HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » markpkessinger » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 60 Next »

markpkessinger

Profile Information

Member since: Sat May 15, 2010, 04:48 PM
Number of posts: 7,595

Journal Archives

The fraud that is Jeanine Pirro

So, I happened to listen to a clip of Jeanine Pirro earlier today (something I normally try to avoid at all costs). And suddenly, I found myself wondering, "What is up with that accent of hers?" I have lived in NYC for 36 years, and I have a pretty good ear for accents generally. And hers doesn't sound like an authentic NY metro accent at all, but rather like a rather bad parody of one.

So I looked up her background on Wikipedia. Here's what it says:
Jeanine Ferris was born 1951 in Elmira, New York, to Lebanese-American parents Nasser "Leo" and Esther Ferris (née Awad).[5][6] Her father was a mobile-home salesman, and her mother was a department-store model. Pirro knew she wanted to be an attorney from the age of six.[7]

She graduated from Notre Dame High School in Elmira in three years, interning in the Chemung County District Attorney's office during her time in high school.[7][8][6] Pirro then graduated with a Bachelor of Arts from the University at Buffalo. She received her J.D. degree at Albany Law School of Union University in 1975, where she was an editor of the law review.

If you know anything about the various accents around the different parts of New York state, you know that nothing in the background above accounts for a New York metro accent, much less such a heavy, exaggerated one!

She's a fraud and a phony, just like her idol!

Posted by markpkessinger | Thu Mar 19, 2020, 08:20 PM (4 replies)

Let's talk about the time Mike Bloomberg spent millions to reelect Republican Pat Toomey in Pa.

This story has received much too little attention! From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Let’s talk about the time Mike Bloomberg spent millions to reelect Republican Pat Toomey in Pa.

Mike Mikus remembers it as a “kick in the gut.”

Amid one of the most pivotal campaigns in the country in 2016, one many thought could decide control of the Senate, Mike Bloomberg poured millions of dollars into the contest — to help Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey.

“It helped both operationally in terms of the money spent, but it also allowed Pat Toomey to use that endorsement to create a false impression that he’s a moderate,” said Mikus, a consultant who worked for Toomey’s Democratic opponent, Katie McGinty.

Bloomberg, now a rising Democratic candidate for president, used his television ads to vouch for Toomey as a centrist problem solver. Toomey was one of the few Republicans in Congress to support expanded background checks for gun purchases, an issue on which Bloomberg has backed candidates in both parties. [continue reading]


The article goes on to point out that Bloomberg supported Toomey over Democrat Katie McGinty. And much as Bloomberg loves to tout his anti-gun record, McGinty supported much more robust gun regulation!
Posted by markpkessinger | Wed Feb 19, 2020, 04:38 PM (41 replies)

Video and transcript of Romney's speech!

I have rarely, if ever, had occasion to praise Mitt Romney. But his speech on the Senate floor this afternoon, in which he announced his intention to convict Trump, is one for the ages. Below is the video, and below that, a transcript. This is a must-see (even though it won't ultimately make any difference in the outcome). Hats off to you, Sir!



Transcript:

Mr. President, the Constitution is at the foundation of our republic’s success, and we each strive not to lose sight of our promise to defend it. The Constitution established the vehicle of impeachment that has occupied both Houses of our Congress these many days as we have labored to faithfully execute our responsibilities. To it we have arrived at different judgments, but I hope we respect each other's good faith.

The allegations made in the articles of impeachment are very serious. As a senator-juror, I swore an oath before God to exercise impartial justice. I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I am. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the President – the leader of my own party – would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced. I was not wrong.

The House managers presented evidence supporting their case and the White House Counsel disputed that case. In addition, the President's team presented three defenses: first, that there could be no impeachment without a statutory crime; second, the Biden's can conduct justified the President's actions; and third, that the judgment of the President's action should be left to the voters. Let me first address those three defenses.

The historic meaning of the words, “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the writings of the founders, and my own recent judgment convinced me that a President can indeed commit acts against the public trusts that are so egregious that while they are not statutory crimes, they would demand removal from office. To maintain that the lack of a codified and comprehensive list of all the outrageous acts that a President might conceivably commit renders Congress powerless to remove such a President, defies reason.

The President's counsel also notes that Vice President Biden appeared to have a conflict of interest when he undertook an effort to remove the Ukrainian prosecutor general if he knew of the exorbitant compensation his son was receiving from a company. Actually, under, investigation the Vice President should have recused himself. While ignoring a conflict of interest is not a crime, it is surely very wrong, With regards to Hunter Biden taking excessive advantage of his father's name, [it] is unsavory but also not a crime given that, in neither the case of the father nor the son was any evidence presented by the President's counsel that a crime had been committed. The President's insistence that they be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain other than as a political pursuit. There's no question in my mind that were their names not Biden, the President would never have done what he did.

The defense argues that the Senate should leave the impeachment decision to the voters. While that logic is appealing to our democratic instincts, it is inconsistent with the Constitution's requirement that the Senate, not the voters, try the President. Hamilton explained that the founders’ decision to invest senators with this obligation rather than leave it to the voters was intended to minimize, to the extent possible, the partisan sentiments of the public at large. So the verdict is ours to render under our Constitution. The people will judge us for how well and faithfully we fulfill our duty.

The grave question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the President committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanors. Yes, he did. The President asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival. The President withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so. The President delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders. The President's purpose was personal and political. Accordingly, the President is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust. What he did was not perfect; no, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security and our fundamental values. Corrupting an election to keep one's self in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one's oath of office that I can imagine.

In the last several weeks, I've received numerous calls and texts many demanded in their words that I stand with the team. I can assure you that that thought has been very much in my mind. You see, I support a great deal of what the President has done. I voted with him 80% of the time. But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and political biases aside. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented, and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history's rebuke and the censure of my own conscience. I'm aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters, I will be vehemently denounced. I'm sure to hear abuse from the President and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe that I would consent to these consequences other than from an an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?

I sought to hear testimony from John Bolton not only because I believed he could add context to the charges, but also because I hoped that what he might say could raise a reasonable doubt and thus remove from me the awful obligation to vote for impeachment. Like each member of this deliberative body, I love our country. I believe that our Constitution was inspired by Providence. I'm convinced that freedom itself is dependent on the strength and vitality of our national character as it is with each senator. My vote is an act of conviction. We've come to different conclusions, fellow senators, but I trust we have all followed the dictates of our conscience. I acknowledge that my verdict will not remove the President from office.

The results of this Senate Court will, in fact, be appealed to a higher court: the judgment of the American people. Voters will make the final decision, just as the President's lawyers have implored. My vote will likely be in the minority in the Senate. But irrespective of these things, with my vote I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability, believing that my country expected it of me. I will only be one name among many – no more, no less – to future generations of Americans who look at the record of this trial. They will note merely that I was among the Senators who determined that what the President did was wrong; grievously wrong.

We are all, footnotes, at best, in the annals of history. But in the most powerful nation on earth, the nation conceived in liberty and justice, that distinction is enough for any citizen. Thank you, Mr. President

Posted by markpkessinger | Wed Feb 5, 2020, 04:18 PM (8 replies)

It is beyond strange that people think 1972 is a better predictor of 2020 than 2016

The mantra of centrists is that if Bernie (and some include Warren in this as well) is nominated that it will be 1972 all over again.

This idea rests on some faulty assumptions.

First, it rests on the assumption that the electorate hasn't changed since 1972.

It also ignores the fact that among those Baby Boomers who were old enough to vote in 1972, McGovern did NOT lose. His loss can be attributed primarily to the WWII generation, most of whom are no longer with us. My parents were of that generation. They couldn't seem to get it through their heads that Vietnam was not WWII; the idea that the government would lie about the reasons for going to war was inconceivable to them, as it was for many WWII veterans and the people of their age. McGovern lost primarily because that generation saw his anti-war stance as unpatriotic. Most voters today should know better. In fact, McGovern's stance was on the right side of history.

A far better predictor of what will happen in 2020 is, I submit, 2016, when the party's insistence on going with an establishment favorite against a faux populist, at a time when anti-establishment fervor was running at a high resulted in an all-too-predictable outcome.
Posted by markpkessinger | Thu Jan 30, 2020, 02:29 AM (62 replies)

In honor of Justice Ginsburg's latest recovery!





Posted by markpkessinger | Sun Jan 12, 2020, 08:56 PM (0 replies)

Was inspired to create these after reading of Justice Ginsburg's recovery!





Posted by markpkessinger | Sun Jan 12, 2020, 08:47 PM (1 replies)

Trump's Grandiose Delusions

Years ago I had a distant relative, now deceased, who suffered from grandiose delusions. In his younger years, it seemed like it was merely a case of a grossly inflated ego (he was convinced of his own superior intelligence). As he got older, that morphed into a belief that he was the object of every woman's desire (trust me, he wasn't). Eventually, he had a full psychotic break, replete with delusions of his own divinity.

Sound familiar?

Never, ever in my wildest dreams did I imagine such a person would occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. One might think Trump voters would begin to question their own political judgment, but . . . I'm not exactly holding my breath for that to happen!
Posted by markpkessinger | Sat Aug 24, 2019, 02:33 AM (1 replies)

I want to live in Elizabeth Warren's America

I absolutely love this op-ed from the New York Times!

I Want to Live in Elizabeth Warren’s America

By Farhad Manjoo

t’s early, but this much is true: Elizabeth Warren is running the most impressive presidential campaign in ages, certainly the most impressive campaign within my lifetime.

I don’t mean that the Massachusetts senator is a better speaker than anyone who has ever run, nor a more strident revolutionary, nor as charismatic a shaper of her public image. It’s not even that she has better ideas than her opponents, though on a range of issues she certainly does.

I’m impressed instead by something more simple and elemental: Warren actually has ideas. She has grand, detailed and daring ideas, and through these ideas she is single-handedly elevating the already endless slog of the 2020 presidential campaign into something weightier and more interesting than what it might otherwise have been: a frivolous contest about who hates Donald Trump most.

Warren’s approach is ambitious and unconventional. She is betting on depth in a shallow, tweet-driven world. By offering so much honest detail so early, she risks turning off key constituencies, alienating donors and muddying the gauzy visionary branding that is the fuel for so much early horse-race coverage. It’s worth noting that it took Warren months of campaigning and reams of policy proposals to earn her a spot on the cover of Time Magazine. Meanwhile, because they match the culture’s Aaron Sorkinian picture of what a smart progressive looks like, Beto and Buttigieg — whose policy depth can be measured in tossed-off paragraphs — are awarded fawning coverage just for showing up male.

Continue reading at The New York Times . . .
Posted by markpkessinger | Thu Jun 6, 2019, 03:55 PM (31 replies)

A note of appreciation for Mayor Pete . . .

I am supporting Elizabeth Warren, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. But I wanted to express my appreciation for the way Pete Buttigieg handled himself in the Fox News town hall. Butiigieg answered every question that was put to him in a straightforward manner that wasn't at all cagey. What's more, he deftly evaded every rhetorical trap Chris Wallace tried to snare him with.

On a very loaded question about late-term abortions, Buttigieg beautifully flipped the paradigm. He said (and I am paraphrasing here, not directly quoting): "We're getting all hung up on where to draw the line, but in doing so, we're missing the crucial question of who gets to draw the line. I trust women to draw the line." It was the best possible response anyone could have given to that very loaded question.

When Wallace tried to trap him into a rivalry with Warren over his decision to appear in a Fox News town hall, he said (and I quote): "A lot of people in my party were critical of me doing this, and I get where that’s coming from, especially when you see what goes on with some of the opinion hosts on this network. I mean when you’ve got Tucker Carlson saying that immigrants make America dirty. When you’ve got Laura Ingraham comparing detention centers with children in cages to summer camps,” there is a reason why anybody has to swallow hard and think twice before participating in this media ecosystem.”

That answer was a stroke of brilliance, in that while being confident in his own decision to appear in a Fox News-hosted event, he managed at the same time to validate Elizabeth Warren's decision not to do so. I came away feeling glad that Elizabeth Warren made the decision she did, and equally glad that Mayor Pete made the decision he made.

Whatever happens in 2020, I predict that Mayor Pete has a very bright future in national politics! (Oh, and I think he'd make an ideal running mate for Elizabeth Warren!)
Posted by markpkessinger | Wed May 22, 2019, 04:34 PM (22 replies)

Those who have dismissed Warren as "unlikable," "unrelatable" or "unelectable" . . .

. . . really need to take another look.

Democrats who have bought into the idea that Elizabeth Warren is "unelectable" really need to take another look. In terms of laying out a clear and coherent policy agenda, she is miles ahead of any of the other candidates. A number of candidates have now joined her stance against appearing in any events hosted by Fox News, but it was Elizabeth Warren who led the way, and made such a compelling case.

She is leading the way in her development of economic policies. One of those policies, a plan to reach out to small business owners to get them to understand that their interests and those of giant corporations are fundamentally different (see The Atlantic, "Elizabeth Warren Has a Theory About Corporate Power" ), is a real innovation for a Democratic candidate. And in response to the outrageous abortion laws just passed in Georgia and Alabama, she has come out with a bold plan to protect a woman's right to choose.

This is what leadership looks like, folks.
Posted by markpkessinger | Fri May 17, 2019, 04:29 PM (87 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 60 Next »