As of this writing, Donald Trump has not announced his campaign haul for August (Hillary Clinton’s is north of 140 million). We’re in holiday mode, but there’s still plenty to read!
Politico:
This week Clinton’s campaign is shifting into a get-out-the-vote mode while she also maintains her sideline pursuit of poachable Republicans. Her team will continue touting prominent GOP endorsements: former California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman even introduced Clinton at multiple closed-door August fundraisers in California. There, the candidate explained her approach to Republicans interested in Trump, according to one Bay Area attendee. Clinton divides Trump voters into two baskets, she said: the everyday Republicans — her targets — and what she called “the deplorables” — the alt-right crowd she excoriates and has no hope of wooing.
Clinton will substantially ramp up her campaign travel schedule in September, focusing on national security issues this week. Her team will also step up its surrogate activity, planning at least one major appearance from Clinton, Kaine, former President Bill Clinton — who will reappear on the trail after some time focused on fundraising — President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders every day.
Josh Marshall/TPM:
You Failed, Chumps
The Times uniquely, though only as a leading example for the rest of the national press, has a decades' long history of being lead around by rightwing opposition researchers into dead ends which amount to journalistic comedy - especially when it comes to the Clintons. But here, while all this is happening we have a real live specimen example of direct political and prosecutorial corruption, misuse of a 501c3 nonprofit and various efforts to conceal this corruption and the underlying corruption of Trump's 'Trump University' real estate seminar scam. It's all there - lightly reported here and there - but largely ignored.
The core information here isn't new and it's definitely not based on my reporting. Much of it stems form the on-going and seemingly indefatigable work of Washington Post reporter David A. Fahrenthold who's been chronicling Trump's long list of non-existent or promised but non-existent charitable contributions. In this case, it goes to a $25,000 contribution Trump made to the reelection campaign of Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi in 2013. The neglected story has only popped up again now because Trump was penalized by the IRS for a relatively technical part of the corrupt act.
This first problem was elementary and obvious, probably stemming from Trump's almost pathological cheapness. He made the campaign contribution from his Foundation. This part is straightforward. You can't do that.
But then, as Fahrenthold details, Trump or however was handling the paperwork went to great lengths to conceal the improper contribution. In this case, the efforts to conceal the contributions from the relevant federal authorities is a much bigger deal than the underlying offense since the initial contribution could conceivably have been made by someone in Trump's organization who didn't realize that funds couldn't be commingled in this way. The first step could have been based in ignorance or haste; the second clearly stems from bad faith and possibly criminal intent.
More on the deplorables:
Politico on the NY nutter and Trump surrogate we know as Rudy:
Is Rudy Giuliani Losing His Mind?
It might seem like this summer has marked a sad break with that old Rudy, or proved him a sellout. But if you’ve followed Giuliani’s career, in fact it’s clear he swallowed the whole Trump persona many years ago—the race-baiting, the law-and-order pose, the incessant lying used to both steal credit and avoid responsibility. What we’re seeing this summer isn’t a crackup: It’s the inevitable, supernova explosion of what long ago became one of the most toxic and overrated political careers in our history. It’s tempting to count the 72-year-old Giuliani one more addition to the Island of Misfit Toys that Trump has gathered around him—another one of the political relics who, seeking to restore relevance, have found themselves denatured by the strange public power of Trump. But a better way to see it might be as a man seizing the star turn he never quite got—grabbing time in slow stretches of the campaign to stand on the national stage and play the role that was supposed to be his, exactly the way he thinks it should be played.
This is how he might have run for president if he had won the nomination in 2008. We were spared then, but not now. He’s apparently been saving it up.
News Republic:
White nationalist movement growing much faster than Isis on Twitter, study finds
Donald Trump is a prominent subject among white nationalists on Twitter. According to the study, white nationalist users are “heavily invested” in the Republican's candidacy. Tweets mentioned Mr Trump more than other popular topics among the groups.
Republican candidate has emerged as a favourite of white supremacist leaders, such as former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke, due in part to his hard-line stance against immigration from Mexico and his proposals to prohibit immigration of Muslims from countries like Syria and Afghanistan.
Mr Trump has been publicly rebuked by Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for “taking hate groups mainstream”.
Matthew Sheffield/WaPo:
Where did Donald Trump get his racialized rhetoric? From libertarians.
The intersection of white nationalism, the alt-right and Ron Paul
“Racialized”? Now there’s a term that bothers even me, and I hate being told what to write. It’s “racist”.
Jeff Jarvis/Medium on seeing the news through a Clinton supporter’s eyes:
The News and its New Silent Majority: Clinton Supporters
This election, I’ve been trying an experiment, judging journalism from a different perspective, from the outside, as a member of a community and a partisan. I don’t like what I’m learning about my profession.
We journalists tend to separate ourselves from the public we serve. We call ourselves objective, to distinguish us from the opinionated masses and to enable us to rise above their fray. We fancy ourselves observers, not actors, in the dramas we chronicle. I’ve argued that we must end that separation and learn to empathize with the needs and goals of the communities we serve, even considering ourselves members of those communities. Thus, social journalism. But in this argument, the journalist is still the journalist.
Then I found myself in a position to look at the field not as a journalist but as an involved participant in a community. That community: Hillary Clinton supporters…
As I consume the news in my role as a citizen, not media critic or journalist, I find myself constantly aggravated — not just by Fox News but also by CNN and the Associated Press, often by MSNBC and NPR, and occasionally by The New York Times and The Washington Post. My lessons so far from this:
Journalism is a lousy mirror. [there’s more]
Max Ehrenfreund/WaPo:
How Trump’s immigration policies could put Americans out of work
Donald Trump clarified his position on immigration in a speech Wednesday night, after weeks of public confusion about where he stands on the issue that has defined his campaign.
The Republican presidential nominee softened the tone of his campaign-trail promise to deport all 11 million immigrants believed to be living in the country illegally. He explained that while all undocumented immigrants would be subject to deportation under his plan, removing those who had committed crimes would be his administration's priority if he were elected.
"In a Trump administration, all illegal-immigration laws will be enforced. As with any law enforcement activity, we will set priorities," Trump said, adding, "Anyone who entered the United States illegally is subject to deportation."
What this policy would mean in practice — how many immigrants would be forced to leave and how quickly — is unclear. A recent analysis by financial research firm Moody's points to the possible economic consequences depending on how aggressively Trump enforces his plan.
Lucia Graves/Guardian:
The Miss USA hopeful sued by Trump: 'There are ways to stand your ground'
After Sheena Monnin criticized what she said was a rigged contest, the businessman hit her with a $10m lawsuit. The experience taught her to empathize with fellow victims – and the dangers of a bully in the White House
Aaron Blake/WaPo:
Some Democrats are blaming themselves for Donald Trump. That doesn’t make sense.
"I'm quite confident I employed language that, in retrospect, was hyperbolic and inaccurate, language that cheapened my ability — our ability — to talk about this moment with accuracy and credibility," said [Howard] Wolfson, who advised Clinton in 2008 and John Kerry in 2004 and more recently served as deputy mayor of New York under Michael Bloomberg (I).
Wolfson added: "It’s only when you find yourself describing someone who really is the definition of an extremist — who really is, essentially, in my opinion, a fascist — that you recognize that the language that you’ve used in the past to describe other people was hyperbolic and inappropriate and cheap. ... When the system confronts an actual, honest-to-God menace, it should compel some rethinking on our part about how we describe people who are far short of that."
Others who have explored this argument include Commentary's Noah Rothman and the Atlantic's David A. Graham. Both are worth reading.
There are two problems, as I see it, with this school of thought.
First, while the rhetoric about George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney was overheated at times -- and there are certainly anecdotes to be mined in each case -- they never faced anything close to the consistent drumbeat of accusations about racism, sexism, demagoguery or fascism, as Trump has.
Second, it’s nonsense. or, maybe first. Pat Buchanan drew this kind of language, and deservedly. The difference is that trump is the nominee.
The Hill:
Why Clinton needs to win big
Hillary Clinton could win a decisive victory in November and still enter office without much of a mandate to govern, at least in the eyes of her Republican critics.
While she has succeeded so far in making the election a referendum on her opponent, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, the strategy carries pitfalls. Should she triumph, it could easily be seen as a rejection of the businessman rather than as an endorsement of her policies.
Funny how you never see articles written the other way. This is how you see them:
1. Peter Beinart/The Atlantic:
The Cowardice of Donald Trump
He’s built his reputation on straight talk—but when the Republican candidate sits down with the groups he vilifies, he exhibits a striking change.
2. WaPo Editorial:
Donald Trump’s bet: We are all chumps
What else is he lying about? We don’t know, you don’t know, and Mr. Trump seems to believe we can all live with that. Can we? It’s a question Americans will have to answer on Election Day.
Policy Corner
Gerald Friedman/Obsever spanks both candidates on Labor Day:
Pox on Both Your Houses: Neither Presidential Candidate Cares for Workers
Both presidential candidates are not nearly ambitious enough to help displaced workers
As another Labor Day approaches, America’s workers have little to celebrate. It has been 40 years since the average American has enjoyed any significant wage increase. Fewer employees can access pensions. And employment has fallen sharply in the goods-producing industries, such as textiles, where relatively well-paid jobs enabled blue-collar workers to join the middle class.
Far from the view of pundits and policy wonks in Washington, D.C., and New York, working-class suffering has finally emerged as a political issue in this year’s presidential election. But neither presidential candidate offers much to calm the fury.
Jonathan Cohn/HuffPost:
What Obamacare’s Successes Should Tell Us About Its Failures
Nobody ever said health care reform was going to be easy.
Now there are new problems. Many of the nation’s largest insurers say they arelosing big money on the policies they sell through the program’s exchanges. Some of these companies have responded by jacking up rates. Others are dropping outof the markets altogether. Consumers who relied on these plans may have to pay more or switch plans next year, and they may not have many alternatives.
But the focus on what’s going wrong with Obamacare makes it easy to lose sight of what’s going right. The law has ended the insurance industry’s most pernicious practices, fostered improvements in the way doctors and hospitals deliver care and brought the number of Americans without coverage to a historic low. Some state markets appear to be working just fine, and at least a few insurers aremaking money.
The law’s achievements don’t make the problems any less real. But they do put those problems into perspective ― and suggest that fixing them is worthwhile.