;)
The Commentariat -- Feb. 26, 2016
Afternoon Update:
For those of us who judged last night's food fight to be, well, an "Animal House"-worthy food fight, if among slightly less mature participants, we were ever so wrong. These guys are class acts. Eliza Collins of Politico: "Marco Rubio relentlessly mocked Donald Trump on Friday, escalating the attacks he unleashed during Thursday night's debate and even suggesting the Republican frontrunner may have wet his pants on the stage." ...
<'>... Mighty presidential. P.S. If, BTW, you forgot how a real president speaks, check out the video below, where President Obama addresses the Syrian civil war, ISIS & international implications.Claude Brodesser-Akner of the New Jersey Star-Ledger: "Gov. Chris Christie is endorsing Donald Trump for president. Appearing next to Trump in Fort Worth, Texas, Christie said Trump would 'do what needs to be done to protect the American people. The one person Bill and Hillary Clinton do not want to see on that stage is Donald Trump,' said Christie." Thanks to MAG for the lead. CW: I have two comments: (1) The main reason Christie endorsed Trump was for the principled reason that he (a) got a out of New Jersey on (b) Donald's goldplated private jet; (2) what MAG said.
*****
John Parkinson of ABC News: "President Obama ordered his national security team to 'continue accelerating' the U.S.-led military campaign against the Islamic State 'on all fronts.'Obama convened a meeting with his National Security team today at the State Department as diplomats grapple over the details of a cessation of hostilities in Syria":
Jordan Fabian of the Hill: "President Obama will convene a long-anticipated meeting at the White House next Tuesday with top Republican senators to discuss the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) will both attend, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Thursday. The spokesman said the meeting was arranged 'after a number of conversations, some more awkward than others.'" ...
... Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post: "Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) announced Thursday he was withdrawing his name from consideration as a possible Supreme Court nominee, just one day after it became public the White House was weighing whether to select him." ...
... Eric Levitz & Claire Landsbaum of New York: "... appointing Sandoval might have been a cynical maneuver aimed at clarifying just how extreme the Republican Party's intransigence truly is. But it's unclear if Senate Democrats would have been willing to hold their tongues long enough for Obama to carry out his troll. On several upcoming Supreme Court cases, a Sandoval nomination would actually have been worse for progressive priorities than if Scalia's seat simply remained vacant."
Eric Lipton of the New York Times: "Among the court's members, [Justice Scalia] was the most frequent traveler, to spots around the globe, on trips paid for by private sponsors. When Justice Scalia died two weeks ago, he was staying, again for free, at a West Texas hunting lodge owned by a businessman whose company had recently had a matter before the Supreme Court.... Many of the justices are frequent expenses-paid travelers, a practice that some court scholars say ... could potentially create the appearance of a conflict of interest, particularly when the organizations are known for their conservative or liberal views.... Legislation is pending in the House and the Senate that would require the Supreme Court to create a formal ethics system, beyond the Ethics in Government Act, similar to the one that governs actions of all other federal judges. That system is known as the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Chief Justice Roberts has argued that the Supreme Court, even though it generally abides by this judicial ethics code, is not obligated to do so." ...
... Paul Krugman blogpost title: "Antonin Scalia really was a character out of a Dan Brown novel." ...
... Charles Pierce: Scalia "passed away before the House of Representatives could get busy making it easy for him and the rest of these be-robed predators to honor God and his creatures by tying them to the hood of the family Olds. The House is getting ready to pass a truly noxious bit of legislation that seems to be aimed at destroying the Endangered Species Act by killing off anything that act might protect namely, the Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act of 2015.... This law is a bulging hope chest for the sadistic followers of St. Hubert...." ...
... Humane Society: "There's not one regular deer or duck hunter who gets anything out of this bill. Any lawmaker who claims he's for sportsmen by supporting this bill is guilty of grandstanding.... This is the most destructive anti-wildlife proposal ever to come to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.... If Congress exhibits the worst of judgment and caves in to the trophy-hunting lobby by passing this scam of a bill, we'll call upon President Obama to give it a clean kill shot."
Katie Benner & Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times: "Apple on Thursday filed its formal opposition to the federal court order requiring it to help law enforcement officials break into an iPhone, setting the stage for more legal wrangling in a case that has pitted the world's most valuable company against the United States government." ...
... Danny Yadron, et al., of the Guardian: "Apple's lawyers believe forcing America's largest company to help the government crack open one of its iPhones would violate the US constitution and be a misinterpretation of a 227-year-old law." ...
... Spencer Ackerman & Sam Thielman of the Guardian: "The director of the FBI has conceded that future judges will look to his battle with Apple as a precedent for law enforcement access to locked or encrypted mobile devices, the first time the government has conceded that the implications of the case stretch beyond an investigation into the San Bernardino terrorist attacks. The ultimate outcome of the Apple-FBI showdown is likely to 'guide how other courts handle similar requests',James Comey told a congressional intelligence panel on Thursday, a softening of his flat insistence on Sunday that the FBI was not attempting to 'set a precedent'."
Presidential Race
This Week's JournoMeme: "Is it too late for Marco to save the Republican party?"
It's the Media's Fault. Donald Trump has portrayed himself now consistently as fighting for the working people. And he has a record of sticking it to working people for 35 years. If any other candidate in this race had his record, there would be nonstop reporting on it. Unfortunately he's being pumped up because many in the media with a bias know that he'll be easy to beat in a general election. So we're gonna put a stop to it now. There's no way we're going to allow a con artist to take over the conservative movement. -- Marco Rubio, this morning
... if anything, Rubio and Cruz themselves bear a fair amount of blame for the failure to stop Trump. As has been widely documented, both refrained from seriously going after Trump for months, apparently calculating either that engaging Trump was too risky or that it would compromise any efforts to scoop up Trump's supporters after he faded. -- Greg Sargent
Michael Barbaro & Matt Flegenheimer of the New York Times on last night's GOP "debate": "In a series of acid exchanges, a newly pugnacious Mr. Rubio, long mocked for a robotic and restrained style, interrupted Mr. Trump, quizzed him, impersonated him, shouted over him and left him looking unsettled. It was an unfamiliar reversal of roles for the front-runner, who found himself so frequently the target of assaults from Mr. Rubio and Senator that he complained they must have been a ploy for better television ratings.... The two-hour rumpus frequently devolved into unmediated bouts of shouting, name-calling and pleas to the moderators for chances to respond to the latest insult." ...
... Karen Tumulty & Robert Costa of the Washington Post: "Sparring between the two [-- Rubio & Trump --] dominated the debate, turning the other three candidates on the stage into bystanders for much of the evening." ...
... Ben Jacobs & Tom Dart of the Guardian: "It was the first time rival candidates have used a debate stage to go after the foundation of Trump's campaign -- his experience as a businessman, his assertion that he is the only candidate who can be relied upon to be a stalwart opponent of illegal immigration, and his fundamental belief in 'winning'.... The concerted attacks and Trump's counterpunching left John Kasich and Ben Carson as relative bystanders. At one point, Carson pleaded: 'Can somebody attack me?'"
... Driftglass's liveblog/Tweetathon covers the details, enhanced by poetic license. "Rubio: 'Why won't you hire my mommy, Donald?'" CW: As usual, the calibre of the debaters makes it hard to tell where they leave off & satire begins. ...
... Here's the Washington Post's "annotated transcript." ...
... Will Rahn & Olivia Nuzzi of the Daily Beast: Rubio "delivered what was easily his best debate performance yet Thursday night, hammering frontrunner Donald Trump repeatedly on his character, his business record, and his claims to being a conservative. It was the performance he needed. The question now is whether it will matter at all." ...
... Jeet Heer of the New Republic: "... now that Rubio has gone on the attack, the question is whether he can survive the inevitable counterattack. Trump has hitherto largely ignored Rubio, but if the past is any guide, Rubio will now be in Trump's crosshairs. If Rubio does turn the odds around and win, Thursday night will be seen as the turning point. The problem is that Trump could continue to steamroll through the primaries, which will prove only that Rubio waited too long to go after him." ...
... Jonathan Chait: "Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz followed nearly identical plans in Thursday night's Republican presidential debate. They cast themselves as the true conservatives in the debate and attacked Donald Trump as an ideological heretic. They almost completely abstained on attacks against each other, recognizing that Trump is on the verge of breaking away from the pack." ...
... Jamelle Bouie: Rubio, & especially Cruz, don't understand the basis for Trump's appeal. If Rubio has any chance of taking Trump down, it's to keep up the attack on Trump's exploitation, via "Trump University," of the ordinary Americans he claims he'll protect. ...
... Jessica Roy of New York: "Unlike most of his fellow Republicans, Donald Trump isn't afraid to acknowledge that Planned Parenthood provides important health services for millions of women across America. But exactly like his fellow Republicans, he'd also defund it." ...
... The Art of the Israel-Palestine Deal. Michelle Goldberg of Slate explains to Marco Rubio that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a real estate deal, somthing Donald Trump seems to intuitively get. ...
... The Guardian's liveblog of the GOP presidential debate is here. The New York Times is liveblogging here. ...
... CW: I can't stand to watch those blowhards, but I'm enjoying the liveblogs. The reporters make the "debate" sound like a schoolyard fight: "Am not." "Are, too." Maggie Haberman of the Times: "... while both Cruz and Rubio are shaving some points off Trump, we're at a point in the campaign where those two are basically saying to him, 'How dare you say you wouldn't let people die in the streets?'"
Today's must-read is Matt Taibbi's Rolling Stone essay on "how America made Donald Trump unstoppable.... Trump's basic argument is the same one every successful authoritarian movement in recent Western history has made: that the regular guy has been screwed by a conspiracy of incestuous elites. The Bushes are half that conspiratorial picture, fronts for a Republican Party establishment and whose sum total of accomplishments, dating back nearly 30 years, are two failed presidencies, the sweeping loss of manufacturing jobs, and a pair of pitiable Middle Eastern military adventures -- the second one achieving nothing but dead American kids and Junior's re-election." CW: Please take the time to appreciate the prose as well as the point. ...
... Paul Krugman writes everything you need to know about the delusions & practices of the GOP establishment. ...
... CW: What Krugman doesn't cover is racism, etc., in the Democratic party leadership. Before you get all smug about how Democratic leaders would never say & do the kinds of things Nixon, Reagan & Trump did, let me remind you that, yes, they do. Bill Clinton became president because he embraces racist tropes. Then he acted on them. When his wife said at a campaign rally in 1996 that it was necessary to "bring to heel ... superpredators," she was pulling a Nixon/Reagan. Mind you, her remarks, & Bill's remarks & actions re: "criminal justice reform" & "welfare reform," are exactly the same as Trump's. The Clintons are progressives of convenience -- they need the black/female/gay vote to win the White House. This is fundamentally how they differ from Bernie Sanders, who was willing to be arrested -- and was -- in support of racial equality. Young Bernie was not thinking in terms of tactical self-interest when he marched against Jim Crow; everything the Clintons do & say in public is self-interested. This is what the kids mean by "authenticity"; they may not be able to adequately articulate it, but in their hearts they get it. As for Trump, he would be a Democratic demagogue if Republicans had not been more successful than Democrats in exploiting the dark urges of the white mob. When I vote for Hillary Clinton in November, I know I'll be voting for a racist homophobe, just as I knew it when I voted twice for Bill Clinton on those November days long past. In hopes for a better tomorrow, I vote for the lesser of two evils today. ...
... On Hillary Clinton's 1996 remarks, Robert Mackey & Zaid Jilani, writing in the Intercept, provide helpful context. Now, as Hillary said this week when confronted about her past remarks on black youths, let's get "back to the [real] issues." ...
... Tim Egan chalks up Trump's impulsive, erratic behavior to chronic sleep deprivation. Sounds silly, but he might be right. ...
... While his former opponents were debating each other, once-presidential candidate Lindsey Graham was speaking at the Washington Press Club:
Culture Wars, Ctd. digby: No, those Republican "populists" who like the "anti-PC" Donald Trump are not going to be voting Democratic when somebody tells them Democratic economic policies are much better for them than are Republican policies. "... what the Trump phenomenon represents [is] a primal scream of loss. Yes, it's economic. The whole middle class in America feels the squeeze and the poor are as screwed as they ever were. But for these people, the Trump people, it's cultural more than anything else. They feel they have lost their social status And even if they become more economically secure, the way think they were back in the 1950s, they will never get that back. On some level they know this. And that's what they're angry about." ...
... ** Oh yeah? Here's one Republican -- neocon Robert Kagan -- who is ready to switch sides, as he says in this WashPo op-ed: "A plague has descended on the [Republican] party in the form of the most successful demagogue-charlatan in the history of U.S. politics.... He is ... the party's creation, its Frankenstein monster, brought to life by the party, fed by the party and now made strong enough to destroy its maker.... Then there was the Obama hatred, a racially tinged derangement syndrome that made any charge plausible and any opposition justified.... For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be." CW: A mostly fun read. ...
... Jonathan Chait comments on Kagan's op-ed: "The neoconservatives were originally moderate liberal critics of the Democratic Party, who objected to its leftward turn in the 1960s and 1970s and began their exodus from the broader Democratic Party around the McGovern campaign. Most of them are deeply enmeshed in the conservative movement now and have views about the role of government indistinguishable from those of other conservatives. But, eventually, some faction will break loose from the GOP and form the basis for a sane party that is capable of governing. Who knows? Maybe that faction will be the one that moved into the party a half-century ago." ...
... Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker: "If Trump succeeds in capturing the Republican nomination, the debate that is now playing out on the margins of the right will be front and center for every elected Republican. They may soon have to choose: Would they rather have as President an enemy they can oppose[, i.e., Clinton], or one for whom they are -- in more ways than one -- responsible?" ...
... Andrew Kaczynski of BuzzFeed: "David Duke, a white nationalist and former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, is urging the listeners of his radio program to volunteer and vote for Donald Trump. 'Voting for these people, voting against Donald Trump at this point is really treason to your heritage,' Duke said on the David Duke Radio Program Wednesday, referring to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio." CW: It would appear from that remark that Duke is such an ignorant asshole he doesn't realize Cruz & Rubio are as white as he is. Maybe whiter. I don't know anything about Duke's family heritage, but if he comes from a long line of Southerners, there's a high probability that Duke isn't as white as the driven snow. ...
... "Don't Vote for a Cuban." Martin Longman, in the Washington Monthly, on "the ugliest campaign ever." But don't worry; Reince Preibus is in control. ...
... Alan Rappeport of the New York Times: "While the Mexican government has said little about Mr. Trump's plan to beef up border security, two of the country's former presidents have a message for Mr. Trump: Mexico won't pay. 'I'm not going to pay,' Vicente Fox said, using a profanity to comment about the wall Thursday in an interview with Fusion.... Mr. Fox's successor, Felipe Calderón, expressed similar concerns about the wall this month. 'Mexican people, we are not going to pay any single cent for such a stupid wall!' Mr. Calderón told CNBC." ...
... CW: What Fox actually said was "I am not going to pay for this fucking wall." (He gave the interview in Spanish, but switched to English for that remark, which comes at the end of the linked clip.) ...
... Sam Stein of the Huffington Post: "Multiple Republican campaign sources and operatives have confided that none of the remaining candidates for president have completed a major anti-Trump opposition research effort. For those hoping to blunt Trump's momentum, the late start on opposition research is no small problem.... The most common [explanation] is that few campaigns actually thought Trump would last long, making the need to dig into his past rather moot.... It is treated as a truism among Republicans that a vast reservoir of damaging opposition research remains untouched." Thanks to MAG for the link. ...
... Kevin Drum: "With all the money sloshing around the primary, nobody could manage to find a few million bucks to put together a professional ratfucking operation? Republicans really are losing their mojo." ...
... Here's some dirt, which the Guardian may have initially obtained from some political oppo research team:
>... Jon Swaine of the Guardian: "... Donald Trump is being confronted with resurfaced allegations that he sexually assaulted and tried to rape a woman in the early 1990s. The woman alleged in a federal lawsuit in 1997 that Trump violated her 'physical and mental integrity' when he touched her intimately without consent after her boyfriend went into business with him.... The woman ... dropped the $125m lawsuit in Manhattan the following month. It coincided with a separate legal dispute between Trump and the woman's then-boyfriend over an alleged breach of contract relating to their beauty pageant business venture. Trump claimed at the time that the lawsuit alleging assault was aimed at pressuring him to settle the other dispute, which reportedly he did for a six-figure sum later that year.... Yet when asked by the Guardian whether she stood by the allegations detailed in the lawsuit, the woman said in a text message: 'Yes.'... Potentially confusing matters further, the woman appears to now be a supporter of Trump's campaign for the White House." ...
... Janell Ross of the Washington Post: "Melania Trump ... told MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' that she has no problem whatsoever with her husband's public comments about Mexican and Muslim immigrants.... Her reason: She followed the [immigration] law and thinks others should have to do the same.... But what Melania Trump didn't say ... is this: Models like her don't exactly wait in the same much-talked-about immigration line as the average Mexican immigrant -- or, for that matter, immigrant workers who would like to come to the United States from anywhere in the world.... The U.S. government officially considers them workers with special skills for whom a certain number of visas ... are set aside each year."
Philip Bump of the Washington Post: A new Quinnipiac University poll of Florida Republicans, conducted after Jeb! dropped out of the race, shows Trump getting 44% of the vote & Rubio 28%. "If you are Rubio, there is no way of looking at this besides that it is an unmitigated disaster Trump leads easily with almost every demographic in the poll." ...
... Lee Drutman of Vox: "Rubio's chances were always poor. Ranked choice voting could have told us this sooner.... If we are really down to just Rubio and Cruz as the only viable alternatives against Trump, it looks like Rubio dropping out would help Cruz far more than Cruz dropping out would help Rubio.... Rubio's support is narrower than most thought, Cruz's support is wider.... The so-called 'establishment wing' of the Republican Party may be in even weaker shape and far fuzzier than most pundits tend to think."
Less-Great Expectations. Tal Kopan of CNN: "A super PAC supporting Ben Carson on Thursday sent out a fundraising email to supporters saying the candidate needs to be on the Republican ticket -- even as the vice presidential nominee -- in order to capture the minority vote. The email, signed by 2016 Committee National Chairman John Philip Sousa IV, said that the race is still 'in flux' but if Carson isn't on the ticket, 'The Democrats will win the White House and the America we love will disappear.... The demographics of America have changed dramatically, and that is why Ben Carson must stay in this race. He may not win the GOP nomination, but he still holds the winning hand in this political poker game. If Ben Carson is on the ticket, either as president or as vice president, we can win the White House by winning upwards of 25% of the black vote and 35% of the Hispanic vote.'" ...
... CW: See digby above for what "the America we love" looks like. According to Sousa IV, Carson's best-selling quality is his race. What is a black man to do when even his own backers are racists? Maybe a Sousa I march will cheer him up. He can parade around his rec room passing by all those awards he got before he went wingnutty:
CW: What I said. Nick Gass of Politico: "Rick Perry did not exactly close the door on the possibility of another go at the presidency in 2016 during a contested convention in an interview with CNN." My thought was that Perry could just right back into the fray, but Gov. Oops! is looking for an opening in a brokered convention.
Kelsey Snell of the Washington Post: "Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus are preparing to endorse Hillary Clinton for president in an effort to help her campaign secure critical Hispanic votes in next week's Super Tuesday primaries." ...
... New York Times Editors: "'Everybody does it,' is an excuse expected from a mischievous child, not a presidential candidate. But that is Hillary Clinton's latest defense for making closed-door, richly paid speeches to big banks, which many middle-class Americans still blame for their economic pain, and then refusing to release the transcripts.... Mrs. Clinton further complained, 'Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else?' The only different standard here is the one Mrs. Clinton set for herself, by personally earning $11 million in 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 for 51 speeches to banks and other groups and industries. Voters have every right to know what Mrs. Clinton told these groups.... By stonewalling on these transcripts Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she's not trustworthy and makes her own rules."
... Eugene Scott of CNN: "A pair of Black Lives Matter activists interrupted Hillary Clinton Wednesday night at a private fundraiser, confronting the Democratic presidential candidate with past statements she made about youth in gangs. 'We want you to apologize for mass incarceration,' Ashley Williams said at the Charleston, South Carolina, event. 'I'm not a "super predator," Hillary Clinton.' Williams was referring to statements Clinton made in New Hampshire during her husband's 1996 presidential re-election campaign, defending then-President Bill Clinton's 1994 crime bill. The bill advocated for tougher policing of gang members." ...
... Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post: "'Looking back, I shouldn't have used those words, and I wouldn't use them today,' Hillary Clinton told me in a statement when I asked her what she would have said to Ashley Williams, the activist who interrupted Clinton at a Charleston, S.C., fundraiser Wednesday night."
Beyond the Beltway
Chad Livengood of the Detroit News: "Two top advisers to Gov. Rick Snyder urged switching Flint back to Detroit's water system in October 2014 after General Motors Co. said the city's heavily chlorinated river water was rusting engine parts, according to governor's office emails examined by The Detroit News. Valerie Brader, then Snyder's environmental policy adviser, requested that the governor's office ask Flint's emergency manager to return to Detroit's system on Oct. 14, 2014, three weeks before Snyder's re-election. Mike Gadola, then the governor's chief legal counsel, agreed Flint should be switched back to Detroit water nearly a year before state officials relented to public pressure and independent research showing elevated levels of lead in the water and bloodstreams of Flint residents.... His message that was received by Snyder's Chief of Staff Dennis Muchmore, Deputy Chief of Staff Beth Clement and then-Communications Director Jarrod Agen and Brader." Gadola grew up in Flint & his mother lives there. ...
... CW: Is it possible that Muchmore, Clement & Agen, all of whom had frequent, direct access to the governor, never mentioned the Flint water crisis to Snyder? Were they trying to ensure that the governor retained "plausible deniability"? Or implausible? If Snyder really surrounded himself with aides who kept him in the dark on critical issues, then I'm not so sure he's such a savvy businessman, much less a competent politician. I think it much more likely that they -- and others -- told Snyder about the contaminated water & he waved it off because switching Flint back to Detroit water would have undermined his bean-counting program. ...
... BTW, it wasn't as if Gov. Snyder couldn't have read about the many contaminants in Flint's water, say, back in September 2014, even without input from his staff.
"You Mean Veterans Can't Vote?" Charles Pierce: "A 90-Year-Old Iwo Jima Veteran Couldn't Vote in Scott Walker's Wisconsin.... Veterans. Grandparents. Honor students. Cops. Nurses.... These examples could provide an endless stream of campaign commercials that would have the advantage of actually being true. However, this would require competent, forward-thinking leadership at the Democratic National Committee which is, at the moment, being run by someone whose primary concentration apparently is ensuring herself good seats at the 2017 inauguration."
Sarah Kaplan, et al., of the Washington Post: "Three people were killed and another 14 injured after a gunman opened fire in [Hesston,] a small city in Kansas, indiscriminately shooting people along a highway and at his workplace, a lawn mower factory, before he was fatally shot by authorities, police said."
Susan Svrluga of the Washington Post: "Melissa Click, a professor who gained national notoriety during the protests at the University of Missouri, has been fired."
Way Beyond
Somini Sengupta of the New York Times: "The United States and China have agreed to stiffen international financial sanctions against North Korea in a major shift for Beijing, which has long been unwilling to further isolate its intransigent ally. Whether the development, confirmed Thursday by diplomats at the United Nations Security Council, means that China will take steps to prevent North Korean ships from bringing coal and iron ore to Chinese ports remains unclear. The United States had pushed for a partial ban on permitting North Korean ships to enter ports around the world."
Anne Barnard of the New York Times: "... many Syrian medical workers in insurgent-held areas and human rights groups believe medical facilities are not just being hit by stray bombs or indiscriminate attacks, but have long been deliberately targeted by the Syrian government and its Russian allies. It is a measure of the deep mistrust that gravely challenges prospects for a truce set to begin Saturday.
Share Article
Reader Comments (26)
This was a debate between people who want to be POTUS? We have to change the word from 'clowns' to 'children'. This sounded like a fight in the schoolyard.
Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post: “'Looking back, I shouldn’t have used those words, and I wouldn’t use them today,' Hillary Clinton told me in a statement when I asked her what she would have said to Ashley Williams, the activist who interrupted Clinton at a Charleston, S.C., fundraiser Wednesday night."
This is precisely the Clinton Problem. She apologizes for "the words" but not the deeds. As we now know, The Clintons will say anything provided the end result is further attainment of power. Pay no attention to what they say, but keep a close eye on what they do.
The first segment of last night's Rachel Maddow's show available on the web site this morning includes a contentious exchange between Senator Sanders and Chris Matthews:
http://on.msnbc.com/1TaVsEG
Sanders' thesis is: "I am trying to change the face of American politics."
I'm sorry. We've seen this before. President Obama was voted into office with the same message. He worked really really really hard to get Republicans to go along with _their own policies_ and they snubbed him at every turn. At this point point they are refusing to even consider doing their jobs on holding hearings for a new Supreme Court nominee.
Senator Sanders says that the American people will rise up and demand their elected representatives vote for his admirable proposals. The prime counter example to this for me is New Town, after which some polls showed that 90% of the American public was in favor of a stronger background check system and at least some restrictions on guns and ammunition.
Senator Sanders is correct that a solid chunk of America has been trained to hate Hillary Clinton, but many of those same people will learn to hate him in a nanosecond.
Here's a powerful OpEd on voting rights from Rep. John Lewis. He also acknowledges the burdens and attacks these this right is suffering in some 37 states. He has this to say about Hillary Clinton:
"Mrs. Clinton’s dedication to this issue has been more long-standing than any other candidate. As a senator, she introduced legislation hailed as the “gold standard” for voting access, including automatic voter registration at birth, a national standard for early voting and an Election Day federal holiday so that nothing blocks the ability of citizens to make their voices heard."
@Victoria D.: I don't deny that Clinton is for any civil rights legislation that will be of direct benefit to her. I love John Lewis. He has spent his whole life working for the best interests of Americans. I'd probably choose him as the living American I most admire.
What he writes about Clinton & voting rights is undoubtedly true. But he should look to the reason for her largesse instead of knocking Bernie Sanders' civil rights bona fides (a lapse for which he has apologized).
Marie
A few months ago Norm Ornstein wrote a superb analysis titled "The Eight Causes of Trumpism." It is seriously worth a read (if already linked, my apologies). Anyway, among the many gems was an interesting observation relating to the anti-science, "truthiness" behavior of today's Republicans. It seems that one of Newt Gingrich's initial acts as Speaker of the House was to get rid of the "highly professional, nonpartisan Office of Technology Assessment, Congress’s scientists who could use their expertise to inform lawmakers and adjudicate differences based on scientific fact and data." This act helped to allow the free floating fantasies of Congressmen and their lobbyists to take off, unencumbered by pesky little facts. Think climate change, resource management, etc.
Last night the array of televised basketball games appealed to me far more than the debate, but I did check in on it a few times during time outs...
....and had this thought: When the the top three bottom feeders were calling one another names, mostly various renditions of "liar, liar," I saw the media fact-checkers slumped in a dejected row, because when Rubio, Cruz and Trump shouted at one another and called one another liars, they were so obviously all telling the truth they left little grist for the professional fact-checker mill.
I am still in my bathrobe having read Matt Taibbi's looooong, but quite excellent piece in Rolling Stone. He makes the whole Trump spectacle crystal clear and what a pleasure to read. The hilarious image of Trump's balls as large as watermelons,( but Trump's balls are unaware of this); "He's not bringing "Middlemarch" to the toilet" is so clever and to the point. The connection with Ravishing Rick Rude is another salient feature in explaining the Donald's moves. But aside from the hilarity we get a broad picture of someone who has thrown off the usual proper cloth coats of conservative B.S. and donned one of furry splendor whose outrageous rhetoric has beguiled the masses. It may be entertainment, but like Mel Brooks, there are all those political messages. My husband was complaining the other day wondering why no one has really delved into Donald's devious deals and pressed him on how exactly he would do thus and so when President. Perhaps now that we are finally taking this guy seriously, the fun will begin. And if he ever gets a chance to go against Hillary there will be fireworks of great proportion––we may need sunglasses to keep out the glare.
But if it's Sanders, it will be even more interesting. As Taibbi says, Sanders worries about the poor while Trump would eat a child in a lifeboat, but both are laser-focused on the corrupting role of money in politics.
I watched some of the debate last night and laughed most of the way through. And when Carson spoke, which wasn't often, I left the room to get myself a kiwi whose skin removal would take the amount of time he'd be through speaking. Driftglass's hilarious take on this charade was perfect.
He, Drumpf's 'winning' endorsements, the short short list:
1. She, Palin.
2. Sheriff Arpaio
3. David Duke
Wow! Who else will step up next?
On a more serious note (though if one cares to think of the implications there may be nothing more serious than the superficial high hilarity of last night's debate's), this from the Southern Poverty Law Center:
"...(the)antigovernment militia movement surged over the past year, growing by nearly 40 percent. At the same time, hate groups grew at a rapid pace and are nearing record levels, up 14 percent to 892 in 2015."
Wonder who all those Trump supporters are?
Wonder if Trump supporters would switch to Sanders?
Wonder if the Malheur situation is really contained?
There is more to it, of course, but these numbers alone suggest some pretty clear answers.
Mag,you left one out- V. Putin.
@Marvin Schwalb - funny you should term the debate like a fight in a schoolyard. My reaction was very close (from the clips I have heard): it seemed like a food fight at Animal House.
Another thing that startles me is the audience reaction which sounded like something one would imagine at the Coliseum when they were throwing Christians to the lions. Ugh!
Matt Taibbi's piece in Rolling Stone is, as advertised, excellent.
In addition to his usual nail on the head rhetorical flourishes, Taibbi points to an essential feature of the consternation of the elite on the Right (all of whom bow to oligarchs and orthodoxy--yes, and in that order), when confronted with the confounding support of THEIR people, the great unwashed who have been kept on a steady diet of hatred and ignorance making them reliable rubber stamps for the machinations of their wingnut betters, for the upstart Trump: they really don't give a shit about either the oligarchs or the orthodoxy.
They don't care about Cato or AEI position papers. They don't give a shit about internecine pseudo-philosophical contretemps between clash of civilization types, free marketers, libertarians, paleocons, neocons, and the other kind of Republicans, the just plain cons. Find me one person at a Trump rally who can explain supply side economics. Now find me someone who is pissed that they're not on top anymore and blame The Others for their demise. That line will go down the block.
Winger Elites have long believed that their propaganda machine has successfully molded a pliant phalanx of voters beholden to them for showing them a way out of the fictional Liberal Hell they've been dangling above them since they were baby 'baggers. Maybe the students have learned a different lesson.
A few years back, while teaching an adjunct course (you wanna talk about your repressed economic minorities! Adjunct professors, baby), I moved my students toward a consideration of Watergate and its aftermath. This wasn't a course in politics or government, but that sorry episode offered a wealth of opportunities for lessons in what we were about. After a careful review of the particulars complete with plenty of background source reading, I asked what sorts of lessons we could, as a nation, take away from that debacle. Five out of twenty students said "Don't get caught." Not exactly what I was hoping for. It's not that their conclusion was outrageous or even unjustified. It was, in its own depressingly admirable way, eminently practical. But "If you're gonna break the law, don't get caught" is the motto of a career criminal, not a civic minded American.
Be that as it may, a large crop of Republican voters have not been paying much attention to those Cato white papers or Ron Fournier diaper craps. What does catch their attention is Trump's simple message: You're getting screwed by people not like you. We're gonna pound them into the sidewalk and take back what's ours."
Trump is a bully. He's always been a bully. And bullies at heart are cowards. So what's he afraid of? I would guess a couple of things. Impotence for one, and insignificance. He also has a thing about revenge and he does NOT want to be challenged. Trump is not the sort who is happy at coming out a winner. No. He wants to beat you, then knock you down, call your mother names, and bring in his lackeys to kick the living shit out of you. I would suggest that many of his supporters feel exactly the same way. They fear loss of power and control, especially at the hands of groups they perceive to be undeserving, their inferiors (it's a long list). They despise feeling insignificant, and if given a chance at vengeance, well, it wouldn't be pretty. They're lining up to pounce on any sign of protest at Trump rallies. And the challenges they sense coming from all sides are a positive affront.
No wonder Trump is held in such high esteem by white supremacists. They instinctively sense a similarity in his psychological clockwork that makes them blood kin. Even those who aren't out and out racists respond to those other qualities and especially to Trump's simple solutions: Beat 'em up. Throw 'em out. Torture 'em. Bomb the shit out of them. Put 'em on their knees.
To hell with supply side, recondite position papers, Supreme Court minutiae, and comfortable corporate tax structures. We've got some ass to kick.
So what to do? Well, like the five students who took away a completely different lesson from Watergate, we could throw up our hands and start in with the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Or we could, as I did that day, take some hope in the fact that fifteen other students got it. More or less.
And rather than jump up and down on the press (always a useful way to blow off steam, and not without good reason), I would point to that mass of Americans that doesn't vote at all or take the time to be interested. You know who I mean. The smug or lazy ones who say "Oh, what does it matter? They're all the same. Why bother voting?" These people deserve far more blame for the calumnies visited upon American civic virtue (such as it is) than the Gadarene Swine who race after Trump as he draws them to the edge of the cliff. At least those people are committed. They show up.
The soporific and indolent nature of all those "uncommitteds" and independents who just "haven't made up my mind yet" is more maddening than the fact that David Duke has given his blessing to a guy who has a very good chance of being the next Republican to stand for president. Electoral power is an amazing gift in the history of the world. Some penny ante postage stamp country on the other side of the world gets to vote and 99.9% of eligible voters show up. Elections of enormous consequence in America? We're lucky to get 55%. Even the 62% we got in 2008 is embarrassing. It should have been 80 given the stakes. American voters have it within their power to decide (at least as much as Republican dirty tricks will let them) the fate of the country. We don't have to worry about some hostile potentate riding roughshod over the land and forcing us all to bow to his countenance. But if this amazing ability is not exercised, as Taibbi intimates, King Trump could very well do that.
Apathy. That's what I'm afraid of.
hahahahahahahahahahaha! @Marvin
Just saw No.5 endorsement announced as breaking news over on NYTimes Christie just endorsed Drumpf!
Re: Trump and Christie
Big bullies attract little bullies. Could you imagine Christie throwing his support to a robo-weenie like Rubio or a creep like Cruz? Sure. If it looked like they had the nomination sewn up. Christie is nothing if not a rank opportunist. And now he has an opportunity to slide his tongue as far up the Donald hole as he can get it. He's toast as governor so I wonder what cabinet post he'll be angling for. Secretary of Bridge Closings?
Operator: Uncle Sam, you have a person to person call on the Sousa phone.
Racism is a wonderful thing isn't it? Right up there with cancer and terminal stupidity.
So John Phillip Sousa IV (wtf, right?) believes that Ben (Black Lives Matter--sometimes) Carson has to be on the Republican ticket, otherwise all those black people will vote for Hillary. Because they will all automatically vote for the black guy. Even the insane one.
I guess Sousa is hoping Carson will accept the role of Chief Steppinfetchit.
Yassa, massa. We's all a-votin' fuh Ben. He be duh colored boy.
Uncle Sam: Operator, can you reverse those charges please? And no more calls from that asshole. These people!
Akhilleus, Christie isn't looking for a cabinet post. He is far to wonderful. He wants to be VP. He would be a perfect fit with Trump.
Loud, nasty liar.
It is hard to know the motives of any candidate, and Hillary Clinton has come in for a lot of questioning of hers. Jon Favreau, former Obama speechwriter, addresses the issue of Hillary's character and authenticity in a thoughtful essay in The Daily Beast. He gives some compelling details about what she was like as a colleague as well. The essay is entitled, "Why Electing Hillary in '16 is more Important than Electing Obama in '08."
I thought it was an interesting and informative read from someone in a position to weigh in, and also humorous in spots.
CW: if you're going convict Hillary for her "superpredator" remarks, please extend the indictment to fully half of the Congressional black caucus, who willingly, enthusiastically supported the legislation. Why? Because their communities were being decimated by superpredator crack dealers. Many black leaders not only supported that legislation, they begged for it as the only hope for their ravaged communities. If supporting the legitimate wishes of black leaders damns Hillary in progressive eyes, heaven help the progressive movement.
My guess is that the Christie endorsement took place just in time for it to make the cold open on SNL tomorrow night. The writers have a real quandary. It really is too good to pass up, but do they really want to give Trump and Christie that much more free publicity?
Akhilleus,
Thanks for the look at your Watergate lesson.
My response would have been:
Most of us learned in Kindergarten that what goes around comes around. What you do to someone today, they may damn well be in a position to do to you tomorrow. And they will.
Somehow, this simple lesson seems to have eluded Politicus Americanus. From McCarthyism to Watergate to Stonewalling any SCOTUS appointment. The beat goes on.
The only semi rational explanation for this behavior is belief in the Golden Rule: "Do unto others before they do it unto you, and do it so thoroughly they can't do it back -- at least not in your lifetime." That this rarely works out doesn't seem to make much difference -- hope springs eternal.
Oh, and my somewhat tongue in cheek suggestion yesterday, of a Trump/Christie ticket, is suddenly looking downright prescient. I think the odds are way better than 50/50.
Now excuse me as I run out and buy a PowerBall ticket while I'm still hot.
"Apathy. That's what I'm afraid of."
Indeed, Akhilleus!
And there are religious beliefs that also 'just say no' to participating in elections . . .
I was dumbstruck when informed by a Jehovah's Witness (thankfully, not a hateful, dyed-in-the-wool J.W.: she loved - and was protective of - her gay siblings) that they do not vote because 'only God can fix what is wrong with the world'.
Yet, not all that outrageous a conviction when considering the preponderance of god-talk that has come to infiltrate - and dominate - Politics & Law, let alone daily parlance.
Twelve Step programs have a saying:
"Let Go And Let God".
Except for one's personal beliefs & practices, howzabout -
"Just Let Go Of God"?
(Can no longer locate that ole separation between the church & the state. Was it moved? Pulverized from fracking? Did Trump acquire it through Eminent Domain? I feel lost.)
Never knew that Seventh Day Adventurists don't participate in the
election process. So next time one rings my doorbell I have it all
planned out; if Jesus were running for office, would you guys
register to vote?
Every day on this site is a learning process.
And separation of church and state has become like one of those
siamese twins. The church side is always trying to kill the other
half and at the same time complaining about being the victim.
I didn't see the food fight last night. I would rather spend my time doing something useful, like rearranging my books according to ISBNs or memorizing the family names in alphabetical order from the second book of the Iliad. But I have since read some partial transcripts. My sympathies to whoever had that job. Ho-leee....
As I read, mouth agape, at one point I noticed that Marco, Marco, Marco hit the Donald Hole with a question about his eponymous university, a scam that would warm any con-man's withered little ticker. In response to the RubeBot's darts about all the law suits engendered by his adventure in higher education, Trump countered (masterfully, I must say....heh-heh) with "I've won most of those law suits". Not "That bullshit is completely untrue", his usual tack.
A chiseler and conniver like Trump who has been in business for decades must have a pile of dead bodies just waiting to tumble out of the closet in a vaudeville manner rivaling the stateroom scene in the Marx Brothers' "Night at the Opera". I understand oppo research mavens have been hard at work, but likely not soon enough to benefit the RubeBot or the Creepy Cruz. But such enlightenment might help in the general.
Seriously, if all he's got in response to a massive scam that lined his pockets with the money of gulled marks is "I won most of the law suits", there's got to be plenty of examples of underhandedness that have left his clock ready for cleaning.
Staying tuned...
@AK: Good post––as always thought provoking. Your mention of adjunct professors––have known a few and they feel the pain. When Quinnipiac U. spread it's wide tentacles into our neighborhood and town ( we since moved) the president sat in our living room addressing our neighborhood group and assured us he was through expanding. He lied. Since then Q.U. has turned into a huge squid of a place where many professors ARE adjuncts because they don't want to pay for full time/tenured professors.
And in the background there was always the strain of "Stars and Stripes Forever.
@Calyban: You didn't read the link I included with my comment. It may change your mind.
Marie