Tag Archives: CNN Debate

Did Simple Nuclear-Triad Question Stump Trump?

The WORST Answer in Political Debate History? Luckily, Marco Rubio was there to teach Trump what a Nuclear Triad is…

(Source: The Young Turks / YouTube)

Washington (CNN) – Did a simple question about the nuclear triad stump aspiring commander-in-chief Donald Trump?

During Tuesday night’s CNN-hosted Republican debate, Trump gave a meandering response when conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt of Salem Radio Network asked about the U.S. nuclear capability.

“I think we need somebody, absolutely, that we can trust, who is totally responsible, who really knows what he or she is doing. That is so powerful and so important,” Trump said, before touting his opposition to the war in Iraq.

“But we have to be extremely vigilant and extremely careful when it comes to nuclear. Nuclear changes the whole ball game,” he added.

Hewitt followed up by asking which “of the three legs of the triad” was Trump’s priority.

“For me, nuclear, the power, the devastation, is very important to me,” Trump replied.

But “nuclear,” “the power” and “the devastation” aren’t the three legs of the U.S.’s nuclear triad.

So what are the components of the nuclear triad?

The nuclear triad refers to the three ways the U.S. is capable of firing nuclear weapons.

As Florida Sen. Marco Rubio explained during the debate following Trump’s mishmash of a response: “The triad is the ability of the United States to conduct nuclear attacks using airplanes, using missiles launched from silos from the ground and from our nuclear subs.”

To add a little more specificity, the planes are heavy bombers; the silos house intercontinental ballistic missiles and the submarines also use ballistic missiles to deliver a nuclear payload.

Rubio, who avoided attacking Trump on Tuesday, didn’t directly call out Trump for blanking on the national security question. Instead, he directed his explanation to the “people at home” who likely “have not heard that terminology before.”

The Trump campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment.

So why does the U.S. need three ways of delivering nukes?

Rubio summed it up as: “All three of them are critical. It gives us the ability at deterrence.”

In more expansive terms, they’re all key components because they protect the U.S.’s ability to launch nuclear strikes should one or two of those capabilities be destroyed.

If the underground silos backfire and the planes capable of delivering nuclear weapons get destroyed, the U.S. would still have stealthy nuclear submarines to deliver crippling strike.

The U.S. and Russia are the only two nuclear powers in the world to have triad capabilities, and both countries are eager to maintain that edge going forward.

Makes sense. So what’s so pressing that this had to be included in the debate?

All three components of the nuclear triad are aging and the next president is going to have to address that issue.

America’s nuclear submarines are all more than 30 years old and its most dominant bomber jets remain the 60-year-old B-52s. The Pentagon has also called for upgrading the U.S. arsenal of ICBMs, or intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The Pentagon has estimated that it will need to spend as much as $18 billion per year over the next 15 years — for a grand total of $270 billion — to modernize the nuclear triad.

Amid budget cuts on Capitol Hill, it’s struggled to come up with the funding to get that job done.

Written by: By Jeremy Diamond via CNN

R.I.P., GOP: Party of old, disillusioned white people is dying a slow death

Changing Demographics will be the death knell for the Republican Party — even though it may take White House in ’16

www872

Credit: Samuel-Warde

No matter who wins the nomination battle, the Republican Party has a much bigger problem: demographics. A new report released by the Center for American Progress analyzed the demographic advantages for Democrats in 2016 and beyond and the results are overwhelmingly positive.

And this should surprise no one.

Observers on both sides have long questioned the Republican Party’s viability in an increasingly progressive and less white America. With every national election, it becomes more obvious that the GOP’s “Southern Strategy,” which exploited racial and cultural resentment for votes, has finally backfired.

As The Nation’s William Greider wrote in October: “The GOP finds itself trapped in a marriage that has not only gone bad but is coming apart in full public view. After five decades of shrewd strategy, the Republican coalition Richard Nixon put together in 1968 – welcoming the segregationist white South into the Party of Lincoln – is no devouring itself in ugly, spiteful recriminations.”

Greider was responding to the resignation of House Speaker John Boehner, who left on account of the nihilistic Tea Party caucus. The Tea Party extremists in Congress, like the social conservatives who supported them, are part of a reactionary movement of cultural discontents whose only purpose is to negate and obstruct, and they’ve proven that in office.

This movement, which has consumed the Republican Party, consists primarily of old and disillusioned white people who are rejecting a world that, in many respects, has passed them by. The nativism, the xenophobia, the social hysteria, the religious demagoguery – this is what defines the GOP now, and it stems from the party’s cynical plot to capitalize on cultural angst nearly fifty years ago.

Although it worked in the short and medium-term, the “Southern Strategy” is now the most likely cause of death for the Republican Party. Republicans still hold 31 of 50 state governorships and they control most state legislatures, but that’s not the problem. Today and moving forward, the GOP will find it harder and harder to compete for national elections.

By appealing to the fears of culturally isolated white people, the Republican Party has created an intractable demand-side problem: Gradually, their platform has become dominated by social and religious issues which alienate nearly everyone outside of their base. Given the shifting demographics in this country, this portends doom for the GOP.

From the Center for American Progress report:

“Recent social trends present significant headwinds for Republicans, particularly as they relate to demographic shifts in the country. For years, Republicans could rely on white voters—and, in particular, working-class whites—to constitute a decisive proportion of the electorate and deliver victory. This is no longer the case. As documented in the 2014 “States of Change” report—published jointly by the Center for American Progress, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Brookings Institution—the percentage of white voters in the actual electorate dropped 15 percentage points, from 89 percent in 1976 to 74 percent in 2012. The percentage of white working-class voters dropped even more, decreasing by 26 points over the same period. Future projections in the “States of Change” report suggest that the percentage of eligible white voters in the American electorate will drop to 46 percent by 2060…The decline in the white percentage of the electorate has coincided with stronger Democratic identification and voting patterns among nonwhite voters, as well as increasingly more liberal social views among higher-educated white professionals.”

The writing is on the wall, in other words. In its current form, the GOP can’t survive, not if these projections are even remotely accurate. It will become a regional party, propped up by parochialism and gerrymandered districts. None of this means the Republicans can’t win in 2016. What it does mean, however, is that they’ll have to overcome a significant demographics disadvantage, a disadvantage that will only grow over time.

For the Democrats, the landscape is far more encouraging. Virtually all of the numbers favor a Democratic candidate in 2016:

“If the Democrats receive their 2012 levels of support among these three groups in 2016—an 11-point deficit among white college graduates; a 22-point deficit among white working-class voters; and a 64-point advantage among minority voters—the party will easily win the popular vote by a 6-point margin. If support for the Democrats among minorities declines to our more conservative estimate of 78 percent, they would still win the popular vote by 4 points. If, on top of that diminished minority support, white working-class support replicates the stunning 30-point deficit congressional Democrats suffered in 2014, while support among white college-graduates remains steady, the Democratic candidate would still win the popular vote—albeit by a slender margin. If, however, white college-graduate support also replicates its relatively weak 2014 performance for the Democrats—a 16-point deficit—Republicans would win the popular vote by a single point.”

The popular vote won’t decide the election, but it’s an indication of where the country is politically. The Democrats have won the popular vote in five of the last six presidential campaigns – that trend will continue and, eventually, it will translate into more and more electoral votes.

In 2016, all the Democrats need to do is hold on to the Obama coalition, and even that’s not entirely necessary. As the CAP report notes, the “sobering reality for Republicans is that the Democratic candidate will be able to absorb mild levels of defections or lower levels of turnout from its core voters in the general election and still capture an Electoral College majority.” Because of its over-reliance on white male voters, however, the GOP can’t win a national election unless turnout is historically low for the Democrats. And they still have to appeal to a cross-section non-ideological working-class voters. But the anger and the bitterness pulsating through their base at the moment will surely turn moderates and independents off, and the GOP can’t afford that.

Whatever happens next year, it’s clear that the GOP is slowly pandering its way into oblivion. The country has changed demographically, culturally, and politically – and the Democrats have changed with it. The Republican Party has not. And if Donald Trump’s present success is any indication, it’s headed in the wrong direction.

 

Written by  via SALON

Carly Fiorina said she’s been “called every b-word in the book” at the Republican debate

vox

Updated by  via VOX

Photo Source: The Daily Beast

Carly Fiorina said in her opening statement at the CNN Republican debate on Tuesday that she has been “called every b-word in the book.”

Fiorina clearly meant “bitch,” or perhaps “bossy” — in any case, a gendered insult. The comment, and indeed her entire opening statement, was heavily focused on the ways she has struggled to overcome specifically gender-based obstacles to get to the top.

In discussing her struggles and challenges, Fiorina led off with very gendered ones: “I have been tested. I have beaten breast cancer. I have buried a child.”

Then she transitioned into her corporate and political ladder climbing: “I started as a secretary. I fought my way to the top of corporate America while being called every b-word in the book. I fought my way into this election.”

And later on in the debate, Fiorina paraphrased Margaret Thatcher: “If you want something talked about, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman.”

It’s likely that Fiorina is trying to set herself up as an opponent who could neutralize one of Hillary Clinton‘s big talking points — her potential status as first woman president of the United States. That could diffuse Clinton’s support from people who generally want to see a woman president; one report found donors who gave to both Clinton and Fiorina, despite their stark differences on policy.

Fiorina may scorn liberal identity politics, but she has had no problem with the word “feminism,” or with discussing the ways that being a woman presents unique challenges to her that men don’t have to deal with. She calls out sexism when she sees it used against her, like her ad pushing back against Donald Trump for making fun of her face. “A feminist is a woman who lives the life she chooses,” Fiorina has said. “A woman may choose to have five children and home-school them. She may choose to become a CEO, or run for President.”

But Fiorina’s feminism is a very individualistic, have-it-all, lean-in, corporate type of feminism — one where any woman can make it to the top if she just “fights” hard enough. One where talking about comprehensive access to reproductive health care is actually an insult to women because it supposedly reduces them to their body parts and makes them dependent on government. And one that doesn’t acknowledge the structural challenges, from implicit bias in the workplace to the impossible “choice” between family income and child care, that make living “the life she chooses” easier said than done for too many American women.

Group Backing John Kasich Likens Donald Trump to Hippo in New Ad

HIPPO-CRIT

By NICK CORASANITI via NYTimes

New Day for America, a “super PAC” supporting Gov. John R. Kasich of Ohio, is aggressively attacking Donald J. Trump, now with a mocking commercial titled “Hippo-Crit” that suggests Mr. Trump belongs in the White House about as much as he belongs in a zoo.

On Screen

Mr. Trump and a hippopotamus, their mouths agape, alternate or share the screen, as a visual device resembles the bars of a cage. Both are seemingly “voiced” by the snorts and grunts of an indeterminate off-screen mammal. Unflattering images of Mr. Trump flip or spin away before surveillance-style images show Trump-brand neckties made in China and his “palatial D.C. hotel” being built by “illegal immigrants.” Available to save the day in the end is Mr. Kasich, shown in a contemplative pose beside an American flag and a large, Oval Office-like window.

The Message

Other attacks on aspects of Mr. Trump’s background have whiffed. But this ad pungently goes after Mr. Trump on two of the red-meat issues that have made him so popular with rank-and-file Republicans: illegal immigration and the outsourcing of American jobs.

Fact Check

Mr. Trump’s name-brand ties are indeed made in China, a decision he defended on grounds that China “has manipulated their currency to such a point that it’s impossible for our companies to compete.” The Washington Post found several workers at Mr. Trump’s Washington hotel project who had entered the country illegally. His campaign says the project is following all applicable laws.

Where

On New Hampshire television stations as part of a $2.5 million ad campaign against Mr. Trump.

Takeaway

Attacking Mr. Trump on immigration and jobs — issues on which he has based much of his campaign — and with the sort of ridicule that Mr. Trump has used on others, could gain Mr. Kasich some much-needed attention.

via IFTTT

Chris Christie Reminds Voters, Again and Again, of His Prosecutor Days

christie

By ALAN RAPPEPORT via NYTimes

Most governors who seek the presidency promote executive experience as their chief credential, regaling voters with tales of big decisions they have made and budgets they have balanced.

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey also mentions those things, but lately he has been digging deeper into his résumé. With terrorism taking center stage in the 2016 race, Mr. Christie seems to take the most pride in his days as a federal prosecutor.

Five times during Tuesday’s Republican presidential debate, and often unprompted, Mr. Christie managed to work in the fact that he was once a United States attorney in New Jersey. The experience, he argues, makes him best suited to destroy the Islamic State.

“I will tell you this, I’m a former federal prosecutor, I’ve fought terrorists,” Mr. Christie said in opening remarks.

Moments later, when asked how he would alleviate the fear of terrorist attacks that has become pervasive in America, Mr. Christie said that because of his work as a prosecutor he knew that terrorists were planning attacks elsewhere. People have good reason to be worried, he suggested.

“I could tell you this, as a former federal prosecutor, if a center for the developmentally disabled in San Bernardino, Calif., is now a target for terrorists, that means everywhere in America is a target for these terrorists,” Mr. Christie said.

As rivals debated the details of immigration policy, Mr. Christie jumped in to make the case that Senator Marco Rubio and Senator Ted Cruz were just talkers who knew nothing about really fighting terror. As a prosecutor, he reminded viewers again, he has actually gone up against terrorists.

“This is the difference between having been a federal prosecutor instead of being one of 100 people debating it,” Mr. Christie said, explaining that he had used the Patriot Act to stymie attacks in New Jersey.

Mr. Christie was appointed as federal prosecutor in 2001 and served in that role until 2008, before becoming New Jersey’s governor. His popularity in the state has faded in recent years amid economic turmoil, the George Washington Bridge scandal and frequent travel around the country to raise money and campaign for higher office.

Looking to jump-start his flagging presidential campaign, Mr. Christie has latched onto his experience from the aftermath of attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to remake himself as a national security candidate.

As Tuesday’s debate was winding down, the conversation turned to taking in Syrian refugees. Mr. Christie has taken a hard line on the issue, saying that none should be accepted and pointing to concerns raised by James Comey, the F.B.I. director.

“Now, listen, I’m a former federal prosecutor, I know Jim Comey,” Mr. Christie said, mentioning that the two go way back and had even worked together in law enforcement. “He was the U.S. attorney in Manhattan when I was a U.S. attorney in New Jersey.

via IFTTT