Archive for April, 2017

The idea of Senator Mitt Romney should scare Trump – Washington Post

Mitt Romney might be back in the game.

After publicly weighing a repeat presidential bid, then publicly denouncing Donald Trump, then unsuccessfully seeking to become Trump's secretary of state, Romney is reportedly considering a 2018 Senate run in Utah.

The Atlantic's McKay Coppins reports:

According to six sources familiar with the situation, Romney has spent recent weeks actively discussing a potential 2018 Senate bid with a range of high-level Republicans in both Utah and Washington, and has privately signaled a growing interest in the idea. Romney, though, has made clear he would not pursue the seat without Hatchs blessing.

Romney, of course, served as governor of Massachusetts, not Utah. But his Utah bona fides are crystal clear, and he'd undoubtedly waltz into the Senate if he ran. Other interested candidates aren't even pretending they'd run against the guy who won Utah by 48 points in his 2012 presidential run.

But one person who should be watching this with particular concern is President Trump.

Basically no Republican criticized Trump as harshly as Romney did on the 2016 campaign trail. Yes, Romney then sought to lead Trump's State Department and said some nice things about Trump, but he was turned down for that job, which may make the fire burn even hotter.

And most importantly, Romney wouldn't really have to temper his opposition to Trump in the Senate at least not in the way other Republicans do. Utah is about equally as anti-Trump as it is pro-Romney. Trump did win the state, but that victory owed entirely to the state's Republican lean. Polls there showed Trump's favorable rating as low as 19 percent and his unfavorable rating as high as 71 percent, largely thanks to Mormons disliking him.

GOP senators like John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) and Ben Sasse (Neb.) have certainly been willing to break with Trump publicly on certain things, but they also have pro-Trump constituencies back home to worry about. And their criticisms have never really been of the sort that Romney offered in 2016. A sampling:

These comments were offered in the midst of a primary campaign that Romney wanted someone else to win. And plenty of other Republicans said really bad things about Trump at the time before coming around, endorsing him and trying to make the most of their new Trump realities. But Romney never did at least, not until he thought he could affect the Trump administration from within.

Romney would come in to the Senate with almost unimpeachable power to say whatever he wanted about Trump, should he choose to do so. And in our highly partisan era, it would be a completely unusual and potentially must-see political dynamic.

Originally posted here:
The idea of Senator Mitt Romney should scare Trump - Washington Post

Arnold Schwarzenegger Isn’t Bothered By Donald Trump’s Twitter Hate – Huffington Post

Arnold Schwarzenegger has found himself on the wrong side of Donald Trumps Twitter rants more than once, but The Terminatorstar isnt fazed.

Look, as far as Im concerned, it didnt bother me at all, the actor recently told Extras Mario Lopez. The only thing that bothers me is to say, doesnt he have anything more important to do? But other than that, I dont take it personal; it gives me an opportunity to fire back.

He continued, saying he and the presidenthave been having a good time with their Twitter spats.

He has been talking about my ratings, then I can talk about his ratings which is the lowest of every president in modern history, he said. It gives me a chance when he talks about the environment, I can fire back and say, Are you really sure about this? Do you want to go and bring coal mines back to the coal industry? This industrys dying. Are you gonna bring back pagers or buggies and horses ? Its just crazy.

Schwarzenegger first fell victim to Trumps tweet-happy fingers following the premiere of The New Celebrity Apprentice earlier this year when the actor and politician took over as host.Viewership wasnt as high as Trump would have liked, which prompted the POTUS to comment:

Trump also called out the former governor of California during the National Prayer Breakfast in February, leading Schwarzenegger to, well, fire back.

(The feud didnt stop there but well spare you the details for now.)

These days, Schwarzenegger said hes focusing on after-school programs, an area from which Trump has threatened to eliminate funding.

And while he didnt have any advice for the president, Schwarzenegger offered this:If he is successful, we are all going to be successful.

View post:
Arnold Schwarzenegger Isn't Bothered By Donald Trump's Twitter Hate - Huffington Post

Is the sky blue? Depends on what Donald Trump says – Reuters

By Chris Kahn and James Oliphant | NEW YORK/WASHINGTON

NEW YORK/WASHINGTON Republicans generally agree that politicians should not enrich themselves while running the country. Yet most think it is okay for President Donald Trump to do so.

Democrats largely support the idea of government-run healthcare. But their support plummets when they learn that Trump once backed the idea.

At a time of already deep fissures among American voters on political, cultural and economic issues, Trump further polarizes the public as soon as he wades into the debate, according to the results of a Reuters/Ipsos poll. The poll suggests any effort to reach a consensus on key policy issues could be complicated simply by Trump's involvement.

The survey from Feb. 1 to March 15 of nearly 14,000 people asked respondents to consider a series of statements Trump has made on taxes, crime and the news media, among other issues. In many cases, the data showed that people will orient their opinions according to what they think of Trump.

Republicans, for example, were more likely to criticize American exceptionalism the notion that the United States holds a unique place in history - when told that Trump once said it was insulting to other countries. They were more likely to agree that the country should install more nuclear weapons, and they were more supportive of government spending for infrastructure, when they knew that Trump felt the same way.

Democrats moved in the opposite direction. They were less supportive of infrastructure spending, less critical of the judiciary and less likely to agree that urban crime was on the rise when they knew that those concerns were shared by Trump.

Im basically in disagreement with everything he says, said Howard House, 58, a Democrat from Jacksonville, Florida, who took the poll. Ive almost closed my mind to the guy.

Trump is not the first president to polarize the public. A 1995 poll by the Washington Post found that Democrats appeared to favor legislative action when they thought it was then-President Bill Clintons idea, and a 2013 survey by Hart Research Associates showed that both positive and negative attitudes about the 2010 Affordable Care Act intensified when called by its other name, Obamacare.

But previous presidents were more popular than Trump at this point, according to the Gallup polling service, and they may have been better positioned to address the public divide because of it. Gallup had Trump at a 42 percent approval rating on Tuesday. He was as low as 35 percent last week.

That leaves Trump facing a largely disapproving electorate, even as the White House signals that in the coming months it wants to pass a sweeping tax-reform package, a large infrastructure plan, and perhaps try again to supplant the Affordable Care Act.

The White House said that Trump has tried to reach out to those who did not support him during the campaign in an attempt to build political consensus.

The door to the White House has been open to a variety of people who are willing to come to the table and have honest discussions with the President about the ways we can make our country better, a White House spokeswoman wrote in an email.

THE HYPER-PARTISAN ERA OF TRUMP

Poll respondents were split into two groups. Each received nearly identical questions about statements Trump has made in recent years. One group, however, was not told the statements came from Trump.

The poll then asked if people agreed or disagreed with those statements. In a few cases, Trump made little to no impact on the answers. But most of the time the inclusion of his name changed the results.

A series of questions about conflicts of interest produced the biggest swings.

Some 33 percent of Republicans said it was okay if an official financially benefits from a government position. However, when a separate group was asked the same question with Trumps name added in, more than twice as many Republicans 70 percent said it was okay.

When interviewed afterward, some respondents said they knew they were making special exceptions for Trump.

Susie Stewart, a 73-year-old healthcare worker from Fort Worth, Texas, said it came down to trust. While most politicians should be forbidden from mixing their personal fortunes with government business, Stewart, who voted for Trump, said the president had earned the right to do so.

"He is a very intelligent man, Stewart said. Hes proved himself to be one hell of a manager. A builder. I think he has the business sense to do whats best for the country.

On the other side of the political spectrum, House, the Democrat from Florida and a Hillary Clinton supporter, said he also made an exception for Trump. But in this instance it meant that House disagreed with everything Trump supported.

If Trump said the sky was blue, Im going to go outside and check, he said.

It is impossible to say exactly what motivates people to answer a certain way in a political poll, said John Bullock, an expert in partisanship at the University of Texas at Austin.

Some respondents may have looked past the question and answered in a way that they thought would support or oppose Trump, Bullock said. But he said it was also likely that others simply have not thought deeply about the issue and are looking to Trump as a guide for how to answer.

They think of him either as a man who shares their values or someone who manifestly does not, Bullock said.

(Editing by Jason Szep and Paul Thomasch)

WASHINGTON Republicans failed on Thursday to end a Democratic bid to block a U.S. Senate confirmation vote on President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nomination but were poised to quickly resort to a rule change dubbed the "nuclear option" to allow approval of Neil Gorsuch a day later.

WASHINGTON A U.S. House of Representatives panel will meet on Thursday to consider a change to the stalled Republican healthcare bill before lawmakers leave for a two-week recess, a spokeswoman for the House Rules Committee said.

WASHINGTON In a last-ditch effort, five U.S. Senate Democrats are urging President Donald Trump to veto a resolution that would repeal a Labor Department rule designed to help cities launch retirement savings plans for low-income private-sector workers by exempting such programs from strict federal pension protection laws.

Originally posted here:
Is the sky blue? Depends on what Donald Trump says - Reuters

Donald Trump portrait made from Lego by Belfast artist – BBC News


BBC News
Donald Trump portrait made from Lego by Belfast artist
BBC News
Donald Trump's face is one of the most recognisable in the world, but a Lego artwork of the US President's teenage self still requires a double take. The piece, entitled Space Cadet, is the creation of Belfast artist David Turner and is part of a ...

and more »

Originally posted here:
Donald Trump portrait made from Lego by Belfast artist - BBC News

Alt-Right Austen? | The American Conservative – The American Conservative

Is Jane Austen an icon of Americas white-supremacist alliance? That was the startling assertion made in the Chronicle of Higher Education by Nicole Wright, an assistant professor of English at the University of Colorado. Wright noted that Austens name had popped up in several alt-right websites, leading her to surmise that these groups were enamored of the rectorsbrilliant spinster daughter, because to them she was a symbol of sexual purity and standard-bearer of a vanished white traditional culture.

Essentially, white nationalists see Austens pastoral, white, Christian world with its parsons, picnics, debutantes, and redcoats as a validation of their ideology of a racially pure ethno-state where women know their place and immigrants arent welcome. They want to Make America Austen Again, never mind that it never was.

The whole connection seems belabored, and the Austen references Wright cites from alt-right websites are too random to sustain any substantial commentary on Austen and her reactionary readers. Nevertheless, the mere idea of the boys at Breitbart palling with Austen was enough to give liberal Janeites an attack of the vapors.

But hold those smelling saltsand the outrage. This is not the first time that reactionaries have sung hosannas to Austen, nor will it be the last. Who can forget that one of her most famous admirers was the arch-imperialist Rudyard Kipling? Glory, love, and honor unto Englands Jane! he wrote, in a verse aglow with warm national pride.

Kipling, of course, is far too complex, compassionate, and protean a writer to be reduced to an alt-rightist. But there can be no doubt that his imperialist and racial views shaded in that direction. Kiplings name and poems pop up on alt-right forums with far more frequency than Austens. Which is unsurprising given that his lifelong cri de coeur was the White Mans civilizing mission, a cause he continued to stubbornly champion long after it had become embarrassingly unfashionable to do so. After the First World War, as his reputation declined thanks to his deranged anti-Hun propagandahe demanded that Germans be referred to as it and not he or theyhe became the target of liberal lampoon and was disparaged as a bitter reactionary out of touch with the changing times.

How ironic, then, that it was during this most illiberal phase of his life that this jingo imperialist, to use Orwells phrase, wrote a short story that popularized the term Janeite, coined by his friend, the revered critic George Saintsbury, as a handy label for what he called the sect of Jane Austen fans. Saintsbury, a brilliant scholar and vinophile, was a high Anglican and arch-conservative who categorically railed against progressive political reforms, from universal franchise to Catholic Emancipation to pay raises for window cleaners. Orwell remarked of his belligerence that it takes a lot of guts to be openly such a skunk as that. But since Saintsbury invented the term Janeite and Kipling magnified it, every Austen fan who embracesthe moniker todayowes these two mena debt of gratitude.

Indeed, it was Kiplings short story The Janeites, a tour de force of comic pathos, that came to mind when I read Wrights article; or, rather, when I saw the waggish illustration accompanying it, of Austen sporting an improbable bonnet: a red Make America Great Again baseball cap. (The cap on its own, without the slogan, is an especially fitting accessory, since Austen actually mentions base-ball in Northanger Abbey as one of the games played by her tomboy heroine Catherine Moreland.) Kiplings titular Janeites are an equally improbable bunch: a group of hard-talking soldiers hunkered down in the muddy, rodent-infested trenches of World War I. There are five Janeites in all, most of whom arent particularly respectful of, or well-disposed to, women. Today, theyd almost certainly be called misogynists. The only woman whom they say a good word for, says the newbie Janeite, Humberstall, is this Jane.

The simple-minded Humberstall, who works as a mess waiter in the trenches, is the protagonist of the story and a quintessential Kipling hero: a conscientious, brave, and unsophisticated English soldier with a spit-and-polish work ethic, a patriot ready to die for flag and comrade. As it turns out, he is the only Janeite to survive; the other four are killed in a massive bombardment that destroys the Battery. We meet Humberstall after the war, when he has returned to his civilian job as a London hairdresser. Strong as an ox but with his mental faculties impaired by the war, he is an enormous man with bewildered eyes. It is Humberstall who relates, in thick and often impenetrable cockneyKipling was infuriatingly fond of idiolecthow, despite his low rank, he had been inducted into a secret society of Janeites comprising his senior officers. In actuality there was no secret society (just a group of ardent Austen aficionados), but Humberstall was conned into believing one existed. They even had a password, he says: Tilniz an trapdoors, which Janeites will recognize as Tilneys and trap-doors from Northanger Abbey. Being part of this select fellowship was a source of immense pride to him and the highpoint of his war experience. It was a appy little Group. I wouldnt a changed with any other, he says, invoking the happy ghost of Henry Vs band of brothers at the Battle of Agincourt.

With the war over, he finds himself returning nostalgically to all her six books now for pleasure. But, he grouses, becoming a Janeite wasnt easy. He had to read all her novelsno easy task for someone like him. Initially, he found it difficult to understand why these officers were obsessed by a little old maid ood written alf a dozen books about a hundred years ago. Even worse, her quiet novels werent adventurous, nor smutty, nor what youd call even interestin. Nor were her characters particularly exciting.

Humberstall cant spell (Lady Catherine de Bugg) or remember the names of characters or novel titles. Anne Elliot and Captain Wentworth of Persuasion are Miss Whats-her Name and Captain Tother Bloke, and Northanger Abbey is some Abbey or other. When one of the Janeites declares that Austen didnt die barren but produced a lawful issue named Enery James, he believes the novelist is her son. But Austen could not have asked for a more perceptive and loyal reader. He unwittingly pays her a tremendous compliment when he observes that her unexciting characters from a hundred years ago are just like people he comes across every day. The oily Reverend Collins from Pride and Prejudice, always on the make an lookin to marry money, reminds him of the troop-leader from his Boy Scout years. He could swear that the wholesale grocers imperious wife is the duplicate of Lady Catherine de Bugg. And as for his chatterbox aunt, shes about as vapid as Miss Bates from Emma, an old maid runnin about like a hen with er ead cut off, an her tongue loose at both ends.

As Humberstall continues to read Jane (the name by which he always refers to her), she gets under his skin and he goes from being an on-the-make Janeite to a true Janeite. In the wake of the bombardment, he is sneaked onto an overcrowded hospital train by a bony nurse who is so delighted to learn that he, too, is an Austen fan that she declares shed happily kill a brigadier to make room for him. It is with great feeling, therefore, that he bestows on Jane the soldiers highest accolade: Theres no one to touch Jane when youre in a tight place. Gawd bless er, whoever she was.

This gauche cart-horse of a man, who lives with his mother and has never had a relationship with a woman, is an unlikely Janeite. With his working-class roots and cockney accent, he would be a misfit among the trendy, tea-drinking, Bath-visiting, costume-wearing, Regency-fetishizing Janeites of today. We dont know what his politics are but it doesnt really matterand that is Kiplings whole point. There is no one kind of Janeite; no one owns her.

Theres nothing new about trying to appropriate Austen politically. As Freya Johnston wrote recently in the Prospect, Austen has been repackaged down the years as a radical, a prude and a saucepot, pro- and anti-colonial, a feminist and a downright bitch. Did she acquiesce to the slave trade by not denouncing it in Mansfield Park, where the titular estate is owned by a sugar plantation owner? Or was she a covert abolitionist for naming it after the reformist judge Lord Mansfield who described slavery as so odious? One cant be sure, and these debates will go on forever. There will always be those on the far left and far righthe alt-right includedand others on the make who will try to refashion Austen in their own ideological image, but as Humberstall would no doubt assure us, the old maid doesnt need protecting. Shed certainly scorn anything as fatuous as a safe space.

It should be a truth universally acknowledged that anyone at any point on the political spectrum can derive pleasure and laughter and wisdom from Austens sharp and beautiful prose, her moral plots, her sly humor, and her lethal insight into human nature. Take that one devastating line from Emma that so thoroughly exposes societal hypocrisy: The stain of illegitimacy, unbleached by nobility or wealth, would have been a stain indeed. As Humberstall says wonderingly, someow Jane put it down all so naked it made you ashamed.

Published in 1924, Kiplings ode to Englands Jane was rendered all the more poignant by the tragic circumstances it had grown out of. In September 1915, after Kiplings beloved son John went missing in action and was presumed dead, it was Austens novels that brought the grieving family some small measure of comfort. On those long and unbearable war evenings, after the slow drawing down of blinds, Kipling read aloud to his wife Carrie and their daughter, bringing them, in Carries words great delight. Austen saw them through their tight place just as she would see Humberstall through his.

America is in a bit of a tight place of its own today. What better time to return to Jane Austen?

Nina Martyris is a freelance journalist based in Knoxville, Tenn.

See the rest here:
Alt-Right Austen? | The American Conservative - The American Conservative