Mar.3
Political News, Now.
John Kasich’s Plan: Win Ohio on March 15, Then Fight at the Convention
DETROIT — Gov. John Kasich of Ohio on Thursday echoed calls to derail Donald J. Trump, and he predicted that if he won his home state, the Republican nomination would be decided at the party’s convention in July.
“I think it is important that we stop Mr. Trump,” Mr. Kasich said at a news conference at a hotel here in Michigan, which has its primary on Tuesday.
The Ohio primary is March 15, as is the primary in Florida, the home state of Senator Marco Rubio. Both are winner-take-all contests, and they loom as pivotal moments for Republicans seeking to stop Mr. Trump from clinching the nomination by winning a majority of delegates before the convention.
“At the end of the day in all this, it is going to get down to a couple states, and Ohio is going to be absolutely critical,” Mr. Kasich told reporters. “And we will go all out, and I will win Ohio.”
“If in fact I win Ohio, then we’re going to probably go to a convention,” he added. “That’s what it looks like. And it’s going to be the most exciting time.”
Mr. Kasich said he understood why voters, filled with angst and frustration, were drawn to Mr. Trump. But, referring to Mr. Rubio’s approach in recent days, he warned that “you don’t beat Trump by personal attacks.”
“I just don’t want to go and talk about the size of his hands, or what kind of a tan he has,” Mr. Kasich said. “That’s not the way to get this done.”
Mr. Kasich said he had expressed that view to Mitt Romney. On Thursday, Mr. Romney suggested that voters should support whichever candidate was strongest against Mr. Trump in a given state, such as Mr. Rubio in Florida and Mr. Kasich in Ohio. But Mr. Kasich, while expressing appreciation for Mr. Romney’s suggestion that people in Ohio vote for him, did not endorse that plan of action.
Asked if he wanted his supporters in Florida to vote for Mr. Rubio, Mr. Kasich responded, “Right now, I think they ought to vote for me.”
Mr. Kasich said that if the nomination were to be decided at the convention, he would become the nominee. And he playfully took note of the gathering’s location: Cleveland.
“I don’t know whether you noticed or not, it’s being held in Ohio,” the governor said. “We plotted this all out.”
More Posts
Republican Turmoil Has Historians Straining for Parallels
Mitt Romney’s political assault on Donald J. Trump on Thursday was so savage that historians strained to recall any precedent in American politics, with a major party’s former nominee blistering his party’s leading presidential candidate in such a personal and sweeping fashion.
Al Smith, who in 1928 was the governor of New York and the Democratic presidential nominee, later turned on Franklin D. Roosevelt during the New Deal and warned, much as Mr. Romney did on Thursday, that Roosevelt’s liberal policies would lead toward totalitarianism. In a high-profile 1936 speech before the American Liberty League, an anti-New Deal group, Smith offered a “solemn warning” that Americans must realize “there can only be one capital – Washington or Moscow.”
“There can only be one atmosphere of government, the clear, pure, fresh air of free America or the foul breath of communistic Russia,” Mr. Smith said. “There can be only one flag, the Stars and Stripes, or the red flag of the godless union of the Soviet.”
Suggesting, much like Mr. Romney did of Mr. Trump, that Roosevelt was tarnishing a great party, Mr. Smith said of the president’s administration: “It is all right with me if they want to disguise themselves as Norman Thomas or Karl Marx or Lenin, or any of the rest of that bunch, but what I won’t stand for is allowing them to march under the banner of Jefferson, Jackson or Cleveland.”
But for all his scorn, Mr. Smith avoided harsh personal attacks in 1936 against Roosevelt, his successor as New York governor and the man who placed Mr. Smith;’s in nomination at the 1924 and 1928 Democratic presidential conventions.
The closest comparison may be the sort of mean-spirited language Theodore Roosevelt used against William Howard Taft when the two Republicans and former friends ran against one another for president in 1912, a year that bought a party rupture some Republicans fear will happen again this year.
“There probably hasn’t been this level of personal invective by one Republican nominee against another leading candidate ever, perhaps not even in 1912 when TR went after Taft,” said David Greenberg, a historian at Rutgers University.
Theodore Roosevelt, running a third-party campaign to reclaim the White House, attacked his hand-picked successor Taft, the Republican nominee, as “a fathead” and “a dimwit” who had “the brains of guinea pig.”
But, Mr. Greenberg added, “It’s harder to gauge because we’re living in different times now and the discourse is different.”
“You would never see a four-letter word in the 1912 New York Times,” he said.
Michael Beschloss, the presidential historian, said Mr. Romney’s indictment was substantially more far-reaching and vicious than any he could recall.
“Mitt Romney’s multi-front attack on Donald Trump’s character, policies and career was far more eviscerating than earlier complaints against Presidential aspirants by earlier nominees of their party, such as Al Smith’s against Franklin Roosevelt when Roosevelt ran for reelection in 1936 and Harry Truman’s against John Kennedy two weeks before the 1960 Democratic convention,” said Mr. Beschloss.
Before Democrats convened in Los Angeles in 1960 to determine their nominee, Truman, the most recent Democratic president at the time, delivered a speech in which he appealed to Kennedy, who was then just 43.
“Senator, are you certain that you are quite ready for the country or that the country is ready for you in the role of president in January 1961?” asked Truman, adding: “May I urge you be patient?”
Truman also indicated that he would not attend the convention because it looked like Kennedy supporters had made it a “prearranged affair.”
But, as Mr. Beschloss noted, after Kennedy was nominated, Truman endorsed him and campaigned for him and the Democratic ticket that fall.
“Truman said that for him personally, a Democratic convention’s decision constituted ‘the law,’ and that he would abide by it,” Mr. Beschloss recalled. “The vehemence of Romney’s speech suggests that he is not likely to follow Truman’s example.”
Elton John and Katy Perry Sing Hillary Clinton’s Praises, Unconditionally
It was hard to escape the conclusion that Elton John and Katy Perry are worried about Donald J. Trump.
In a bedazzled show of pop force on Wednesday night, the singers all but pleaded with an audience of high-rolling Democratic donors at Radio City Music Hall to put Hillary Clinton in the White House.
The alternative, they suggested, was unthinkable.
“This is a very important year for America,” Mr. John said from behind a grand piano, his sequined blue jacket shimmering under the glow of a spotlight.
“And she’s the only hope you have.”
At that, the audience at the concert, which featured the entire Clinton clan — Hillary, Bill and Chelsea – roared.
Ms. Perry, outfitted, sparingly and revealingly, in the colors of the American flag, offered an elaborate metaphor that seemed aimed at Mr. Trump’s chosen profession of real estate development and his stubbornly vague plans for the presidency.
“Don’t you wanna see a blueprint before you build a house you are going to put your family in?” Ms. Perry asked the packed house of around 5,000 at the primary fund-raiser.
On a night when speechmaking was kept to a minimum, both singers acted as political stand-ins and activists (for fighting AIDS, in the case of Mr. John, and championing women’s rights, in the case of Ms. Perry).
Both dedicated a single song to Mrs. Clinton, who spoke briefly and then went backstage: “I’m Still Standing,” a ballad of endurance by Mr. John, and “Unconditionally,” a song of tolerance by Ms. Perry.
Mr. Trump’s name was never uttered. Yet Ms. Perry, especially, seemed to keep finding oblique ways to compare him with Mrs. Clinton.
“She’s not just sayin’ stuff. Or contradicting herself,” Ms. Perry said.
She paused to utter a phrase familiar to her New York audience:
“Oy. Vey.”
The audience erupted into laughter.
She left them with this Trumpian-sounding assurance of a Trump failure.
“It’s not going to get scary,” Ms. Perry said, “because we are going to take control.”
‘Hut 1! Hut 2!’ Donald Trump Credits Tom Brady for Massachusetts Score
Donald J. Trump says he has one man to thank for his unusually large victory in the Massachusetts Republican primary on Tuesday: Tom Brady.
Mr. Trump, in an interview, said that the New England Patriots quarterback’s public show of support – he kept a “Make America Great Again” campaign hat in his locker — was an “enormous help” in the football team’s home state. Mr. Trump took 49.3 percent of the vote in Massachusetts, and his margin of victory there — 31 percentage points ahead of Gov. John Kasich of Ohio – was his largest out of the seven states he won on Tuesday.
After the Trump campaign cap was spotted in Mr. Brady’s locker last summer, the football idol talked about their years of friendship and said of Mr. Trump, “It’s pretty amazing what he’s been able to accomplish.” Throughout the fall football season and postseason, Mr. Trump showered praise on Mr. Brady at campaign events next door in New Hampshire, and has stood by him during the so-called Deflategate sports ordeal. In a GQ magazine article published in November, Mr. Brady praised Mr. Trump’s golf game — “He doesn’t lose. He just doesn’t lose.” — and Mr. Trump amplified that remark every chance he had.
While Mr. Brady never formally endorsed Mr. Trump, the quarterback’s views were widely known in Massachusetts. While the moderate economic and cultural views of many Massachusetts Republicans may have helped Mr. Trump, the real estate developer credited Mr. Brady most of all.
“Honestly, in that part of the world, a reference like Tom Brady saying Trump’s the biggest winner, Trump is a friend of mine, that makes an incredible difference,” Mr. Trump said in a telephone interview on Wednesday night. “Tom Brady is a great friend of mine. He’s a winner and he likes winners. He was very helpful to us in Massachusetts on Tuesday.”
Donald Trump Calls David Duke a ‘Bad Person’ and Mentions a Third-Party Run
After five days of controversy, Donald J. Trump called the former Ku Klux Klan sympathizer David Duke a “bad person,” as he condemned Mitt Romney’s planned speech about the real estate developer’s rise in the Republican Party.
Mr. Trump also pointed out that millions of new voters cast ballots in nominating contests since he declared his candidacy, and said if he would ever decide to bolt the Republicans to run a third-party race, they’ll come with him.
But Mr. Trump’s most significant comments were about Mr. Duke. On Sunday, Mr. Trump declined to disavow him despite being asked repeatedly by the CNN host Jake Tapper. Mr. Trump later insisted he had a bad earpiece from CNN as he gave the interview over a remote connection, although he appeared to have no problem hearing the questions. That interview came two days before Tuesday’s voting contests, in which Mr. Trump won seven states. Mr. Duke, a toxic figure for most Republicans, has praised Mr. Trump’s ascension in the Republican Party and has urged people to vote for him.
Finally, in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program on Thursday, Mr. Trump pushed Mr. Duke aside.
“David Duke is a bad person, who I disavowed on numerous occasions over the years,” Mr. Trump said. “And the one question that was asked of me, I guess on CNN, he’s having a great time, he talked about groups of people, and I don’t like to disavow groups if I don’t know who they are. I mean, you could have Federation of Jewish Philanthropies in groups. I don’t know who the groups are. He’s talking about disavowing groups. And that’s what I was referring to. But I disavowed him. I disavowed him. I disavowed the K.K.K.”
In fact, Mr. Trump had repeatedly said he couldn’t disavow specific white supremacist groups that Mr. Tapper asked about, saying he wouldn’t issue a blanket disavowal without knowing what the groups are. And his refusal to do so set off days of criticism from other Republicans.
Mr. Trump also gave a rebuttal of Mr. Romney’s planned speech in Utah on Thursday, saying that the 2012 Republican presidential nominee and former Massachusetts governor had begged him for an endorsement in his own race that year. And he warned the Republican Party, once again, that he could leave the race and run as a third-party candidate, as the window for such a run is closing.
“If I leave, if I go, regardless of independent, which I may do, I mean, may or may not, but if I go, I will tell you these millions of people that joined, they’ve told them, they’re all coming with me,” Mr. Trump said.
A Stern Mitt Romney Attacks Donald Trump as ‘a Phony’ and ‘a Fraud’
Romney Makes Case Against Trump
Mitt Romney criticized Donald J. Trump in a speech to rally Republicans around one of Mr. Trump’s rivals.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on March 3, 2016. Photo by Jim Urquhart/Reuters.
Offering himself as a bulwark against Mr. Trump’s march to the nomination, Mr. Romney laid out a precise and lengthy case against Mr. Trump, lacerating his business dealings, his erratic pronouncements on national security and demeaning treatment of women, minorities and the disabled.
Mr. Romney warned that Mr. Trump’s nomination would be calamitous for the Republican Party and, quoting John Adams, even suggested it could be suicidal for the country.
Evoking the specter of totalitarianism, he said Mr. Trump was amplifying a “brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss.”
“His domestic policies would lead to recession,” Mr. Romney said. “His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president.”
Mr. McCain, once a rival of Mr. Romney’s, effectively linked arms with him soon after his address, saying that he shared Mr. Romney’s dismay about Mr. Trump’s ascent. Referring to a public letter released on Thursday by dozens of conservative national security leaders, who vowed never to support Mr. Trump, Mr. McCain echoed their concerns about Mr. Trump’s “uninformed and indeed dangerous statements on national security issues.”
The onslaught against Mr. Trump appeared aimed at sowing new doubts among voters about a man who has taken firm command of the Republican presidential race, and stiffening the resolve of mainstream Republicans to reject Mr. Trump.
But the timing of the assault, after Mr. Trump’s commanding electoral victories on Tuesday, may make it futile. And Mr. Romney’s history with Mr. Trump, which he ignored in his jeremiad on Thursday, could undercut the power of his warning: Mr. Romney eagerly sought and publicized his endorsement by Mr. Trump in 2012, even as Mr. Trump heckled and harassed President Obama with accusations that he was not born in the United States.
In an addendum to his speech conveyed on Twitter, Mr. Romney said that he would not have accepted the endorsement had Mr. Trump at the time made many of the divisive remarks he has delivered recently.
Mr. Trump answered Mr. Romney’s critique with a belittling rant at a midafternoon speech in Maine: He called Mr. Romney a “failed candidate” and mocked him for his politically damaging 2012 comments about the “47 percent” of Americans who do not pay taxes, and for fumbling his final debate with Mr. Obama. He described Mr. Romney as having debased himself to secure a Trump endorsement in that election.
“He was begging for my endorsement,” Mr. Trump said. “I could have said, ‘Mitt, drop to your knees.’”
Mr. Romney’s associates have called that characterization inaccurate.
It is unheard of in the modern Republican Party for mainstream leaders to savage a presidential candidate who appears well on his way to locking up the nomination. The Super Tuesday primaries more typically mark the beginning of the party’s rallying around a single candidate.
But Mr. Romney’s speech, especially, cast Mr. Trump as an unacceptable candidate under any circumstances: “a phony” and “a fraud” who could not be trusted with the nation’s highest office. Such language would be impossible to retract in a general election campaign and all but precludes a later endorsement.
Mr. Romney, who has not endorsed a candidate in the presidential race, insisted it was not too late to block Mr. Trump, and effectively called for a contested convention to select a nominee. He urged Republican primary voters to cast ballots for whichever candidate appeared to be the strongest Trump alternative in each state: Senator Marco Rubio in Florida, Gov. John Kasich in Ohio and Senator Ted Cruz wherever appropriate.
Frances F. Townsend, a former homeland security adviser to George W. Bush, said she hoped that Thursday would be a turning point in the race, and encouraged others to speak out against Mr. Trump.
“There needed to be a group that would stand up and say, ‘Yes, I am willing to be counted,’” Ms. Townsend said. “We cannot all be silent, or be Chris Christie and decide, ‘I am going to put myself first and, for political and opportunistic reasons, I am going to endorse this stuff.’”
But neither Mr. Romney nor Mr. McCain addressed the party’s failure to mount a Stop Trump campaign until this late stage in the race, a decision many Republicans now view as a grave error.
John F. Lehman, a former Navy secretary who advised Mr. McCain’s 2008 campaign, said that it was appropriate to raise questions about Mr. Trump’s fitness to serve as commander in chief – but that it might be too late to make a difference.
“It’s too bad that the party has waited so long, and the other candidates waited so long, to point out these shortcomings, because they are severe,” Mr. Lehman said. Explaining the delay, Mr. Lehman acknowledged, “people haven’t come out against him because nobody thought he’d get this far.”
Gov. Chris Christie, in New Jersey, defended Mr. Trump and his own decision to support him. He said he had no problem with Mr. Romney’s condemnation of Mr. Trump, but that the Republican Party should not meddle in the primary election process.
“Democracy is in action,” Mr. Christie said. “It is the people who vote who ultimately decide who the nominee is. That’s how Mitt Romney became the nominee.”
Alan Rappeport contributed reporting from Washington, and Alex Thompson from Salt Lake City.
Bipartisan Anti-Drug Bill Appears to Clear Final Hurdles
For weeks, Senate Democrats have suggested that they might not vote for a bipartisan bill to address the prescription drug epidemic unless Congress spent more money to undergird the bill. But a measure to provide $600 million in funding for anti-heroin programs failed on Wednesday. And unlike an energy bill that Democrats have stalled because they are trying to get money for the water crisis in Flint, Mich., the drug bill still looks like a go.
The bill, which directs federal resources to prevention, treatment and recovery programs with proven track records, is a boon to people like Senators Rob Portman of Ohio and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Republicans who come from states with huge drug problems and who face tough re-election battles. “Traveling around my state, I can’t tell you the number of stories I’ve heard from people in New Hampshire and what they are facing, and the number of lives that are lost,” Ms. Ayotte said in one of several floor speeches in support of the bill.
Democrats wanted supplemental funding, just as they do to help Flint and to fight the Zika virus. But when the extra funding measure failed, the scope of the problem appears to have prevented them for making good on lukewarm threats to kill the larger drug bill. “I would vote for it with the clear knowledge that anyone who votes against the supplemental funding who tries to then take credit would be dishonest,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat.
Ms. Ayotte and Mr. Portman cleverly voted for the failed supplemental funding measure, offered by Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, who vowed to keep fighting for more money.
An epidemic of prescription painkiller abuse has swept the United States, with overdose deaths quadrupling since the late 1990s. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that opioids — which include prescription pain medications and heroin — were involved in 28,648 deaths in 2014.
Some public health experts say there has been relatively little action at the federal level, with some agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration, even making things worse by continuing to approve new opioids in a market flooded with them.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment-- or suggestions, particularly of topics and places you'd like to see covered