cannot be dismissed as "next door neighbor," as Clinton supporters want to make it.   If it were that, why did he start out thirty points behind her in the polls -- and then finish 20 points ahead?   He was a NH neighbor from the beginning.

4.  He won because people see Clinton as establishment, too cozy with Wall Street (what did she tell the Goldman Sachs big wigs in that speech they paid her $150,000 to give?);*  and because they see Sanders as more authentic, more honest, and more attuned to their needs.

5.  Bernie Sanders got more total votes by far than Donald Trump did;  and, in fact, it may turn out that so did Hillary Clinton.   Remember, he won the NH primary with only 35% of the vote, because of the large number of candidates.

6.  I include Kasich as a winner, because I see him as winning the contest among the four establishment candidates, which gives him a needed big boost.  But will the GOP establishment and donors now embrace him?   Will he, along with Sanders and Trump, be able to win in other primaries going forward?   We now head south.  Is this winning territory for them?  Or is this just a blip on the way to someone else being nominated -- as New Hampshire often is.

7.  Kasich may catch on with voters.   He really found his footing in NH, and voters connected with his decency, his reasonableness, and his authenticity.   Rachel Maddow was there and observed both Kasich and Christie in their rallies.    She said, apart from the substance of what either of them said, their engagement with the people was vastly different.   Christie "performed" for the crowd.   But Kasich really listened, made a connection with each person, and actually engaged in a conversation with them.   Bernie Sanders has the same quality.   That, as they say, is yuuuge.   Especially in a place like New Hampshire. 

Ralph

* Correction:   Clinton was paid $675,000 for three speeches to Goldman Sachs. 

For two states: Israel and Palestine

Many people think the idea of a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is dead as long as Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right coalition are in power.   In fact, Natanyahu has said as much himself:   It will not happen as long as he is prime minister.

Last week, there appeared a full page ad in the New York Times under the headline "Israel's Security Chiefs Agree."   There were pictures and previously published quotes of six Chiefs of Staff from the Israel Defense Forces, six Directors of the Domestic Security Agency, and six heads of Mossad, the Israel Intelligence Agency.

They were all supporting the two-state solution above the banner:  "It's Time:  Two States for Two People."  On a pragmatic note was a side-bar with the predicted population breakdown in Israel:

2015     52% Jewish

2020     49% Jewish

2030     44% Jewish

Assuming that trend bears out, it seems that Israel can only remain a Jewish state if it does allow -- and cooperate in establishing -- a separate State of Palestine.   Otherwise, Israel will no longer have a majority Jewish population.

It is also a moral problem.   It's time to stop the occupation -- and the violence from both sides.    Restart the peace process -- and mean it.

Ralph

Why Rubio's gaffe was so damaging - or maybe not.

In the Republican debate, Chris Christie expertly, surgically attacked Marco Rubio on his most vulnerable two areas:   his youthful inexperience and his robot-like turning any question into a recitation of his memorized talking points.  He doesn't really respond substantively to questions;  he just finds the pivot and goes into talking point mode.

Christie jabbed him about repeating his "25 second memorized speech."   And Rubio's response was to do exactly that, again and again.  All Christie had to do was say:   "See, here comes the memorized speech again;  that's what he does."  And then Rubio did it again.

David Frum, a thoughtful neoconservative commentator and former speechwriter for George W. Bush, explained why this was so damaging for Rubio.

Politicians often repeat talking points, but they do it to emphasize their message.   But Rubio's repeating the same lines four times within a few minutes "was a display of panic at a moment of uncertainty."   He was faced with a new situation, "couldn't figure out what to do, and so did precisely the wrong thing."

This really called into question his readiness to be a commander in chief, who has to deal with the unexpected that demands quick thinking and wise judgment.

Frum rebutted the frequently made comparison with Barack Obama, who was also a first-term senator with little record on which to be judged.   Frum says that sponsoring the Gang of Eight bipartisan immigration reform bill is the one piece of legislation on which to judge Rubio -- and, from the Republican point of view, he "got the answer massively wrong."

Now Rubio has reversed himself on that but has had trouble finding a coherent answer to why he signed on as a co-sponsor in the first place.  (Of course, those who favor immigration reform think it was a good thing.)   Frum raises the question of "how well he ever understood what he was doing? . . . Was he merely a personable front man?  Was he outwitted by Chuck Schumer"  What did he learn from what he himself now describes as error?"

Frum goes on with the comparison with Obama.  "Candidate Obama in 2008 was dangerously untested yes, but he was obviously a man of profound depths.  Obama had laid out his whole philosophy of life in a massive, highly self-aware and very revealing memoir."

"With Rubio, though, Republicans are asked to nominate an unknown quantity - wrong by his own admission on his most important decision. . . .  Last night, they got a maybe unfair glimpse of the kind of president he’d be when the pressure was on. . . .   [But] The world instantly tests new presidents. Nobody can be fully ready. But some are more ready; some are less - and less is dangerous."

*     *     *

That is a sobering reflection by someone whose opinion probably coincides with the more moderate, establishment core of the Republican Party.   It does not bode well for Rubio's once-thought inevitablility as their man.

While I agree with Frum's analysis, there is logic in Rubio's emphasis on the point he kept repeating:    "Obama knows exactly what he's doing.   He wants to change this country."    Why is this important to Rubio?   It rebuts the charge of inexperience, which he himself is being accused of.   So he's saying that it's not that Obama came in without experience and doesn't have a clue what he's doing (which all the others are charging)   No, he knows exactly what he is doing;  it's just profoundly wrong.  Ergo, it's OK that he, Rubio, has no experience, because he will do what's right.

It's understandable that he would make that argument.  But he needs to find different ways to say it so he doesn't sound like a recording machine.

On the other hand, Vox's Andrew Prokop reported a different view from a Rubio town hall full of Timberland employees, just two days prior to the debate.

"I saw something quite different — a skilled, eloquent, and talented political performer who could expertly modify his message depending on whom he was addressing. . . .  To this nonpartisan crowd, Rubio worked hard to portray himself as pragmatic, positive, and connected to working people's struggles. 

"He also brought to mind Obama in 2008: the young, handsome, likable candidate who offered a new approach, and whose words just made people feel good.  I felt like I was getting a glimpse into how Rubio would campaign if he did end up winning the nomination, and it seemed that he truly could appeal to a broader range of voters than most Republicans.

"Far from being robotic, Rubio came off as quite personally appealing and adept at reaching people."

So there you have it.   Obviously, Rubio was the man who conducted that town hall -- and also the man who got rattled by Chris Christie.    Will voters have time to let the Saturday night image and all the subsequent media frenzy sink into the overall picture? 

Polls taken since that debate suggest Rubio's momentum has slowed, but there's been no precipitous drop either.   In less than 24 hours, we should know what the voters say.   And that will have a lot of influence on what the donors decide to do -- i.e., whether to shift from Bush to Rubio . . . or Kasich?

Ralph