;)
The Commentariat -- March 10, 2016
Afternoon Update:
It's Getting Worse. Ashley Parker of the New York Times: "A black protester [-- Rakeem Jones --] being escorted out of a Donald J. Trump campaign rally on Wednesday in Fayetteville, N.C., was sucker-punched and shoved by a Trump supporter, several videos on social media show.... Mr. Jones stumbled, then could be seen on the floor surrounded by sheriff’s deputies. In some of the videos, at least two deputies who were following Mr. Jones up the arena steps could be seen walking past the man who had just punched Mr. Jones. But on Thursday, WRAL, the local NBC television affiliate, reported that a 78-year-old man, John McGraw of Linden, N.C., had been charged with assault and battery and disorderly conduct.... Later in the Fayetteville rally..., when another in a series of demonstrators was being led out, Mr. Trump himself lamented what he called 'the good old days' when someone who acted up would be carried out 'on a stretcher.'" Emphasis added. CW: Local authorities should arrest Trump, too, for inciting violence & for civil rights violations. The guy belongs in an orange jumpsuit. ...
... Freedom of the Press. Lloyd Grove of the Daily Beast on how Trump & his, ah, news organ Breitbart, handle the press. Nixon kept his enemies list a secret. Trump is right out there in the open, beating them up & screwing them around. And, yeah, Breitbart, that paragon of journalistic excellence is willing to throw its "girl reporter" under the bus. Ben Terris of the Washington Post has a bit more: After finding out that Terris had witnessed Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski rough up Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields, Lewandowski made Terris wait for his scheduled interview, then cancelled the interview.
Otto Von Drumpf XIV. Binyamin Appelbaum of the New York Times: "Donald J. Trump's blistering critique of American trade policy boils down to a simple equation: Foreigners are 'killing us on trade' because Americans spend much more on imports than the rest of the world spends on American exports. China's unbalanced trade with the United States, he said Tuesday night, is 'the greatest theft in the history of the world.' Add a few 'whereins' and 'whences' and that sentiment would conform nicely to the worldview of the first Queen Elizabeth of 16th-century England, to the 17th-century court of Louis XIV, or to Prussia's Iron Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, in the 19th century.... Mr. Trump is bringing mercantilism back. The New York billionaire is challenging the last 200 years of economic orthodoxy that trade among nations is good, and that more is better." CW: You'll have to read Appelbaum's full report to find out why Trump -- who says he is very, very smart -- is so wrong.
David Herszenhorn of the New York Times: "Senators on the Judiciary Committee clashed openly on Thursday over filling a Supreme Court vacancy during an election year, with Republicans insisting that they were doing the right thing by refusing to consider any nominee put forward by President Obama and Democrats accusing them of shirking their constitutional duty. The Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, denounced Democrats for the pressure they have brought in recent days in pushing him to convene confirmation hearings once Mr. Obama picks a nominee, which could happen as soon as next week."
Steven Mufson & Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post: "President Obama said Thursday he is not responsible for the Republican Party's 'crackup' even though some GOP leaders have blamed him for Donald Trump's divisive but effective campaign for the party's presidential nomination." Here's the full press conference:
President Obama welcomes Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada to the White House:
*****
Presidential Race
Patrick Healy & Amy Chozick of the New York Times: "Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders clashed vividly over immigration reform, health care and Cuba during a contentious debate Wednesday as the two Democrats appealed to Hispanic voters and tried to outdo each other in assailing Donald J. Trump. Mrs. Clinton, bruised by her surprise loss in the Michigan primary a day earlier, was on the attack throughout the debate as she sought to undercut Mr. Sanders's momentum before the next round of primaries." ...
... Apparently this memo to Hillary from the New York Times Editors, published before the debate, was lost in the mail: "If she hopes to unify Democrats as the nominee, trying to tarnish Mr. Sanders as she did in Michigan this week is not the way to go." ...
... Here's more of Clinton's mean-girl routine. Matthew Nussbaum of Politico: "Hillary Clinton said Wednesday night that Bernie Sanders is in cahoots with the billionaire conservative Koch brothers because a group affiliated with them praised Sanders for opposing the Export-Import Bank. 'The leaders of the fossil fuel industry, the Koch brothers, have just paid to put up an ad praising Senator Sanders,' Clinton said. 'You know, there are a lot of different powerful interests in Washington, I've taken them on.'" Let's go the videotape. When Ramos tried to let Clinton get away with that unfounded attack, the crowd booed: ...
... CW: Clinton is a barracuda, the Democrats' prettier version of Ted Cruz. If you wonder why anyone would question Clinton's trustworthiness -- a quality on which she typically scores low in polls -- there you go. Sanders is no more aligned with the Kochs than he is with Trump or Atilla the Hun. I don't mind at all her going after Sanders on points where they genuinely disagree, but this line of attack is as real as "Trump Magazine." I don't trust a word she says, including "and" & "the." ...
... Update: PolitiFact is fact-checking statements the candidates made in last night's debate. So far Sanders has all "Mostly True" ratings & Clinton's are all "Mostly False" or "False." ...
... German Lopez of Vox on why the Univision debate was so important. CW: And good for Democrats for holding it. I wonder why Republicans don't have a Univision debate. Oh, because they're bullies who don't have the guts to face the victims of their policies? Could be. ...
... Eric Levitz of New York: "Jorge Ramos just gave advocates for the undocumented (and, probably, some GOP ad-makers) reason to celebrate. At Wednesday night's Democratic debate in Miami, the 'Walter Cronkite of Latino America' demanded Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton answer yes or no: Would they deport undocumented children and/or adults without criminal histories if elected president? Standing before a crowd of the Sunshine State's Democratic primary voters, neither candidate could say no. Although, Hillary Clinton sort of tried to -- and she may have bought herself some wiggle-room in doing so." ...
... Greg Sargent tries to clarify the wiggle room. Neither Clinton nor Sanders really made any news, & Clinton was equivocal. ...
... Gail Collins on the debate(s): "Hillary Clinton is by far the best qualified candidate for president. But at this point in the campaign, you can understand why some people feel that voting for her against Bernie Sanders is like rewarding Washington for its worst behavior. In the end, Clinton is the one who knows how to make the system work. But she's just got to be clearer on how she can work against the system." ...
... The New York Times is livebloggng the Bickersons' debate. ...
... Margaret Hartmann has a rundown of the big moments. And for those like Kate M., who at the top of today's Comments sensed that Univision was on Hillary's side, this multi-million-dollar tidbit: "Univision chairman Haim Saban contributed $2.5 million to a pro-Clinton super-PAC." I wish Bernie had raised that point. ...
... Elise Viebeck of the Washington Post: "Univision's Jorge Ramos had a disclosure to make on Wednesday night: his daughter works for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign." ...
... Alan Rappeport of the New York Times: "Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders will convene in Miami for the second Democratic presidential debate of the week on Wednesday night, ahead of big primaries in Florida and Ohio next Tuesday.... The debate begins at 9 p.m. Eastern and will be shown on Univision, CNN and Fusion." ...
... David Fahrenthold of the Washington Post: "This debate comes at an unexpected moment of drama in the Democratic race.... After the Michigan win, it is clear that Sanders ... has not peaked." ...
... One place you can watch the debate for free if you don't have access to CNN: the Washington Post Website. The Post is cosponsoring the debate.
Martin Longman of the Washington Monthly borrows the math & analyzes the state of the Democratic race: "1. Clinton is not on track to win the nomination outright without the help of superdelegates. On current trends, she's going to come up about 100 votes short (2,284 out of the 2,382 needed). 2. She’s unlikely to lose her pledged delegate advantage at any point, so a mass defection of superdelegates simply isn't going to happen barring some scandal or health scare. 3. Sanders cannot put much of a dent in her lead by winning narrow victories even in big important states like Ohio, Illinois and Wisconsin. 4. Yet, Sanders should remain mathematically alive all the way to the convention. 5. Based on ... projections, Sanders is on track to win almost 1,800 of the 4,762 delegates to the convention. This would be 38% of the total delegates. After his upset win in Michigan last night, it's certainly realistic to believe that Sanders can do substantially better than 38%, but it's simply not realistic to believe that he can win." ...
... Ed Kilgore: "If Sanders somehow turns it all around and wins the nomination -- still a very long shot -- his acceptance speech in Philadelphia should begin with a heartfelt thanks to the polling industry." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
... Charles Pierce: Among Michigan auto workers, Clinton's attempt to smear Sanders with a half-truth (she did it again last night) on the auto bailout seems to have backfired. "The auto workers in Michigan have run out of patience with platitudes and easy answers. At least on one side of it, this is becoming an election for people who see past the politics all the way into their own lives. That's what I learned in Flint, anyway."
Apropos of a brief discussion we had Wednesday morning in the Comments sections, there's this: Daniel Strauss of Politico: "The group at the center of the Koch brothers' vast political network is praising Bernie Sanders for opposing the Export-Import Bank and for his attacks on corporate welfare. Freedom Partners put out the web video highlighting its common ground with the Vermont senator ahead of Wednesday night's Democratic debate.... But a Sanders campaign official shot back, suggesting that the video was intended to hurt Sanders, by creating the perception that he is the preferred candidate of the Kochs -- an association that would be toxic in the Democratic primary." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) Here's the ad:
Margaret Hartmann has a roundup of commentary about Michigan's Democratic primary. Biggest -- and worstest -- takeaway for me: the results suggest Clinton could lose Rust Belt states to Mr. Bizarro there. (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
Nolan McCaskill of Politico: "The Republican National Committee on Wednesday filed two lawsuits in federal court seeking records and emails of Hillary Clinton and her colleagues at the State Department. The first suit seeks electronic records sent to and from Clinton via text or Blackberry Messenger and emails to senior aides. The second suit seeks communications between senior State Department officials, Clinton's presidential campaign and other Clinton allies after her time at State." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) CW: I'm pretty sure the complainants there are patriots concerned about national security. The court would do well to assume otherwise.
The confederate Editors of the Chicago Tribune endorse Marco Rubio for the GOP nomination. Their excellent rationale: "We like his youth, his bilingual fluency and the fact that he isn't one more Republican who's been standing in line, awaiting his turn to run." They endorse neither candidate for the Democratic nomination because, they say, both are consumed with pie-in-the sky plans to give away "Free Stuff." CW: So, you know, give to the wealthy; take from the moochers & freeloaders. I'm convinced. ...
... Contributor P. D. Pepe excavated the archives & came up with this 1964 LBJ ad. It's classic camp, a contemporaneous parody of early teevee talk shows; I love the way the actor takes out a cigarette about 2/3rds of the way thru. Still, LBJ's attack on Barry Goldwater via this ad, as P.D. points out, resonates today. Thanks a lot, P.D. Great find!:
Ben Schreckinger of Politico: "At the end of a friendly town hall interview aired on Wednesday night, Fox News personality Sean Hannity asked Trump whether as president, he would pursue a criminal indictment of Clinton should Attorney General Loretta Lynch 'cover' for Clinton and avoid indicting her. 'You have to,' Trump responded, to uproarious cheering. Though the attorney general serves at the pleasure of the president, Trump's answer conflicts with 40 years of precedent. His suggestion that he would seek an indictment flies in the face of the longstanding practice of limiting White House involvement in the prosecutorial decisions made by an attorney general." ...
... CW: Sorry, Ben, President Trump don't need no stinking legal precedents. This is one more example of what authoritarian leadership looks like. I'm waiting for the Foxbots to spread the meme that the reason Hillary is running for president is so she can pardon herself & she's running specifically against Trump to avoid incarceration in the Trump Maximum Security PrisonsTM system. "We have the best jails, okay?"
A security guard watches over Trump products that later were distributed to guests at Donald Trump's presser/QVC event last night.... More on the Bizarro Presumptive GOP Nominee. Eric Levitz of New York: "After his victories in the Mississippi and Michigan primaries Tuesday night, Trump ... [spent] a solid ten minutes of his celebratory press conference defending Trump Steaks and Trump Vodka. The mogul went so far as to address the American people from beside a heaping platter of raw beef and bottles of Trump Water and Trump Wine. At one point, he held up the latest issue of Trump magazine and briefly mused on its cover story." CW: I could hear from this room of my own the gasps of horror coming from "exclusive" Republican clubs around our fair nation. (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
... Where Even the Steaks Are Fake. Caleb Melby of Bloomberg: "When ... Donald Trump showed off a pile of beautifully marbled steaks atop a butcher board at a Tuesday campaign event, he called them 'Trump steaks.' That's true in the sense that they were steaks, and they were on a Trump property. But they weren't steaks from Trump's fabled, now defunct, Trump Steaks business. They were from Bush Brothers Provision Co., a West Palm Beach, Florida, purveyor that counts Trump-affiliated properties among its customers, said John Bush, whose family owns the company." CW: That's right. They weren't Trump Steaks; they were Bush Steaks. Small consolation for Jeb! ...
... Wait, Wait, There's More. The wine is fake, too. So is "Trump Magazine." CW: Maybe "Seinfeld" had a George Costanza for President episode I missed, & we're just catching a re-enactment of it now:
... Hadas Gold of Politico: "Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski forcibly yanked Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields out of the way after his press conference in Florida on Tuesday night.... Fields was clearly roughed up by the move, [a] witness said." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) CW: This is weird only because Brietbart is reputedly in the tank for Trump.
Ed O'Keefe of the Washington Post: Jeb! "plans to meet separately with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a spokeswoman said. There are no plans for Bush to meet with businessman Donald Trump CW: I suppose Jeb!, after flaming out in the presidential race, now aims to return to his former status as "respected party elder." And the remaining candidates are all looking for endorsements. Because there's nothing that can put a contender over the top like a Jeb Bush endorsement.
Mike Perleberg of Eagle Country Online: Al Bamburger, a 75-year-old white Marine veteran caught on video repeatedly shoving & shouting at a young black woman, Shiya Nwanguma, at a Donald Trump rally in Kentucky, says he's not a racist & hes' sorry. He got caught up in the moment or something. CW: Yeah, that'll happen. Probably what a lot of the participants in Kristallnacht told themselves, too. Not that I'm making a comparison. ...
... Shaun King of the New York Daily News: Bamburger "should be charged criminally alongside every other person who assaulted Shiya Nwanguma on that day." ...
... CW: In fact, the threat of criminal charges may be what inspired Bamburger's claimed remorse. From Perleberg's report: "A Louisville Metropolitan Police spokesman said Monday that various complaints from the March 1 Trump rally remain under investigation with no charges filed yet."
Tim Murphy of Mother Jones: "The morning after finishing second to GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump in three states (Mississippi, Michigan, and Hawaii) and winning a fourth (Idaho), [Ted] Cruz kicked off the next stretch of the campaign with a rally in [Marco] Rubio's backyard -- Miami -- and he did not come in peace. As many political observers have noted, the Texas senator's pivot toward the Sunshine State is apparently motivated by one impulse: to finish off Rubio." ...
... Matt Flegenheimer of the New York Times: "Carly Fiorina endorsed Senator Ted Cruz of Texas on Wednesday, supplying his campaign with a high-profile supporter and an eager critic of Donald J. Trump. Mrs. Fiorina, the former presidential candidate and Hewlett-Packard chief executive, took to the role quickly, appearing as a surprise guest at Mr. Cruz's morning rally in Florida." CW: How do you say, "Adios, Marco!" in Spanish? (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Claire Landsbaum of New York: "... during [Wednesday] night's MSNBC forum [Marco] Rubio ... admitted his own parents wouldn't have been able to enter the United States under his proposed immigration policy.... A merit-based system such as the one Rubio is proposing has faced criticism for overemphasizing formal education and employment while overlooking unpaid work women perform in the domestic sphere. It also places relatively little value on family ties, and the American Immigration Council suggests it would carry implicit age and gender biases." CW: That's how it is, see. When you want to be the last one in, you lock the door behind you. ...
... Also, too, he acknowledged that his anti-Trump schtick embarrassed his own children. Cited in the Rucker story, linked below: "In terms of things that have to do with personal stuff, yeah, at the end of the day it's not something I'm entirely proud of. My kids were embarrassed by it, and if I had to do it again, I wouldn't." ...
... Katherine Krueger of TPM: "Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) drew a 'disappointing' crowd for an event in his home state Wednesday night just days before a critical primary in the state, CNN reported. CNN's Jason Carroll, who was on the ground in Hialeah, Florida, called the crowd 'much, much smaller' than at Rubio's past events and said the 'couple hundred' supporters gathered were 'not even filling the end zone' of the high school football stadium." ...
... CW: This is the very same field (tho the seating is much expanded today) where young Marie Burns cheered on the Hialeah High School Thoroughbreds -- back before she turned her back on contact sports. Hialeah is now mostly Hispanic -- 92 percent of its residents speak Spanish at home. And Cuban-American Marco can't get Hialeahans to come out on a lovely day in Florida. ...
... Philip Rucker, et al., of the Washington Post: "... a cloud of fatalism now hovers over [Rubio's] campaign. Aides on Wednesday tried to beat back rumors he would quit the race -- perhaps before Thursday's CNN debate in Miami. Donors exchanged grim messages about Rubio's fate in Florida, where his campaign, short on cash, is running no advertisements. New polls showed him trailing Trump here badly. Supporters in the small and subdued Hialeah crowd all but conceded defeat. 'I've been around for a long time,' said Sal Pittelli, 70. 'And you can smell the flop sweat.'"
.. Charles Gasparino of Fox Business: "Marco Rubio's troubled 2016 presidential campaigned has devolved into an all-out civil war with some major donors saying he should drop out of the race immediately, and his paid staff urging him to stay the course, the FOX Business Network has learned. The infighting has been percolating for days, people with direct knowledge of the matter say; The battle however began picking up steam after Tuesday night's poor showing by the candidate, who failed to win a single state or a single delegate in the Michigan, Mississippi, Idaho and Hawaii contests." Via Paul Waldman. ...
... Philip Bump of the Washington Post: "It was literally two weeks ago that the growls from Republicans worried about a possible Donald Trump nomination targeted John Kasich's presence in the 2016 presidential race as an obstacle to Marco Rubio's ascent. Those whines never made much sense; Kasich probably cost Rubio some delegates over the long term, but the real obstacle to Rubio's ascent was the same one he failed to vault on Tuesday night: Marco Rubio. It's hard to exaggerate what a debacle Tuesday night was for the senator from Florida." ...
... Nate Silver plumbs the data to determine why Rubio never had any real traction. Here's a factor: "Rubio ... may be proving that there's not all that large a market for what you might call an upscale or cosmopolitan conservative. Many voters in the near-in suburbs, Rubio's best areas geographically, long ago left the Republican Party. Rubio might have the image to win them back -- young, Hispanic, optimistic -- but he doesn't have the policies, being staunchly conservative on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Likewise, while Rubio appears to do well among nonwhite Republicans, there are very few of them voting in the primaries, and Rubio has turned away from the moderate immigration positions that once might have won him more Latino support." ...
... digby eulogizes Rubio's brilliant career: "... he will be remembered for three things and two of them happened on national TV with many millions of people watching: that weird water thing after the State of the Union and the robot glitch in the debate. Unfortunately, the other one is that he made a joke about the size of Donald Trump's 'hands.' These are not big things and certainly shouldn't knock him out of politics. (His throwback policies should.) But they might. Sometimes a politician is just 'off' and people can tell. I suspect Rubio is one of those guys." ...
... Scott Lemieux, in the New Republic, takes on the delusions of "moderate conservatives": "In singling out Trump and Cruz as the villains the Republicans must slay if they hope to regain respectability, [NYT columnist David] Brooks is in deep denial about the state of his party -- a denial that is shared by Brooks's center-right brethren.... Brooks's narrative ... founders on one problem: Substantively, there's not a dime's worth of difference between Cruz and alleged moderates like Kasich, Rubio, and Ryan. And none of them have policy agendas that are any more serious than Trump's." ...
... CW: Here's what Lemieux misses, IMHO. Brooks and other "center-right" pundits hold almost exactly the same economic views as Republican party leaders; that is, the same views as Cruz, Ryan & Kasich. They're not offended by the party's extremism; they promote it in column after column, perhaps tweaking the tax code a little to, say, encourage Americans to have more children (an excellent goal!). Their only apparent substantive differences are on social issues; they wouldn't walk across the street to avoid a gay person or a person of color. Hell, some of them are gay & some are people of color. But this is only an apparent difference: Cruz bashes gay people as a campaign tactic; in fact, he's happy to schmooze with rich gays in exchange for their campaign contributions. Trump lives in the most cosmopolitan borough of the most cosmopolitan city in the world; he isn't afraid of Muslims, blacks or Central Americans. What Brooks & Company really object to is the overt race-baiting & gay-bashing & evangelical hoohah; they can't acknowledge that their economic agenda has so little merit that it requires the unseemly pandering to & snookering of the great unwashed.
Senate Race
Greg Sargent: "... the Senate Majority PAC, which is devoted to electing Democrats to the Senate, is airing this new ad in New Hampshire, attacking Senator Kelly Ayotte for standing with the GOP refusal to consider Obama's nominee." The ad links Ayotte to Donald Trump. "There may be more ads like this one":
Other News & Views
Michael Shear & Coral Davenport of the New York Times: "Justin Trudeau, the prime minister of Canada, met with President Obama on Thursday for the first state visit by a Canadian leader in 19 years, a diplomatic honor made possible in part by new pledges of cooperation on combating climate change. Mr. Obama and Mr. Trudeau announced Thursday morning new commitments to reduce planet-warming emissions of methane, a chemical contained in natural gas that is about 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide and that can leak from drilling wells and pipelines.... As part of the announcement, United States officials said they would immediately begin a new push to regulate methane emissions from existing oil and gas facilities...."
Nina Totenberg of NPR: "President Obama has begun interviewing candidates for the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Sources close to the process say that among those being interviewed are Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; Judge Sri Srinivasan, of the same court; Judge Paul Watford, of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco; Judge Jane Kelly, of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals based in St. Louis; and U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who serves in Washington, D.C. The first three are considered leading contenders." CW: I hope he doesn't pick the old white guy (Garland). ...
... Jen Kirby of New York: "Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid criticized the GOP again this week, saying that its senators are falling in line with Trump, perhaps hoping that if he says the name of the Establishment's most-feared candidate enough maybe they'll budge." ...
... John Bresnahan of Politico: "With the possible exception of Donald Trump, the Supreme Court vacancy is the biggest obsession of Capitol Hill these days. That's a bad thing for Senate Republicans. The GOP's refusal to hold hearings or vote on President Barack Obama's nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia has put the party on the defensive in a way that's unlikely to change anytime soon, assuming top Republicans hold their ground. Democrats are more energized than at any time since they were swept out of power in 2014, hammering Republicans daily with the mantra 'Do Your Job!'" ...
... Lydia Wheeler of the Hill: "Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said the Senate Judiciary Committee will have a 'full-blown debate' Thursday on whether to hold a hearing on a Supreme Court nomination." CW: Really? Are we expecting great minds to be changed? ...
... Manu Raju, et al., of CNN: "Adalberto Jordan, a federal judge in Miami seen as a top contender for the Supreme Court vacancy, has withdrawn his name from contention.... 'He pulled himself out of consideration,' Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida told CNN. Nelson said Jordan made the decision because of a 'personal, family situation' involving his mother."
... CW: Attorney General Loretta Lynch also took her name out of the running this week, saying the nomination process would interfere with her day job. ...
** Dorothy Samuels & Alicia Bannon of the Brennan Center, on BillMoyers.com: Alexander Hamilton gets no "respect from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley and most other GOP senators." Hamilton's writings make clear the function that he & the others authors of the Constitution envisioned for the role of the Senate & President in selecting Supreme Court justices. "... based on the historical evidence..., Hamilton and other of the Constitution's Framers would have been appalled by the confirmation antics of McConnell & Co."
** Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic writes a fascinating piece -- with a lot of insider assistance including from the POTUS himself -- on President Obama's philosophy of international relations. And there's this tidbit: After she left the State Department, Hillary Clinton criticized Obama's handling of Syria. When The Atlantic published [her remarks], and also published Clinton's assessment that 'great nations need organizing principles, and "Don't do stupid stuff" is not an organizing principle,' Obama became 'rip-shit angry,' according to one of his senior advisers.... The Iraq invasion, Obama believed, should have taught Democratic interventionists like Clinton, who had voted for its authorization, the dangers of doing stupid shit." ...
... CW: If you want to know how a smart, rational, stable person makes life-and-death decisions, Goldberg lays it out. Now think Dubya & Drumpf. The only difference between those two bozos' gut-level decision-making method is that Dubya wasn't insane. Yeah, you should be scared. About Clinton, you should worry, too. Clearly, she's not afraid to do stupid shit.
Gregg Zoroya of USA Today: "The Pentagon has deployed drones to spy over U.S. territory for non-military missions over the past decade, but the flights have been rare and lawful, according to a new report. The report by a Pentagon inspector general, made public under a Freedom of Information Act request, said spy drones on non-military missions have occurred fewer than 20 times between 2006 and 2015 and always in compliance with existing law."
Beyond the Beltway
** Amanda Marcotte of Salon: "Even though a law almost exactly like it is still being reviewed in the Supreme Court, the state of Florida just passed a massive anti-choice bill that, under the guise of supporting women's health, is aimed at cutting off as many women as possible from abortion, contraception, and STI prevention and treatment services. Most of the bill is modeled after the one in Texas, the one the court is currently reviewing, which uses medically unnecessary red tape to regulate abortion clinics out of existence."
Austin Huguelet & Richard Perez-Pena of the New York Times: "A bill to give some of the nation's broadest legal protections to opponents of same-sex marriage took a crucial step forward in Missouri on Wednesday, winning approval in the State Senate after Republicans used a rare procedural move to break a 39-hour filibuster by Democrats. Since the Supreme Court's ruling in June legalizing gay marriage, legislators in many states have introduced bills that they say would protect religious freedom and opponents say permit discrimination. In some respects, the Missouri bill would go beyond any law now in place, prompting challenges that could keep the issue before the courts for years."
Today in Responsible Gun Ownership: Arming Preschoolers. Peter Holley of the Washington Post: "Hours after gun-rights advocate Jamie Gilt bragged on Facebook that her 4-year-old son 'gets jacked up to target shoot,' the same child accidentally turned his mother into a target, shooting her in the back." CW: Akhilleus discussed the incident in yesterday's Comments.
Justin Moyer & Sarah Larimer of the Washington Post: "A murder suspect who was the subject of a massive manhunt in the Midwest was taken into custody Wednesday, after a quadruple homicide in Kansas and another slaying in Missouri. Pablo Antonio Serrano-Vitorino, a Mexican national who was in the country illegally, was arrested early Wednesday morning in Montgomery County, Mo., the Missouri State Highway Patrol said in a news release. He has been charged in connection to five deaths across two states." CW: Cue the Fox "News" Outrage Machine. Because there's never been an American mass murderer.
Charles Pierce: Kyle "Odom shot the preacher in Idaho because he thought the preacher was a hypersexual amphibian-humanoid Martian, and he came all the way to D.C. to warn us all about the hypersexual amphibian-humanoid Martians in Congress.... I was pondering how wonderful our system is that a guy with a felony attempted-murder warrant on him in a fairly high-profile shooting can get on a plane in Boise and make it all the way to the White House fence before anyone notices anything amiss.... Also, I am happy to live in a country where a man so desperately in need of help as this guy is has such easy access to all kinds of firearms."
Share Article
Reader Comments (27)
I just had to stop watching the Dem Debate! I happened to have my kitchen timer in the Tee Vee room and began to time Hillary and Bernie's answers. Hillary was routinely allowed 2-3 minutes to answer questions. Bernie was cut off after one minute. In their responses to each other, Hillary several times ran over one minute, and continued on even when told her time was up. Bernie was immediately cut off after 30 seconds. And just watch: tomorrow many (in the media) will say he was pointing his finger, yelling and interrupting in a rude fashion!
I feel a little less mystified having learned that the debate leader, Jorge Ramos' daughter is working on Hillary's campaign. It definitely felt to me like there was a hidden agenda playing out!
Describing Hillary as a "barracuda" fits her like a glove. She may never say to someone like McConnell, "I have your pecker in my pocket," but I betcha she's gonna squeeze some packages mighty tightly if she gets a chance to do so. However, in the debates I cringe when she goes after Bernie on charges that are so lame–––like the Koch one––that it's embarrassing. I also hate her strident tones––she really doesn't need to do that. What she does need, however, if she wins the primaries, is Bernie's blessing along with his encouragement to his base voters to get on board her boat. So shut up Hillary and be nice.
Good news: Democrats increased their hold in the Kentucky legislature even though the Duck waddled through that state with his golden feathers fluffed and his quack louder than anyone else.
Back in those good ole days when Goldwater was the GOP's candidate for President George Romney came out and said if Goldwater became President it would be the death of the Republican Party. LBJ's people produced the iconic Daisy Ad which to my mind is one of the most powerful ads ever along with a ten minute ad where a bloke, a republican, is talking about how he cannot possibly vote for Goldwater and the reasons why which were all frightening. LBJ won by a landslide. The Republican survived and revived.
Today we have George's son, Mitt, come out and tell America that by George, if Trump becomes President wees all be in deep do-do.
And what's that line about the more things change......
Found the ad I was referring to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiG0AE8zdTU
Politics have come so far. In the wrong direction. Perhaps we should run this old clip editing out "Goldwater" and inserting "Trump". Watching this gives me some admiration for "some" republicans. Eisenhower comes to mind. My favorite RINO.
@Dan Lowery: Ike wasn't a RINO in his day. Today Republicans boast about their card-carrying membership in "the party of Lincoln." That was the same party whose elected representatives were essential to passing civil rights legislation in the 1960s. There were plenty of progressive Republicans, just as their were plenty of virulently racist Democrats.
But that Republican party no longer exists, and for Republicans to claim that they belong to that party is a convenient hoax. "Progressive Republican" became an anachronism that with time morphed into an oxymoron.
Marie
@PD The similarities of that 1964 ad are uncanny! Change the names and, you are right...it could be run today!
I didn't get to see the debate last night. In fact I haven't been able to watch a lot of them (no cable). I did hear something curious the other day from a Republican acquaintance. She mentioned that she watched the recent Democratic debate on CNN and it was clear that CNN (because they're all raging liberals) want Hillary to win and Bernie to lose. I wondered whence such clarity. It appeared to my friend that Hillary was allowed to go on as long as she wanted but Bernie was cut short time and again. Naturally Anderson Cooper is a Hillary fan.
I couldn't venture an opinion because I didn't see that debate either but I find it interesting that Kate came away with a similar impression from last night's debate. I realize that Republicans don't give a shit for rules (for themselves, anyway) and run roughshod over the moderators, but Democrats (ie, Hillary) should comport themselves with more respect for the guidelines, and if Hillary seems to be getting a better shake than Bernie, it does neither of them any good and certainly doesn't do a thing for the party. It simply feeds the impression that media=liberal and the fix is in for Hillary.
Oh, and one other thing my friend mentioned that no one here will find surprising. She said that if it came down to Trump v Sanders, she'd vote for Bernie--whom she found to be an authentic and serious person and not a scripted politician--in a heartbeat, and so would a lot of her (R) friends. Their comfort level is apparently increased by the idea that he would never get his socialist stuff past congress so he wouldn't do any real harm, but Trump is another kettle of dead fish. However, should it come down to Trump v Clinton, she'd hold her nose and vote for the Trumperor.
For what it's worth.
Also, I might mention that I'm feeling less sanguine about Clinton's campaign by the day and her descent into risible, eyebrow raising, baseless, Cruz style attacks smacks of desperation and a mean spirited sordidness that corresponds too neatly with Confederate MO's. If I wanted a snide, dishonest, iniquitous back stabber, I'd vote for a Republican.
Just sayin'.
I'm trying to picture a Bernie Sanders/Koch Brothers conspiracy but the only image I can conjure up is Bernie visiting Charles Koch's residence in Wichita, pressing the doorbell, and Koch siccing the dogs on him and sending out armed guards to escort him off the property.
What's next? Hillary acolytes spreading rumors before the next big election that Bernie has already dropped out?
Adam Gopnik offers some useful points about the Rise of the White Hooded Trumpet and the corybantic collusion by wingers to pin the blame for this dreadful materialization on anyone but Confederates. Mostly, as Gopnik notes, it's all the fault of liberals.
Gopnik reminds the reader (as if we needed it) of winger contempt for an understanding of any social phenomenon that appeals to root causes (crime, poverty, the rise of ISIS, etc). Instead, they prefer to blame individuals because it's all about personal responsibility (from which they are naturally exempt; naturally). That kid who grew up in dire circumstances, nowhere to live, no job, terrible education, no hope, should he turn to crime, it's all his own fault. No excuses.
Except.....if you're a Republican. Gee...we've never encountered that excuse before, have we?
In the case of Trump, it has nothing to do with individuals making the choice to support a racist pig douchebag advancing the acceleration of bigotry. It's all the fault of a liberal milieu, there's a root cause there somewhere that completely exculpates Confederates and blah, blah, blah.
He also neatly explodes the ridiculous theory adhered to by some fed up progressives who advocate for a Trumpish Armageddon. Then they'll all see their mistake, by jing!
"For most of the last century, progressives of various sorts were always convinced that nationalist self-assertion could be magically transmuted into progressivism. By “heightening the contradictions” or showing “capitalism with the gloves off,” authoritarian contempt for parliamentary democracy might be magically transmuted from the wrong kind of rage into the right kind of reform.
It doesn’t happen like that."
No shit.
It's a good piece.
So, "...Shut up Hillary. Be nice." This reminds me of a brother-in-law of mine who said the same thing before he hit my sister through the wall in front of her six children and sent her to the emergency hospital. Is this the advice from a Sander's supporter or just friendly advice?
The Trumperor makes a lot of noise about all the great stuff he has on offer:
Trump steaks, Trump water, Trump magazine.
So how about a few new Trump lines? Remember, the large print giveth and the small print taketh away:
Trump Truth (see label on back for conditions and exclusions), Trump Authenticity (guaranteed, 100% reproduced from actual authenticity), Trump Feminism (not available in stores), Trump Inclusiveness (batteries not included, not intended for indoor or outdoor use), Trump Racism (wash with like colors, do not mix), Trump Promises (mileage may vary), Trump Gloves (fingers in four sizes, medium, small, wee, and Donald).
More on the way. Some may be real. But don't count on it.
@Dan: I believe it's the advice of a Clinton supporter. If you're implying that Bernie would physically harm Hillary, you're wrong. If you're implying that the commenter was giving advice that would lead to violence, you're wrong there, too.
You have to be careful here. I have a no-trashing-other-contributors rule, which has worked out very well. Since you partially posed your criticism in the form of a question, I'll let it stand. But keep the rule in mind. You're dancing close to the edge of it. I wouldn't want to have to toss you off the cliff.
Marie
Dan,
Ahh....I think there's a tiny bit of space between advising someone to not lie about their opponent and punching that person through the wall.
If Hillary is the nominee I will most certainly vote for her. My hope is that she might (and Sanders as well), not stoop to the sort of reprehensible bullshit seen on the Republican side.
No one is saying "shut up" and niceness is not a requirement either, it is, after all politics not beanbags as some wag once said. But a bit of civility is not a horrible request. Neither is being mostly truthful, or at least not indulging in obviously dishonest suppositions that play to the worst in people.
I'm not, at this point, a Sanders nor a Clinton supporter, but I am a Democrat and I do want the best candidate possible. How you get from a wish for sticking to factual accusations all the way to physical abuse in one jump is a bit unclear.
@PD Pepe Thank you for expressing so well my discomfort with the surprising lameness of Mrs. Clinton's "attacks" on Senator Sanders. Her handlers seem to think the average Democratic voter is stupid. I may be naive, but I think many American voters deserve credit for the astonishing amount of propaganda they manage to survive and the hassles they surmount in order to vote.
As for the constants in political life, in the early 1960s, a wonderful Norwegian-American professor, Peter Odegard told his UC Berkeley class about his experience registering to vote in New York City in the 1920s, when he was a graduate student at Columbia. The clerk in the registration office, perhaps one of my Irish-American cousins, looked carefully at Peter, who was wearing a three piece suit and tie, and said "before you can register, you have to pass a literacy test....." Peter then proceeded to pitch up a few weeks later, very early in the morning, in a distant part of the city, on the only day of the month when the literacy test was given. He passed and later returned to Manhattan and to the same clerk. As Peter completed his registration application, he filled in "Democratic" in the line for party affiliation. The clerk looked at the entry and exclaimed with some embarrassment: "Why didn't you tell me you were a Democrat....."
With this anecdote from a seminal time in my life, I do not mean to make light of the burdensome challenges that contemporary voters face or the real problems in computerized voting with no paper trail. I do mean to show why I am hopeful that these challenges can be overcome.
As for hope, apparently Bernie Sanders won the Arab-American vote in Michigan by the old fashioned method of talking to Arab-American voters. I think his success is a wonderful tribute to all concerned and to Senator Sanders' inclusive idea that "we are all in this together." A 74 year old social democrat who appeals to young people, to wrongly demonized groups, and who reminds this reader of John Donne's poetry. Remarkable!
This likely uninformed thought from an uncomfortable Clinton critic.
As likely as she is to become my standard bearer in the general election, she does bother me; so does Sanders but in a different way. That's one of the reasons I don't watch their debates. I'm bothered enough already. Why add to the inner turmoil?
Seems to this debate non-watcher, though, that policy differences aside, the debate formats, as weak as they are on substance, do a good job of presenting two general political types. Those who project a stable sense of self, whose message is mostly unvarying day to day and week to week, and those who flail about rhetorically saying what they think will persuade a given audience as a given time and place.
Over time (and Lord knows our election cycles these days provide plenty of time) those shifts, the ducking and weaving, the I never said that's, the feints and retractions either reveal, or at least convey a picture of an otherwise empty vessel in search of the public approval they must have to fill the void of self.
On the R side, Cruz may be crazy, but he does impress with his sense of self. Kasich, too. That's why their stock is rising. The others, Rubio and Trump, whose early lead may yet give him enough momentum to lunge across the finish line, not so much. As time passes their bunkum quotient has become more evident, even to unthinking R's.
The Dems are a more critical bunch and quicker to pick their candidates apart. Tho' the policy and personal differences between Trump and Clinton are vast, they do share some of the same flaws. They come across as people who are first of all about themselves, willing to do anything they need to do to elevate their personal star, and the evident shiftiness and meanness which accompanies their me-first agenda invites skepticism.
That's not to say I cannot tell the difference between the two. When it comes to meanness and bullying, for instance, Clinton comes in a distant second to Trump. But I think it is these elements revealed by countless hours of TV and press exposure that has, to unequal but similar effect, tamped down enthusiasm for both Clinton and Trump.
Cruz and Sanders on the other hand don't vary their message, (I admit I don't find Sander's endless repetitions reason to listen to more from him, and as Obama's Presidency winds down I'm already suffering from rhetorical withdrawal) and people regardless of their politics desperately want to trust someone.
Maybe it's not that simple, but this morning I think it is.
Here's a modest suggestion for both Bernie and Hillary:
You are both, very foolishly, playing the Republican's game, and right into their hands. Come the election, which either of you is the nominee, the GOP will saturate the airways with all the ugly things you're now saying about each other.
Stop trashing each other. Don't criticize each other at all. Don't even talk about each other.
Instead, both of you, talk only about the Republicans. Use what they are saying about each other. Talk about the disastrous consequences of a Republican President. Let Democrats decide between the two of you on the basis of which of you does that most effectively.
Just a thought...
@ D.C.
....and one would think a darn good and obvious one!
... must be that vanity thing you and Trollope pointed out yesterday at work.
How good it is to have a President who discusses issues like our President does, takes blame for things that went wrong, sticks up for things that went right especially when the Right thinks otherwise. Here's an excellent Atlantic interview that the NYT's addresses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/world/middleeast/obama-criticizes-the-free-riders-among-americas-allies.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Today's comments (especially Ken Winkes) clarify what bothers me about Hillary (aside from the paid speeches) and help me understand why I find myself leaning toward Bernie as my state's primary approaches.
Joynone,
Agree completely regarding Ken's cogent observations. And thanks for reminding us (okay, me) of those gigantic fees Hillary received for her speeches to the oligarchs. I don't think it will hurt her much in the general (if it's Cruz he'll have to explain all that money he got from Goldman via his wife, it it's Trump....well....it's Trump) but it's still an unfortunate bullet point on the anti-Hillary checklist.
The Clintons learned early on how to play the game but at some point, realizing she was embarking on another presidential run, Hillary should have put the kibosh on the gathering of the rosebuds, especially from the Wall Streeters. She probably wasn't going to make that kind of dough with a speaking gig at Greenpeace, but the long game requires foresight and perspicacity. She's a smart lady but I guess the dollar signs are hard to resist.
I know I had to think twice about it when I was invited to speak to a bunch of hedge fund managers. I had my best Groucho routines ready but thought better of it at the last minute.
Damn. Coulda bought a new car. Or twenty.
Being a woman is tough, and being a woman in public life is a horror. Every despicable word or innuendo can be flung at a woman but she cannot return fire, lest she brings down more hellfire and more escalation. She can't win. Words have consequences, but so do thoughts. And thoughts will give rise to outbursts of discordant speech in unguarded moments. That's why I cringe when I hear, or read, a comment that starts out like "..shut up....then a woman's name, like a violin quarter out of tune.
Hillary has endured that treatment for over 25 years. Maybe, it's her fault, or is it the fault of others who fear her? Years later pundits and commentators can ask her to explain Whitewater, or the "murder" of Vince Foster, or the "lies" she told to the wives of the Americans who were killed during the Benghazi attack, but she can't ask Sanders to justify his cost for single-payer health care or the free college tuition without being called a "spoiler" or worse.
In any case, Marie, I accept my chastisement and will be more careful of my audience in the future.
Man, that Johnson ad from '64 is some wild stuff. The guy is great. He does an excellent job at selling the point in a way much different from the Daisy ad. He is, in fact, an actor named by William Bogert, who had a lengthy career in TV, but he was at that time at least, a Republican as well and he did not, according to an an interview, vote for Goldwater.
Sadly, when he mentions things like seeing the KKK and other "weird groups" supporting the candidate, one must acknowledge that it's not much different for the Republican Party 50 years later. It's still infested with weird groups and the KKK. Except now they're longstanding members of the party. The candidates are still denying that they said what they said and one still has to wonder what the country would look like should they (any of them) gain the reins of power.
At one point the guy is clearly appalled at the idea that a presidential candidate was talking about how nuclear war is probably necessary. 20 years later, a Republican president (Reagan) and insane people in his administration were talking seriously about a survivable nuclear war. Not only don't Republicans learn anything going forward, they get crazier.
I couldn't uncover who produced the ad but the Daisy ad, shown only once, if you can believe it--reminiscent of Apple's famous "1984" big brother ad that also ran only once during that year's Super Bowl--was created by the legendary ad agency Doyle, Dane, Bernbach. I don't know if Goldwater had an enemies list, but Nixon did, and Mac Dane, because of the Daisy ad (it wasn't even against Nixon!) was one of the first 20 on Nixon's list of enemies.
Anyone want to bet that Trump and Cruz have their own enemies lists?
@Akhilleus, et al., on Hillary's coziness with moneyed people. I think it's entirely consistent with her history, & it would be weird if she really suddenly turned into an ex-hippie-Bernie type instead of just pretending to like some of Bernie's everyman proposals.
The obsession with money comes from her youth; she was, after all, a shopkeeper's daughter. For Hillary, money was equated with success. For someone like me who was reared by parents who, for different reasons, had no interest in accumulating money or living in an ostentatious way, it's pretty easy to be blase about it (at least when I have enough to live on).
Then Hillary married this guy from a family of redneck ne'er-do-wells. Bill's only assets were his brain & his glib tongue -- oh, & his penchant for collecting "friends." Bill & Hillary chose public service as a quick step toward validation, but at the same time, they were obsessive about "cultivating" old money, new money, big money, any kind of money. If the Friends of Bill weren't well-to-do, they were powerful in some other way: judges, politicians, etc. For Bill & Hillary, every "friendship" was transactional. They assembled a humungous Rolodex of people who owed them.
When they got out of the White House, as Hillary said, they were dead broke. They were $10MM in debt to their lawyers. Already powerful, money became the major obsession; they actually needed it. And they got it, once again by calling in chits. Piles of money. And they got it by hanging out with people like Trump, people worse than Trump, people "better" than Trump. But rich people. People who had made their money the old-fashioned way, people who got it in shady &/or cutthroat ways. To Hillary & her crowd of pseudo-friends, there was nothing wrong with "taking what they offered." It was a way of life. She can't defend it because she doesn't think there is anything to defend. She thinks she "deserved" payback for her long years of "public service." That's the ethos of the Street: you take a lot, you give a little. Hillary feels she has done the giving part, that everyone should appreciate that & STUF.
She is the shopkeeper's daughter who made good. Her ultimate reward is supposed to be the presidency. She's earned it.
If she wins the nomination, as she is nearly certain to do barring some major problem -- health issue, indictment, God picked Bernie, whatever -- I'll be helping to fulfill her belief in her right to be president. But I won't do so with great enthusiasm. And I'll be watching her every move. I hope she turns out to be as progressive a president as she pretends today that she will be. But I won't be shocked, shocked if she stays in her comfort zone, accommodating her Wall Street "friends," easing industrial regulations & making Chelsea ambassador to Luxembourg. That's who she is.
Marie
@Akhilleus: Thanks for the info on Bogert. The ad in which he starred was, as you speculated, produced by DDB.
Marie
Marie,
Luxembourg? I don't think Chelsea would settle for an itty-bitty postage stamp duchy two thirds the size of Rhode Island. She'd probably prefer some place cool like France or Australia. But let's see, she has a degree in public health. How 'bout Sierra Leone? Worst health care system in the world, according the WHO. She can put some of that Clinton know-how to good use and maybe someday run for office herself.
But what a price she has had (and perhaps, will) pay. There's not been much notice paid here, but the indictment question from Ramos (some buddy he is) is causing if not waves, certainly white caps - at least in the places I read and listen. And this has been going on for twenty years - clearly more; I'm not familiar with what they faced in Arkansas beyond Whitewater.
Marie explains exactly why I will vote for her, too, if she is the nominee. But I think we are in for a Republican administration. I hope it will be Trump rather than Cruz. I wonder which man you prefer should it come to pass.
@Dan: Given your second posting I feel compelled to respond. If you have been a regular reader of this site you would know that indeed I am a Clinton supporter and have extolled her virtues along with her limitations (see Marie's comments re: her above). All the reasons to expect from this seasoned politician a semblance of decency during debates and not veer off on what I saw as hitting below the belt. I want her to be better than that. I also think most of us here are staunch feminists and are well aware of how difficult it can be for women, whether in or out of the political realm.
I also want to say how sorry to hear about the incident you cited.