;)
The Commentariat -- Nov. 2, 2015
Internal links removed.
Liam Stack of the New York Times: "Fred D. Thompson, a former United States senator, actor and presidential candidate, died in Nashville, on Sunday, his family said in a statement. He was 73."
Peter Baker of the New York Times: "President Obama plans to announce a series of small initiatives on Monday intended to make it easier for former prisoners to find jobs and live in subsidized housing, part of his broader drive to remake the criminal justice system.In a trip to Newark, Mr. Obama will visit a residential drug-treatment center, Integrity House, to highlight efforts to ease the re-entry of offenders leaving prison."
Washington Homeless Man Discovered to Be Third in Line for Presidency. Scott Wong of the Hill: Even as Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan will continue to spend his nights sleeping on a cot in his old office. ...
... Paul Ryan, Media Rock Star. Jake Sherman of Politico: "Speaker Paul Ryan has hired eight communications staffers as he builds what he promises will be a large-scale press shop to lead the GOP messaging operation. Ryan (R-Wis.) has said he'll spend a lot of time on television communicating the party's message. He plans to hire upward of a dozen communications hands.... In what was, perhaps, a sign of things to come, Ryan went on all five Sunday morning news shows, just days after capturing the speakership."
Carl Hulse of the New York Times: "The big action in the House [this week] will be the consideration of a six-year, $325 billion highway and infrastructure measure as lawmakers look for a long-term resolution to a problem that has tied them in knots for years. The existing highway program last week was granted its 35th temporary extension since 2009 -- until Nov. 20.... But a few potholes are ahead. Neither the House nor a Senate bill approved in July have funding for the full program, so negotiators will have to smooth out that little wrinkle. And the final bill could be the vehicle to renew the Export-Import Bank, which many House conservatives oppose. So Ryan could face early tests on a measure that everyone agrees is long overdue."
Jessica Silver-Greenberg & Michael Corkery of the New York Times: "Over the last 10 years, thousands of businesses across the country -- from big corporations to storefront shops -- have used arbitration to create an alternate system of justice. There, rules tend to favor businesses, and judges and juries have been replaced by arbitrators who commonly consider the companies their clients, The Times found. The change has been swift and virtually unnoticed, even though it has meant that tens of millions of Americans have lost a fundamental right: their day in court.... All it took was adding simple arbitration clauses to contracts that most employees and consumers do not even read. Yet at stake are claims of medical malpractice, sexual harassment, hate crimes, discrimination, theft, fraud, elder abuse and wrongful death...."
Michelle Obama, in the Atlantic: "... we cannot address our girls' education crisis until we address the broader cultural beliefs and practices that can help cause and perpetuate this crisis. And that is precisely the message I intend to deliver this week when I travel to the Middle East."
Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times: "The F.B.I. is about to introduce an interactive program it developed for teachers and students, aimed at training them to prevent young people from being drawn into violent extremism. But Muslim, Arab and other religious and civil rights leaders who were invited to preview the program have raised strong objections, saying it focuses almost entirely on Islamic extremism, which they say has not been a factor in the epidemic of school shootings and attacks in the United States."
Carol Morello of the Washington Post: "Secretary of State John F. Kerry sat down Sunday with the leader of Uzbekistan, an authoritarian nation that routinely persecutes government critics, and discussed the potential for cooperation on trade, security and the environment if it improves its human rights record.... When a Washington Post reporter [Morello] called out a question about human rights at the conclusion of Kerry's meeting with Karimov, an Uzbek official and an American wearing a 'diplomatic security' pin each took her by an arm and firmly guided her from the room." Video of Morello's removal is here.
Presidential Race
** Jonathan Chait: Bernie "Sanders's campaign has made socialism relevant to the national political debate for the first time since Eugene V. Debs garnered 6 percent of the vote in 1912. It is looking increasingly likely that the 2016 election will mark a historical turning point in the relationship of socialism to mainstream politics in the United States.... That socialism is no longer a dirty word has freaked out conservatives.
... American Bridge, the superPAC which produced this spot, is allied with Clinton.
Factual Bias -- Paul Krugman Answers Carly Fiorina: "Last year the economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson circulated a paper comparing economic performance under Democratic and Republican presidents since 1947. Under Democrats, the economy grew, on average, 4.35 percent per year; under Republicans, only 2.54 percent. Over the whole period, the economy was in recession for 49 quarters; Democrats held the White House during only eight of those quarters.... Yes, the recovery from the Great Recession of 2007-2009 has been sluggish. Even so, the Obama record compares favorably on a number of indicators with that of George W. Bush. In particular, despite all the talk about job-killing policies, private-sector employment is eight million higher than it was when Barack Obama took office, twice the job gains achieved under his predecessor before the recession struck."
Adios, GOP. Greg Sargent: "Republicans are pulling out of their only scheduled debate that would be aired on a Spanish-language TV network. So Democrats may respond by holding a second gathering aired on one." ....
... Robert Costa & Dave Weigel of the Washington Post: "Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus decided late Sunday to shake up his senior staff in response to campaigns' complaints about the party's management of primary debates." ...
... Update: Dave Weigel publishes a copy of the draft letter attorney Ben Ginsburg brought to the meeting. "The campaigns agreed that more needed to be done. Ginsberg agreed, and the campaigns left the Hilton Alexandria Old Town expecting to see a new list of demands, incorporating their ideas, in the next few days." Almost as funny as the "ransom note" Oliver Willis found (see below). ...
... Katherine Faulders, et al., of ABC News: "Representatives for many of the Republican presidential candidates have gathered tonight near Washington, DC to work on reshaping their party's primary debates. The meeting comes in the wake of last week's widely-criticized debate, hosted by CNBC, which drew sharp rebukes from the Republican National Committee as well as many of the candidates. The campaign of former neurosurgeon Ben Carson organized Sunday night's summit. Carson came out swinging following the debate in Colorado, saying it 'so clearly demonstrated a need for change in format,' and criticizing what he called the "gotcha questions" posed by the moderators." With video. ...
... Update. Ashley Parker of the New York Times: The campaigns' representatives "emerged with a modest list of demands, including opening and closing statements of at least 30 seconds; 'parity and integrity' on questions, meaning that all candidates would receive similarly substantive questions; no so-called lightning rounds; and approval of any graphics that are aired during the debate. The campaign representatives also moved to take the Republican National Committee out of the debate negotiating process.... The TV networks have indicated no willingness to relinquish editorial control." ...
... Politico's story, by Alex Isenstadt, is here. ...
... Dave Weigel & Robert Costa: During the meeting, "Bush campaign manager Danny Diaz recommended that Telemundo be reinstated after being dropped along with NBC. But the campaign of businessman Donald Trump, represented by manager Corey Lewandowski, threatened to boycott a debate if the Spanish-language network that Trump has clashed with was granted one." ...
Oliver Willis hey everyone i just found the #GOPDebate ransom note #GOPdebatedemands
... David Ferguson of the Raw Story found a few more demands, culled from Twitter. CW: Just shows how clueless the GOP candidates are. Isn't it obvious that their whines & demands necessitated ridicule? ...
I think we should have moderators who are interested in disseminating the information about the candidates, as opposed to, you know, 'gotcha' 'you did this' and 'defend yourself on that.' You know, what is very important right now, we have so many incredible problems that are facing us as a nation, you know.... -- Ben Carson, on ABC's "This Week"
... John Amato of Crooks & Liars: "Ben Carson appeared on ABC's This Week and explained the problems he has with the debate format as it is. He's not a man who has ever been involved in politics so he finds them distasteful in many ways including being asked questions about past behavior.... In Carson's world, the candidates should gather round, eat cheese and crackers, talk a little policy with Sean Hannity, let the voters get to know them. Explain their thoughts without having to bother about facts and other nonsensical things." ...
... CW: Well, I agree with Ole Doc there. CNBC treated these candidates like criminals, making them stand for hours, interrogating them about past crimes & misdemeanors, cutting off their long-winded responses, berating them for not answering the questions -- AND providing no sustenance except water. Where were the cheese & crackers? Wine? ...
... digby is catching up with Reality Chex contributors: "Basically [Ben Carson] thinks 'debates' should be infomercials where a 'host' acts as if he or she is "interviewing" the salesman and the 'audience' pretends to be thrilled and claps wildly at every applause line.... I think Carson may be a person who suffers from psychological disorder called extreme gullibility. It seems to me that he simply believes everything he reads and sees. And since he's also in the wingnut bubble he reads and sees a whole lot of crazy rubbish.... Also too, very creepy. His preternatural calm is started to really freak me out." ...
... ** David Atkins in the Washington Monthly: "It should astonish even the jaded that Republicans are calling CNBC, that stodgy home of supply-side Wall Street cheerleading, an agent of the left. Still apoplectic at being asked some basic questions at the debate, Republican candidates are doubling down on their freakout.... Donald Trump, who openly lied during the debate about what is on his own website, called debate moderator John Harwood a 'dope' and a 'fool.' All of this after Republican candidates spewed forth one of the most embarrassing explosion of lies ever witnessed during a television presidential debate. The press is facing an existential threat. With Republicans increasingly unashamed to tell grandiose lies and respond to any press criticism with derogatory insults and whines about media bias as well as blackmail threats to cancel appearances if the questions are too tough, the press must decide how to respond on two fronts. First, it must decide how to present an objective face while acknowledging that both sides do not, in fact, behave equally badly. Second, it must determine whether it will continue to ask the tough questions that need answers regardless of the threats made by the GOP, or whether it will meekly submit to the demands for kid-glove treatment.... Tthe GOP has far more to fear from the press than the other way around."
... Steve M.: "I think we're supposed to believe that the various Republican presidential candidates will be tough enough to defend America against its enemies because they're tough enough to wage war on ... John Harwood. ...
... Charles Blow: "Marco Rubio is thought to have won the last debate, not so much because he brilliantly articulated reasonable, or intellectually invigorating policy -- 'I'm against anything that's bad for my mother' is a kindergarten truism, not a nuanced policy position -- but because he remained relatively even and unperturbed. And yet, it's [Ben] Carson who is now the front-runner, one of the candidates who spoke the least during the last debate and who seemed to want to say nothing at all. And that candidate is the one worrying about the precious few questions he will have to answer."
David Graham of the Atlantic: Marco Rubio's personal financial problems don't matter much. "The president's job isn't to be accountant-in-chief, and the most business-astute presidents have tended to be mediocre at best in the White House, while failed haberdasher Harry Truman is well regarded. That means questions about Rubio's finances are perhaps most useful as a litmus test about his probity. Since voters seem to generally find Rubio trustworthy, that's a battle he’s in a good position to win in the absence of clear evidence of wrongdoing."
Jeb! Has No Idea What His Campaign Is Doing. Michelle Lee of the Washington Post: "... Jeb Bush said he did not see a 112-page internal memo by his campaign that included a presentation to donors on why Sen. Marco Rubio was a 'risky bet' before the document became public.... 'I didn't see it," Bush answered. 'It's your campaign.... You don't know this memo? You don't know this PowerPoint?' Todd asked about the memo, obtained by the U.S. News and World Report. 'I read about it when it was leaked, for sure. I didn't know about the PowerPoint....'" CW: Yo, Jeb!, in these situations, you're supposed to blame an intern. ...
Jeb! Has Okay Healthcare Plan -- for the Rich. Washington Post Editors: Jeb!'s plan, centered on "health spending accounts," "would help high-income people avoid taxes, but they wouldn't much help people lacking spare wages to deposit into them. Bush would drag the country through another massive policy transition in order to reduce the value of health coverage now available to vulnerable people. He would enact a plan premised on the hope that the states will solve all of the hardest problems. If this is the alternative, better to keep Obamacare and move on."
Jordan Phelps of ABC News: "... Carly Fiorina acknowledged that she was incorrect during last week's primary debate when she claimed '92 percent of the jobs lost during [President] Barack Obama's first term belonged to women.' After the debate, fact checkers pointed out Fiorina had recycled the statistic from former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who first made the claim in the 2012 election. It rated 'Mostly False' by Politifact four years ago.... Until now, Fiorina has defended her use of the "92 percent" figure as accurate. 'The fact-checkers are correct,' she said. 'The 92 percent -- it turns out -- was the first three and a half years of [President] Barack Obama's term and in the final six months of his term things improved,' she said Sunday. Fiorina then criticized the 'liberal media' for picking apart the statistic rather than her broader argument, which was that liberal polices are bad for women economically." ...
... digby: "But she also kept on with the misleading nonsense anyway.... Here's the Fact Check which explains that the men had already lost their jobs under George W. Bush's Great Recession when Obama took office.... '... First, Obama cannot be held entirely accountable for the employment picture on the day he took office.... Second, by choosing figures from January 2009, months into the recession, the statement ignored the millions of jobs lost before then, when most of the job loss fell on men. In every recession, men are the first to take the hit, followed by women." ...
It is factually true that the number of women living in extreme poverty is at the highest rate in recorded history. It is factually true that 16.1 percent of women live below the poverty line, the highest level in 20 years. It is factually true that 3 million women have fallen into poverty. -- Carly Fiorina, on ABC's "This Week," Sunday
... Kevin Drum: Fiorina only looked at the women's poverty rate for the past 20 years. Why? Because the highest levels ever were in 1982, under Ronald Reagan, and 1992, under George H.W. Bush. It's true that the absolute number of women in poverty is at its highest level ever. Needless to say, this is only because the population is bigger than it was under Reagan and Bush. The current rate of women in poverty is indeed 16.1 percent according to the Census Bureau. Does this mean that liberal policies are bad for women? Well, that number went up 3 percent during George W. Bush's term and has (so far) gone down 0.2 percent during Barack Obama's term. I report, you decide. Since Fiorina is now dedicated to getting her facts straight, I figured she'd appreciate this clarification. You're welcome, Carly."
Rick Hertzberg of the New Yorker: In last week's debate, Ted Cruz accused Bernie Sanders (one infers) of being a Bolshevik. "Well, let's see. The Bolshevik faction was prepared to split the party of which they were members. Bolsheviks scorned Mensheviks as socialists in name only, and they utterly despised the Kadets. The Bolshevik deputies in the State Duma were strangers to any notion of reaching across the aisle. The Bolsheviks were extremists. When they couldn't get their way, they shut down the government. They had no problem with repudiating the public debt. They stockpiled guns. They were ideologically rigid fanatics who regarded those who disagreed with them, however slightly, as enemies. Their leader, educated at the finest schools, was known for his cold intelligence, his contempt for compromise, his fondness for tea, his eloquence and debating skills, and his steely determination to achieve power by unconventional, even disruptive, means. Step forward, People's Commissar Cruz!"
Beyond the Beltway
How Stupid Are Your State's Legislators? New York Times Editors: "The Florida Legislature, never one to leave bad enough alone when it comes to gun safety, is returning to the state's notorious Stand Your Ground law to make it even easier for defendants to use it as a shield for intimidating and shooting people. Senate committees approved legislation this month that would relieve defendants of the need to prove that they were in fear for their lives. Instead, prosecutors would be required to disprove the self-defense claim in a pretrial evidentiary hearing.... In aiming to compound the deadliness of the current law, Florida can only worsen its reputation as the Gunshine State. The issue before the Legislature should be full repeal of the law, not another gift to the gun zealots." CW: I wrote to my state senator. She's a Republican & doesn't look too bright. Apologies for the tautology.
WXII TV: "A Winston-Salem State University student was killed and another student was injured in an on-campus shooting early Sunday morning. Anthony White Jr., 19, of Charlotte, died at the scene of the shooting reported around 1:20 a.m.... The injured student was found nearby with non life-threatening injuries and treated and released from a hospital." CW: Maybe the killer was standing his ground.
News Ledes
New York Times: "Two Syrian activists who used video and social media to expose human rights abuses committed by the Islamic State were tracked down by jihadists and killed in their home in a southern Turkish city, according to their colleagues. The Islamic State ... released a graphic video claiming responsibility for their deaths on Sunday."
Guardian: "A new cancer treatment strategy is on the horizon that experts say could be a game-changer and spare patients the extreme side effects of existing options such as chemotherapy.... Last week the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the first time approved a single treatment that can intelligently target cancer cells while leaving healthy ones alone, and simultaneously stimulate the immune system to fight the cancer itself."
New York Times: "The Vatican announced on Monday that two members of a commission set up by Pope Francis to study financial operations at the Holy See had been arrested on suspicion of leaking confidential documents to journalists."
Reuters: "The Russian airliner that crashed in Egypt on Saturday was not struck from the outside and the pilot did not make a distress call before it disappeared from radar, a source in the committee analyzing the black box recorders said." ...
... AP: "Only an external impact could have caused a Russian plane to dive into the Egyptian desert, killing all 224 people on board, the airline said Monday, adding to a series of incomplete and confusing statements from investigators that left unclear why the plane broke up in mid-flight."
Reuters: "Iran has begun decommissioning uranium enrichment centrifuges under the terms of the nuclear deal struck with six world powers in July, Tehran's nuclear chief was quoted as saying on Monday during a visit to Tokyo. 'We have started the preliminary work' on implementing the agreement, Iran's Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi was quoted as saying by Japan's Kyodo news agency...."
Washington Post: "The leaders of South Korea and Japan held their first formal summit in three and a half years Monday, a meeting that was almost entirely devoid of substance, but will nevertheless come as a relief to Washington, which has despaired about tensions between its two key Asian allies."
AP: "Iraqi lawmakers have voted to limit the powers of the country's prime minister in enacting reforms, forcing him to seek parliament's approval before going ahead and implementing new measures."
Share Article
Reader Comments (18)
My understanding is that the arbitrators are paid by the companies - making it less of a case of 'tend to' favor the company and more of a case that definitely rules for the company.
I just updated to Windows 10 (not sure about wisdom of that) and the first thing that appeared on the screen as the process began was an admonition that I had to accept arbitration in the event of dispute. Not sure if it was individual arbitration, which is the worst case.
The Times article was excellent and shows why subscribers pay the Times the big bucks every month. But it was a thoroughly depressing article as it suggested that we are losing our access to our courts in many cases, and an effective tool for consumer protection in class action cases.
From this morning's WaPo:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/gay-rights-battle-flares-in-houston-over-nondiscrimination-ordinance/2015/11/01/02282754-7f08-11e5-b575-d8dcfedb4ea1_story.html
Contains the following:
"Others object to the fact that the ordinance allows people to self-identify as women; they argue that the law should set a standard, such as a public declaration or a medical procedure, to establish gender identity."
Clearly we will need to have monitors, stationed outside of all public restrooms, to check the sexual ID cards of persons entering. And a new agency of trained sexperts to carry out the examinations and issue the IDs.
One of the comments reads:
"No Parent that wants to protect their children, would want a Man claiming to be a woman in the Girls bathroom. Same for a Woman claiming to be a man. You don't send your young child in to a room with Perverts, or people too stupid to know the difference between a man , and a woman." (sic)
So the process for issuing the IDs also will need to include a test to determine whether the applicant is smart enough "know the difference between a man , and a woman." Perhaps there could be separate facilities for those who fail this test. There will need to be additional rooms for each and every type of gender identity.
Large signs may be posted at these facilities:
"Big Brother Sex Cop is Watching You Pee"
That'll show them damn preverts.
Since how candidates run their campaigns usually indicate how they would fare running the White House–––at least it gives some idea of management skills. How candidates respond to questions, how they parse an argument, how they deal with a myriad number of challenges that come their way are all indicators for the role of a president. When you have, as you do this season of Republican wannabees, candidates whose campaigns run amuck, candidates who tell one whopper after another, get called on them, continue to repeat the lies, then the people they have chosen to run their campaigns are either as ditsy as they or not doing their jobs. Maybe both.
Ben Carson's idea of a cracker and cheese talky-talk fest , ruminating like happy cows in a field of clover, is preposterous. And it looks like the anagram leader of the pack done shot his wad. When asked whether he thought it a good idea to have Hannity, Rush and Levin be the questioners, Reince says, "I think that would be good," knowing full well Levin called him vile names and said he should be fired. Where's the backbone here? Why does this all feel like a Marx Brother's comedy?
Will Elizabeth Warren get involved in this consumer protection situation? As Victoria asked–-are we losing our access to court litigations?
@D.C.Clark: I for one tend not to be terrified when mothers bring their young boys into the ladies' room. Of course I have been known to use the men's room if the ladies' is occupied.
I feel sorry for these clowns who are so worried about "preverts": there's a unisex lav coming to a business near them, if it's not already there. It is no longer rare, for instance, for U.S. retail businesses to have unisex handicapped restroom facilities. At home, in the homes of friends & even of relative strangers, these people probably are unafraid to pee in a unisex toilet; what's so different about a clean, well-lighted public facility?
Marie
@PD Pepe: You & Victoria D. are absolutely right. These "contracts" strike me as violations of the 5th & 7th Amendments to the Constitution, but what with John Roberts' involvement on the side of business vis-a-vis these contracts, it seems unlikely that a majority of the Supremes would agree with me.
The most sensible & definitive avenue to rectitude is a federal statute outlawing & nullifying the arbitration-only contracts. Luckily for businesses, we have a dysfunctional Congress, many of whose members won't even vote to keep the lights on in Washington. We are paying every day, in many ways, for this dysfunction. The arbitration contracts are a cruel, unjust example.
Marie
The NYT post "We Mapped the Uninsured. You'll Notice a Pattern.
They tend to live in the South, and they tend to be poor." is a perfect reminder that the Civil War is not over.
I don't understand why the Republican candidates are so worried about their lies and other immoral behavior being exposed. The voters they are attracting at this point could not care less. They would vote for Al Capone if he promised to do their dirty work.
@ P.D. Pepe: Apparently the Dodd-Frank Act explicitly gave the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Elizabeth Warren's baby) authority to look into these unfair arbitration clauses. In fact, they are doing just that, and considering proposing rules that would vastly help the situation.
Of course, as the Times' article points out, the Bureau is running up against heavy duty lobbyists such as the Chamber of Commerce.
A lot is riding on the 2016 election, and this grievous situation is but one example.
There is indeed vast list of things the do-nothing, dysfunctional Congress is not doing. At the top of the list is Congressional reluctance, its outright refusal, as you say Marie, to do anything to loosen the increasingly powerful corporate coils' stranglehold on American lives.
But business interests don't want a functioning Congress. They pay it well to be otherwise. Bullies don't like competition.
On the other hand, I am pleased at some of the dysfunction, particularly in the Senate. I shudder at the laws, most of them originating in the know-nothing House, that would have been passed in the last few years had we not had just enough Democrats in the Senate to block them.
But for a liberal Democrat to find satisfaction in some of what Congress is not doing is the equivalent of a starving man smacking his lips at the taste of stale cat food.
It'll do, but just barely, to keep me alive until the next election.
And I think: if the Republicans continues to make such public fools of themselves, maybe our diet will change for the better.
Where Infotainment Crosses A Line?
Donald Trump is scheduled to host Saturday Night Live:
'Tawk amongst y'selves'?
While it's been ages since I've viewed SNL (full disclosure: on some rare occasions), I am aware of its continued popularity (the ticket holders' line, still serpentine) as well as its power to fuel celebrity.
I'm disgusted (understatement).
Was just told of protests-in-planning by Latino - as well as
"general" NYC - denizens.
I'm a fan of (smart) Comedy, but the humor - here - escapes me.
Confederate demands concerning the "debates" make abundantly clear their two biggest problems: their absolute reliance on lying, dissembling, and misdirecting, and the fact that not a one of them has a plan for any area of presidential purview that could withstand the scrutiny of a precocious ten year old.
For me, the scariest thing is that some of these jamokes may actually believe that Tinker Bell will get better if they just clap hard enough. This is frightening. But I would only feel a tiny bit less disturbed if I thought they were all just lying sacks of shit who didn't believe a word of their own scam-spiel. The troubling thing is that I can't say that. I'm pretty sure run of the mill liars like Paul Ryan know better, but Carson is in La-La Land. Trumpy will just say whatever he thinks he needs to say, but Cruz? I dunno. The guy is such an egomaniac he might actually believe that his snake oil is a panacea.
But at some level, they all know they can just skate away by ignoring the question, pretending they didn't hear it and answering some other question in their own head, or attacking the moderator.
They also realize that few in the media will call them on it. Sure, there are a lot of people on the fringes of the MSM who are calling their game what it is, but for the most part, the big players are dutifully reporting the "Republicans Incensed at Terrible, Horrible, Liberal CNBC Moderators" headline which simply lets them all off the hook and seems to provide at least a tacit acknowledgement that they have a point.
They don't.
Instead we get stories about Confederate demands to make the "debates" (Why do we call them that? They are nothing of the kind.) more "fair" or give the questions more "integrity"--whatever the fuck that means.
So they're giving Telemundo the boot because they're owned by NBC, but also, no doubt, because you can't trust those brown people who don't speak no good English. Plus, you might get some uppity type like Jorge Ramos who has the temerity to ask serious questions of his betters.
What they want is to run all future debates on Fox with a panel of moderators consisting of Matt Drudge, Bill Kristol, and Michele Malkin and an audience of pre-approved Cliven Bundy types.
Cruz's demand that only those who vote Republican should be allowed to serve as moderators demonstrates his fear of a true question and answer format in which no serious candidate with decent ideas should be afraid of being interrogated by someone who is not a regular imbiber of Kool-Aid.
So, to sum up, they have no ideas, they're liars, and they're cowards.
A nice slate to put up for the presidency, in'it?
Slight clarification.
My inclusion of Paul Ryan in the List of Liars running for president is more an indication of how widespread the lying is in Right Wing World, where lying, even to yourself, is a requirement for membership.
It's also instructive to note that the Lying One is hiring a battery of flacks to spin his lies into something less disgusting than the usual refuse sluiced off the floor of Confederate abattoirs. And given the size of said whoppers, it's no wonder he needs so many yes-men and spin-meisters to clean up after him.
Lying has always been an unavoidable part of political machination, a land mine you'd hit now and then on the road to election day. Confederates have made it indispensable, something they use to pave that road. So it's now wonder the biggest liar in congress feels the need to hire bodyguards for his lies.
But that road can be tricky even for the liars. Let's hope there's some Karmic twist awaiting Ryan, perhaps some black hole large enough to devour his counterfeit gravitas and affected wonkiness.
The number of complete assholes on the right is legion, but Paul Ryan emits a contemptible stench of fraudulence and back-stabbing cowardice fouler than most of that wretched horde.
Akhilleus, to be fair 'lying' is frequently not the correct word for this collection of clowns. Especially for the likes of Carson, Trump, Christie and more, there are no lies. What they say is the definition of truth. There are no facts, there are Carsons. There are no rules, there are Trumps, there are no lies because if your Christie you are by definition a jerk or worse. Or to put it another way, if you are truly delusional you can't even figure out how to lie.
Marvin,
And that, as I said, is something that really scares me. I'm sure there are plenty of out and out liars who realize they haven't said a true thing into a microphone in decades. But some of these idiots are truly delusional and that is frightening. But not so frightening as all those potential voters who declare their readiness to put these jobbers in the White House.
One of the reason many voters don't care whether their faves spin lies or stretch truth beyond recognition or simply base their platforms on mindless ideology is that they've been brainwashed into thinking that anything or anyone not "on their side" is evil and anything is fair game as long as their side wins.
This is why none of Loofah Boy's fans care if he makes shit up. They don't care that responsible and respected journalists and witnesses present when O'Reilly claims he saved the world have debunked his tales as the lies of a lying liar. They will side with him because he represents the tough "no-nonsense" "no-spin" Confederate who will kick hippies asses and flip off feminazis and give the heave-ho to uppity blahs and immigrants. They don't care if he never tells the truth so long as his lies comport with their view of the world, which is, they are all victims, but they are right and they are the only real Americans, whom everyone else is out to get.
One more passing thought about this Debate Rules kerfuffle (as I think of their image of themselves as no-nonsense tough guys).
Aren't Confederates always going on about how terrible it is to give people hand outs because it saps their will to succeed? About how the only way to truly win is to do it on your own? To "build it all yourself", to make it happen without assistance of any kind? How do those broad-shouldered bromides square with wanting someone to hold your hand, protect you from meanie moderators, and let you off the hook from answering moderately tough questions?
Again, it's pay attention only to what we say, not what we do.
Ben (The Killer) Carson has been telling stories about how he used to go after people who pissed him off with bricks and knives and guns but now a question about some shady business deal in his past has him running for momma? He's exchanging his switchblade for a fondue fork?
Oh yeah. ISIS is shaking in their boots.
Fucking crybaby hypocrites.
Breaking news, a deal has been reached on future debates:
http://links.newyorker.mkt4334.com/ctt?kn=20&ms=ODIxMjA3NgS2&r=MjczNzc0ODkyMDQS1&b=0&j=ODAwMTY3ODc4S0&mt=1&rt=0
Yes, Akhilleus, but the crybabies have a lot of money to bully the lame-stream media with. Hell, they own it.
I see the debate discussion as just another instance of Koch-Confederates changing the rules when they don't get their way.
Remember when we had a thriving middle class, when unions flourished, when wages were rising, when CA had free college tuition, when CEO's made sane multiples of average worker wages, when banking institutions were regulated and prohibited from risky speculation, when corporate income taxes were actually collected and when both parties thought it fine idea that everyone voted?
These (and many more) were things the K-C's didn't like so they changed them, and the truly frightening thing is they had the power to do so.
In the last forty years or so, the crybabies have succeeded in becoming they bullies. They still cry when they think occasion warrants, playing the victim card over and over, which as you say echoes the feelings of their base, but instead of garnering the derision they deserve, in the short term they just keep winning.
We'll see how this one turns out. I'm guessing money, not sanity, will win.
Ken,
I fear you are correct. The decline, not to say death, of your litany marking better times, has indeed come at the behest of the behemoths and their political thugs, abetted by media jackals who succumb time and again to the gravitational pull of the filthy lucre.
But there was a time when even the Koch types felt a need to attempt to persuade the public that oligarchy was good for them. No more. Today's Confederates simply say how they think it should be with not the tiniest exertion at explanation or persuasion. Plato, a fair master of rhetoric himself, feared the power of rhetorical flourishes in the wrong hands (or mouths, as the case may be). Aristotle, in his treatise on Rhetoric also felt that connivers gifted with compelling eloquence could move the polis in the wrong direction and decided that the best remedy was for a more eloquent and convincing argument made by those determined to reach the best outcome for the entire country.
Shakespeare, much appreciative of well rinsed rhetorical flourishes, was likely familiar with Thomas Wilson’s book "The Art of Rhetorique", first published, in English, in 1553 (there is an original copy in the Shakespeare Centre Library at Straford-upon-Avon). Taking his cue from the rules set therein, he fashioned several models of the art of political persuasion in "Julius Caesar", notably, Cassius' speech convincing Brutus to join the conspirators and, of course, Marc Anthony's brilliant demolition of Brutus as an "honest man" ("Friends, Romans, countrymen..."). Any of that sort of persuasion evident among the mendacious and stuttering Confederate candidates?
And speaking of Shakespeare, I thought of comparing the persuasive powers of the Prince of Bombast, one Trumpy the Trumpet, with the character most closely resembling him, Sir John Falstaff. Both are braggarts and blowhards, but Falstaff, at least, can do more than toss insults and unsupported claims.
Here, Sir John sets out to convince his hangers-on that the concept of Honor is not all it seems to be, and that giving oneself over to be killed in battle for greater glory and honor should at least require further examination:
"What is in that word honour? what
is that honour? air. A trim reckoning! Who hath it?
he that died o’ Wednesday. Doth he feel it? no.
Doth he hear it? no. ‘Tis insensible, then. Yea,
to the dead. But will it not live with the living?
no. Why? detraction will not suffer it. Therefore
I’ll none of it. Honour is a mere scutcheon: and so
ends my catechism."
(Henry IV Part 1 Act V Scene 1)
You may agree or not, but he's got a point, delivered entertainingly and memorably.
And here is the Trumpet attempting to convince anyone who will listen that the president is a Mooslim, or something, or not...maybe:
"He may have one [a faith] but there's something on that, maybe religion, maybe it says he is a Muslim. I don't know. Maybe he doesn't want that. Or he may not have one."
Convinced?
Old friend Montaigne had a few things to say about oratorical skills and one of his better anecdotes makes me wish something similar could be recreated at the next Confederate Confab.
Montaigne relates the story of Lyncestes, who was given a chance to speak to the assembled army of Alexander the Great in his own defense, he being accused of conspiracy to assassinate the great man. He mumbled and bumbled his way along for a few minutes until nearby soldiers had heard enough and ran him through. Eloquence has its virtues.
Montaigne goes on to mention some rules of thumb about speaking in public. For one, he suggests never beginning a speech with the words "I will now list six things I wish to do..." feeling that such lists are boring in the extreme and worse, you may forget some of them (looking at you Rick Perry).
I'm not suggesting that Confederate candidates should channel Socrates or Montaigne or Shakespeare (although it would indeed be a stunning transmogrification) in developing convincing arguments for their schemes, but something a little better than the Simpsons would be nice.