« Trump vs. The Pope! | Main | Your Superduper Tuesday Open Thread of Intrigue »

February 25, 2016

Comments

I didn't say that Nevada was uniquely anti-Federal government. Just that it was far more so than most states.

Where "most" means eastern? Seriously, from the Great Plains west -- call it west of 100 °W longitude -- Nevada isn't even an outlier. I spent three years on the staff for a western state legislature, talking to staffers in other western states regularly, and problems with the federal government are an annual thing. I get into this argument regularly, but assert that among the political class in the West, there is an enormous latent animosity towards the federal government.

The methodology Trump I'd using is no different than Obama's.

get out of that bubble. it's making you sound like a lunatic.

Where "most" means eastern? Seriously, from the Great Plains west -- call it west of 100 °W longitude -- Nevada isn't even an outlier.

Certainly there is a lot of animosity in rural California, Oregon (and probably, although I am less familiar with it, Washington). But those voters are a fraction, perhaps even a tiny fraction, of the total voters in those states.

Even if you add in the conservative/libertarian parts of southern California, they still aren't enough to even be able to elect a significant part of the state legislature.

Yes, you see something similar in the mountain states (Idaho, Montana, etc.). But once you get into the Plains States, it's a different story. The folks there dislike some Federal programs. But they like, even demand, some others (c.f. crop subsidies) -- although, admittedly, they may manage to ignore the fact that those are Federal programs.

Note that most of the Midwest is east of the 100th meridian. But hardly "Eastern" in any meaningful sense. Note also that a substantial majority of the US population lives either east of the 100th meridian or along the Pacific coast -- a substantial majority of the states also fall into that category. Is Idaho as much as an outlier as Nevada? Quite possibly. But that doesn't change Nevada's position; especially among the early primary states.

It is actually the most amazing thing to me that everyone denies the direct parallel between the campaign strategies and tactics. It is like no one can remember how vague Obama was, or how he just repeated hope and change on the stump every day, or how he edged around the issues until he found the one that played and then said he was for that all the time.

Add in the flood of social media and free coverage because he was a celebrity and it is all the same.

Oh, and the complete disdain for his opponents.

I remember calling him a huckster and his campaign a revival meeting. It is not me living in the bubble. But it helps that I didn't like either of them so I don't really have a partisan view of the comparison. SSDD.

Yes, Marty, tell us all about how Obama preached hate and fear and how his followers bullied any opponents who dared show up at his rallies, and all the blatant lies he told about his past, and about everyone else . . .

Perhaps you remember what no one else does?
Otherwise, STFU.

I love that. thanks dr. ngo. Some of the above. Yes Obama supporters shouted down any protest at his rallies, but you didn't like those people so it was ok. Yes he told blatant lies about his past. And hate and fear of the Republicans (read Bush) was a staple.

or how he just repeated hope and change on the stump every day, or how he edged around the issues until he found the one that played and then said he was for that all the time

seriously, this is nonsensical.

I don't really have a partisan view of the comparison

bullshit. you sound like a wingnut radio jock, trying to pimp the GOP brand to your ignorant listeners.

Yes he told blatant lies about his past.

Just out of curiosity, what blatant lies did Obama tell about his past?

Seriously. I don't remember any, but I wasn't paying attention during the Democratic primaries. And after McCain revealed a massive lack of judgement with Palin, there wasn't really much choice.

And hate and fear of the Republicans (read Bush) was a staple.

Unlike how hate and fear of the Democrats (read Obama, or don't - it's pretty damned general) has been a staple on your side of the aisle has been since 2008 at the absolute latest?

If it's normal political behavior - which for Republicans it certainly is - then it's hardly evidence that two pols are using the same methodology.

(This takes the comparison at face value, which is frankly silly. Seriously, I'd love to hear a direct, point-by-point comparison of the two campaigns instead of vague, sweeping generalized invocations of how they're "the same" (like the above non-specific specification) while edging around identifying the actual details that would make them the same...)

*hardly evidence that two pols are using a distinct methodology, and not significant evidence they're using the same one

Marshall again:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/gop-overwhelmed-by-debt

Yes Obama supporters shouted down any protest at his rallies

As Bush dashed through a day that included a church service, a congressional lunch, an inaugural parade and 10 evening events, there were reminders of the country's political divide. A pair of protesters unfurled an antiwar banner during the swearing-in ceremony, only to be removed by police and shouted down by Bush supporters chanting "USA! USA!"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23519-2005Jan20.html
The federal government has agreed to pay $80,000 to a Texas couple arrested for wearing anti-President Bush T-shirts at a 2004 event with the president in Charleston.

0817 060817 06Jeff and Nicole Rank went to Bush's Fourth of July speech at the state Capitol wearing homemade T-shirts with a red circle with a bar through it over the word "Bush."

On the back, hers read "Love America, Hate Bush" and his read "Regime Change Starts At Home."

When the couple refused to cover up their shirts, they were arrested and charged with trespassing. Those charges were later dropped by the city of Charleston, and city officials later apologized.


http://www.commondreams.org/news/2007/08/17/couple-arrested-bush-rally-settles-lawsuit-80000

also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot

and, please provide links to show that Obama would single out the press at rallies and say he hated them, or where he said he wanted to personally punch a protester in the face.

I, for one, am hoping Marty can provide an audio clip of Biden, as Pres. of the Senate, telling McConnell to "GFYS".

Not least, so I can listen to it over and over.

So....Marco Rubio gets tough with third grade level insults. "Hair Force One"? Really? no wonder trump is winning

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rubio-trump-hair-tan

remember the time Obama was a "celebrity" candidate?

(this was during the time when he was running against the guy who was the most-frequent guest on The Daily Show and the second-most-frequent guest on Meet The Press, John McCain)

good times!

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/years-shameful-campaign-coverage-less-50-words

yep, just like Obama.

..., Nevada is the third least-rural state in the country. (Side note: four of the ten least-rural states by percent of population are western states;...

It's difficult to have a rural population when the federal government owns most of the real estate.

It's difficult to have a rural population when the federal government owns most of the real estate.

It's difficult to have a rural population when nobody wants to live there, CharlesWT.

"The methodology Trump I'd using is no different than Obama's."

As the Donald might orate, while grabbing his balls, "Methodology This!"

Skimmed over the thread just to say. I don't give a damn which freak gets the Republican nomination and the prospect of voting for Clinton depresses the hell out of me, but will do it if necessary.

I hate American politics.

But that said, my money's on Trump.

I'm way late to the party, but in response to Hartmut, way up at the top of the thread:

"If they award the nomination to anyone else despite Trump having a plurality, he will go independent and be it just out of spite."

The cool thing is, he really can't. The convention is past most of the independent filing deadlines. He can campaign as a write-in, but that's going to be pretty feckless. And if there's anything that Trump insists that he be full of, it's feck.

Isn't the convention in July (18-21th) while most deadlines are in August? It would take some effort but should be possible to get onto enough state ballots to act as a spoiler. And at that stage spoling will be all that Trump has in mind. And even a limited run would have an effect on his supporters whther he is on the local ballot or not.
To be very nasty, I can see the GOP drawing profit from Trump becoming what Nader is seen as (=Gore's spoiler). They will be able to blame their defeat on Trump (even if the Dem wins with a wider margin) not on their hateful and incompetent actions. "Without him, we would have won. Therefore our behaviour against Obama was successful. Therefore we can, should and will do the same to his successor.".

Third grade is generous.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35674780

Nigel, you have to realize that behaving like 3rd graders is a step forward. For most of the last 7 years, the Republicans in Congress have been behaving like 2-year-olds. (That's the age where kids just scream "No! No! No!" over pretty much anything.)

So maybe the campaign represents progress...?

That Josh Marshall analysis is really accurate IMHO. A lot of Marty's comments here demonstrate the "nonsense debt" problem: Marty doesn't seem able to tell when his statements (e.g. that Obama caused Scalia's death, or that Obama 'wants to be king') are outside the bounds of reason.

Marshall uses the metaphor of 'programming debt':

If we do a project in a rough and ready way, which is often what we can manage under the time and budget constraints we face, we will build up a "debt" we'll eventually have to pay back. Basically, if we do it fast, we'll later have to go back and rework or even replace the code to make it robust enough for the long haul, interoperate with other code that runs our site or simply be truly functional as opposed just barely doing what we need it to. There's no right or wrong answer; it's simply a management challenge to know when to lean one way or the other. But if you build up too much of this debt the problem can start to grow not in a linear but an exponential fashion, until the system begins to cave in on itself with internal decay, breakdowns of interoperability and emergent failures which grow from both.
Boy howdy, does that metaphor resonate -- I'm sure most of us have been involved with projects (programming or otherwise) where this happens, where 'just get it working, we'll fix that later' goes on to the point where you can no longer fix *anything*, as the project crashes around your ears.

In programming or other projects, you deal with this kind of debt spiral by getting the money to start fresh behind the scenes, test it carefully, then roll it out the new version before the old has completely collapsed. You can also usually ensure that the new version looks prettier, as well as working better, so everyone can (eventually) accept the changes.

For the GOP, though, I don't see the possibility of anything like a site redesign. In the first place, too many of the party leaders (and major donors) are operating on "resentment, perceived persecution, apocalyptic thinking and generic nonsense", and enjoying it. In the second place, there's a whole media universe that feeds and reinforces those tendencies.

How can the GOP -- or the rest of us -- get 27% of the country -- and maybe half of all Republican voters -- out of the habit of nonsense, paranoia, resentment, and outrage?

How can the GOP -- or the rest of us -- get 27% of the country -- and maybe half of all Republican voters -- out of the habit of nonsense, paranoia, resentment, and outrage?

It pains me, on principle, to say it. But I suspect that the only way to do this is to have those Republican voters drop out of the electorate in disgust.

They'll still be paranoid, resentful, and outraged. That is, they won't get out of the habit. But they won't be influencing where the GOP is going.

I'm far less certain how to make that happen. (Although when we no longer have either a man with a permanent suntan, or a woman, in the Oval Office, that will help.) Perhaps it simply cannot be encouraged from outside, save by repeatedly voting down their preferred candidates, so they decide that they just can't win and therefore why bother to try.

wj:

But they're bound to keep having wins on the state/local level, so they're not going to get that discouraged.

pains me to say it, because i don't really dislike either of them, but i kindof wish the Dems had someone else besides Clinton and Sanders in the lead this year. Trump is fracturing the GOP and potentially putting a lot of voters in play that otherwise would be solid Republicans. but the Dems have a Clinton and a guy who calls himself a "socialist". and that probably makes drives away a lot of those anti-Trump Republicans.

but if the election was Trump v... i dunno, Biden? the Dems would probably clean up.

Cleek, why not go with O'Malley? He, at least, was out there making an effort. As opposed of Biden, who made it clear that he wasn't interested.

sure, O'Malley might've worked.

it's just that somehow the Dems ended up with two candidates who are pretty polarizing, outside the Dem base, at the very time they could've scooped up a lot of anyone-but-Trump Republicans.

i think they'll do OK anyway. but it seems like a bit of a missed opportunity.

wj,

A "paranoid, resentful, and outraged" minority (especially one which overlaps considerably with the armed segment of the population) may not "drop out of the electorate in disgust". History suggests that fanatics often go out with a bang and not a whimper.


DocSci,

Wow, does Josh's metaphor resonate with me. Every project I ever worked on conformed to it, and I include home ownership in the list. It strikes me that the project of framing a Constitution for the US did/does also.

What can "the rest of us" do about the 27%, you ask? We have no choice but to engage with them. Not with their political and cultural leaders/mouthpieces but with them, personally. It's an uncomfortable proposition, because here in America we like to pretend that "politics" is separate from "real life". Very few of us talk politics with our boss, our dentist, our neighbor, our brother-in-law -- unless we're pretty sure we agree in the first place. So the "programming debt" keeps building up.

--TP

The biggest problem that I have "engaging with them" is the number (at least among the ones I know) who are enthusiastic conspiracy theory types.

In my experience, there is simply no way to reach someone who is convinced that everything is a conspiracy. Especially when absense of anything resembling evidence is taken as simply proof of how clever the conspirators are in hiding their tracks.

If someone has found a way to get through that kind of closed loop, I would love to hear about it. I've got a couple of close friends who I simply cannot talk to about politics (or lots of other topics).

"that Obama caused Scalia's death"

wow. I missed that one, somehow.

That one came within minutes of Scalia's death becoming public (and was totally predictable).

And now he killed a Supreme.
A man who would be king.
Posted by: Marty | February 14, 2016 at 11:46 AM

From here.

Slightly off topic...
Would it be constitutionally possible for Obama to nominate himself to the Supreme Court ?
(In order to provide some Senate vacancies as Republican heads actually explode...)

It would seem only fair, as the Republicans don't appear to feel that he should be allowed to act as president for the remainder of his term.

After Nigel's comment, now I'd like to see Obama not get his nomination heard and then have the next Democratic president (Insha'Allah) nominate Obama.

Would it be constitutionally possible for Obama to nominate himself to the Supreme Court ?

there are no requirements specified for the job. and i don't know of anything about the job of President that would forbid it.

make it so, Obama!

You guys are looking at this all wrong!

First, Obama deserves a little break after his current job. Certainly it has been rather stressful trying to work with(!) the current Congress.

More importantly, it's not really right to go from heading one branch of government to merely being an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. Better to wait for the Chief Justice slot to open up.**

Long live William Howard Taft!


** For those longing for exploding heads, that would also be likely to cause more and larger explosions.

Hey, Michelle Obama is a lawyer too.

It would not surprise me if Ted Olsen is being vetted.

But a law degree is not a requirement for the job anyway, AFAIK. So I fantasize about a scientist on the Court. Not gonna happen, of course: scientists tend to be insufficiently pious.

--TP

cleek and wj:

the Dems ended up with two candidates who are pretty polarizing, outside the Dem base

Guys, Clinton is not as polarizing as you think. Look at the candidates' favorables/unfavorables. Yes, Hillary has high unfaves -- but she also has extremely high faves, and they've been high for *decades*.

I'm not sure how to define polarizing better than high faces and high unfaves. She has been polarizing for decades.

However, once she gets to the general election campaign I expect her unfavorables to go down. Most surely if she gets to run against Trump. Her new ads are really working on that already.

Polarization is GOOD. At least as good as greed, anyhow.

The whole point of elections (in a democracy; in theory) is to count up how many people are on each side of the fence. The Broderistic worship of fence-straddlers is political correctness run amok. Tut-tutting at politicians who tend to pull or push fence-sitters off their perch is misguided civility.

These things are also anti-democratic in an important sense. They amount to wanting elections to be more or less meaningless civic rituals, rather than the only method short of violence to decide, not which side is right, but which side would prevail in a knife fight.

--TP

"And now he killed a Supreme."

ok, I remember that one now. somehow I seem to have blocked it from my mind. thanks janie.

I gotta say, I think you're just trolling us all at this point Marty.

Guys, Clinton is not as polarizing as you think

in the set of anti-Trump Republicans, she's pretty polarizing. "Clinton" is probably even more of a turn off for Republicans than "Bush" is for Dems.

I don't know how polarizing Clinton is or is not.

What I do think is that anyone who wants to vote for someone who is essentially a thoroughly experienced, intelligent, centrist should have no trouble pulling the lever for her.

Not close.

definitely.

Tony, there are plenty of dumber than average provocateurs.

OT: Overcrowding at safe places after Chris Rock's Oscar monologue...

Well, the Supreme comment was tingu in cheek, a little trolling. Plus, in this thread I didn't go to Obama said anything akin to what Trump said until after the reaction to what I think is pretty clearly common campaign strategies.

Nonetheless. Trump can't get my vote. I would even have to consider voting for the Democratic candidate at this point, a step beyond withholding my vote.

There is no doubt after today that his racist remarks in the past were not just hyperbole. The inability to simply decry the Klan removes any doubt about his underlying sentiment.

If he gets the nomination, I will not be a Republican.

If he gets the nomination, I will not be a Republican.

If Trump (or, more accurately, the number of Trump supporters) is managing to drive Marty out of the Republican Party, that really says something. And I find myself in agreement -- a Trump nomination makes it pretty much impossible for anyone with two brain cells to rub together from voting Republican. At least at the top of the ticket.

As a resident of Toronto, I feel your pain.

"If he gets the nomination, I will not be a Republican."

Welp!

Where does a guy go to get his gaskets unblown?

;)

"The inability to simply decry the Klan removes any doubt about his underlying sentiment."

The sentimentality of his sizable posse, as in the folks who have probably secured him the Republican nomination, is the disability that we need to be afraid of.

Except for the streets, where do they go next?

wj writes:

"At least at the top of the ticket."

You mean, we can't bring ourselves to vote for Trump, but we may be able to swing a vote down ticket for an actual Klansman?

As Doctor Science alluded to above, or somewhere recently, it's the down ticket racist, a'hole conservative revolutionaries who require gelding, and worse.

The real danger to America, in my completely non-humble opinion, is the hold Norquistian/Palinist/Atwatery murderers have on local and statehouse, gerrymandered politics.

Where do we think the "Freedom Caucus" came from?

Remember, America's Faulknerian Original Sin is no longer slavery, according to the current prevailing Zeitgeist raging among the conservative base, but rather the political correctness that criticizes and ridicules the down home Klan "values".

Bouncing off of CharlesWT's Chris Rock reference:

http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2016/02/28/3754631/chris-rocks-epic-monologue-at-the-oscars-you-are-damn-right-hollywood-is-racist/

Rock, a national treasure:

But here’s the real question. The real question everybody wants to know, everybody wants to know, in the world, is Hollywood racist? Is Hollywood racist? You know, that’s — that’s a — you know, you got to go at that at the right way. Is it burning cross racist? No. Is it fetch me some lemonade racist? No, no. It’s a different type of racist.

Now, I remember one night I was at a fundraiser for President Obama, a lot of you were there, and, you know, it’s me and all of Hollywood. And all the, you know, it’s all of us there and there’s about four black people there, me, let’s see, Quincy Jones, Russell Simmons, Questlove, you know, the usual suspects, right? And every black actor that wasn’t working. Needless to say, Kevin Hart was not there, okay? So, at some point, you get to take a picture with the President.

And as they’re setting up the picture, you get a little moment with the president, I’m like, “Mr. President, you see all these writers and producers and actors? They don’t hire black people. And they’re the nicest white people on earth. They’re liberals.” CHEESE.

That’s right. Is Hollywood racist? You’re damn right Hollywood’s racist. But it isn’t the racist you’ve grown accustomed to. Hollywood is sorority racist. It’s like — “We like you, Rhonda, but you’re not a Kappa.” That’s how Hollywood is."

"Obama 'wants to be king')"

First.Obama would be king and is operating as much like a king today as he can. And before the rebuke, in more than one interview he has stated how things would be better if the smart folks could get together and do what was needed without the interference of the people. Which leads to

Second, the way you dream with 28% of the electorate is to quit calling them names and telling them they are operating on "resentment, perceived persecution, apocalyptic thinking and generic nonsense" and they should just get over it.

They are no more apocalyptic than the pearl clutchers going on about Citizen United. Except for the most part they are actually disenfranchised. Their persecution is not "perceived" its experienced every day. And every time some 1%er talks about what's wrong with them it isn't paranoia anymore.

So, you can call it what you want but you don't get rid of it by pretending something is wrong with them.

Obama would be king and is operating as much like a king today

dude. get real.

in more than one interview he has stated how things would be better if the smart folks could get together

cite?

Actually cleek I tried to find the interview, before I put that part in. I haven't found it yet, but I actually saw the interview on tv toward the end of his first term.

And, again, the things he has done in the past 18 months, and more, are assumptions of executive privilege completely unparalleled in my life time.

are assumptions of executive privilege completely unparalleled in my life time

only if you're.

6.

"and quit telling them they are operating on resentment, perceived persecution, apocalyptic thinking and generic nonsense"

I think THEY told Trump, Cruz, the Tea Party, and assorted malingering grifters since the Gingrich days that very thing, who have been telling the rest of us ad nauseum at high decibel volumes, and we're just repeating what we've been told but, oddly enough, the originators of the complaints don't like to be recognized as the original complainants.

You want to see anger, wait until the 28% grows to 88% after Paul Ryan destroys Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and repeals Obamacare, the latter of which a small portion of the 28% have sneaked onto like men overboard dressed as women clinging to the Titanic's lifeboats, through no fault of their own.

I do love that the GOP's candidates "pledge" to support the eventual nominee - originally designed to somehow force Trump into not running a third party campaign should he lose - is now coming back to bite them since Trump's winning.

Rubio trying to start a #NeverTrump campaign on Twitter - you signed the pledge Rubes! Eat it, otherwise you take your word just as seriously as you've taken your job as United States Senator from Florida.

I lifted this tweet from cleek's place regarding the shock, I say the SHOCK, the Republican establishment finds itself in over the Trump/Cruz ascendancy.

"Republican elites: I can't believe this dog whistle attracted all these dogs!"

"And, again, the things he has done in the past 18 months, and more, are assumptions of executive privilege completely unparalleled in my life time."

Could be. Can you think of the completely unparalleled behavior and machinations over the past 40 years by guess who that might have led us to this pass?

And, again, the things he has done in the past 18 months, and more, are assumptions of executive privilege completely unparalleled in my life time.

two words: unitary executive
four more words: fourth branch of government

other points of interest might include Iran/Contra, and generally participating in wars explicitly prohibited by law, and basically the entire Presidency of Richard Nixon.

no doubt there are many examples from the career of Lyndon Baines Johnson that could also be cited.

seriously, Marty, where you been?

And how is it that Rubio thinks labeling Trump a "con man" is at all helpful? Doesn't that imply Trump's current supporters are a bunch of idiotic, easily fooled rubes? And they are thus going to wake up now that you've told them and support you?

What a tool.

What a tool.

FWIW, here is my take on it.

A lot of Trump's appeal is his being, basically, a bully and getting away with it. To the degree that Rubio (or anyone) can poke a hole in that, it undermines him as a candidate.

Rubio's new approach is childish, but IMO it's likely to be more effective than trying to deal with Trump like an adult.

We'll see what happens. I wish him luck with it.

All of that said, Trump at least, in is oafish, know-nothing, demagogic manner, is tapping into bipartisan rage about the ravaging of the middle class (and lower too, but ravaging is nothing new to them) by "free trade" agreements, plunging union power, and the overall attack on decent wages and benefits by the corporate elite in this country.

HE at least mouths his opposition to SS and Medicare.

Not that he means any of it, because he doesn't know what he thinks until didn't he hears the roar of the greasepaint and smells the stench of the crowd.

The Koch Brothers funded their hand-puppets, the Tea Party. Now a good part of the Tea Party had migrated to Trump.

And that scares the crap out of the Koch Brothers, who hate Trump, so much that they have been on a charm offensive these last months.

Like so many Uriah Heeps.

There's only so many times you can tell the frightened, persecuted, resentful, armed 28 percenters that it's the blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, and the Chinese who are blowing up their American dream, when it's the Koch Brothers and company who send out the lay-off notices, the demands to get rid of the minimum wage, decent wages, and decent benefits, and then spend hundreds of millions of dollars to elect candidates who crave hollowing out the safety net as well.

The Koch Brothers don't look Chinese, Muslim, or Mexican to me.

Everyone else is going to catch up too.

"has" migrated.

And the word "didn't" somehow sneaked into a sentence where it didn't belong.

It must have needed the work.

Every political and financial comment thread is rife with Trump lovers who hate Rubio.

They despise Clinton and Obama, but they'll get back to them after they kill of Rubio, just as they killed off Bush.

This election is like the running of the bulls at Pamplona.

Rubio had better find a doorway to duck into soon

Nixon resigned, Iran contra was a scandal and lbj did everything through the Congress. None even resembles doing what you want and publicly daring the Congress and public to do something about it. Even Bush got an authorization. Which no one supported regardless of the votes it got.

Well, let's hear what it is that Obama should resign over or what should be a scandal but isn't. I mean, no one would dare create a scandal over something Obama did, right? Kid gloves is all he's ever gotten from the opposition, just like I rode a giant, 7-tentacled wolf uterus with the head of Pee Wee Herman to work this morning.

There's rough logic in Trump's refusal to disavow the white supremacist vote:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/28/politics/donald-trump-jeff-sessions-endorsement/

After trying to build casinos in Atlantic City with Mafia cooperation, Trump knows how swing a deal with the worst among em.

Because it's how business is done, which is the excuse of every malignancy this country has harbored since day ONE.

He's appealing to the basest natures of the base, just as every Republican since whenever had to kiss Strom Thurmond's and Jesse Helm's ring, which the latter's grandpappies stole from a black slave or a Jew.

no doubt there are many examples from the career of Lyndon Baines Johnson that could also be cited.

All started with Truman and the Korean war.

"All started with Truman and the Korean war."

Yes, and sex started with Elvis' pelvis.

https://www.google.com/#q=cartoons+throughout+history+depicting+presidents+as+kings&tbm=isch&imgil=bfMf1mf7n0aLmM%253A%253BGFR5JIMr45UAzM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.pinterest.com%25252Fpin%25252F514395588660609764%25252F&fir=bfMf1mf7n0aLmM%253A%252CGFR5JIMr45UAzM%252C_&usg=___HBA_ozyN26efU_6fFDhKn1stus%3D&imgrc=bfMf1mf7n0aLmM%3A

It's unprecedented just how unprecedented all the stuff that's never happened before is.

Nixon resigned

is that all that happened? just one day out of the blue he resigned?

Trump said: "I had a bad earpiece. They ought to fire the sound guy. I'd a fired him, after slugging him in the kisser, let me tell you. See, I thought Duke was asking me if I wanted to get rid of the chiggers in the South. That's what it sounded like. I mean, they have a problem with the chiggers in the South, right. Who am I to disagree with that?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-today-show-david-duke

Rubio's new approach is childish, but IMO it's likely to be more effective than trying to deal with Trump like an adult.

I see what you're saying, but that's just it, it is childish, or at least it is coming from him. It's like he's doing really bad standup - "Hair Force One" and "Spray tans", he needs better writers (he should call the Count). Even the selling watches in Manhattan line seemed flat to me, although I've only read transcripts so perhaps it works better verbally/visually. It really does sound like (to me) he's out there shouting "I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!"

But he's playing a losing game, ISTM. If the KKK/David Duke horribleness doesn't kill off Trump's path to the nomination, then I don't think anything will. Perhaps the one candidate who was a big enough d1ck to do it (Cruz is too much of a weasel) was Chris Christie and.....

I guess we will find out tomorrow.

"Nixon resigned

is that all that happened? just one day out of the blue he resigned?"

No, he started the Commie EPA too at the behest of Alger Hiss. Which is the real reason he resigned one day out of the blue.

Also, torpedoed the Gold Standard.

He'd a been primaried out of his SENATE seat in the 1950s if Ted Cruz had been around (he was, as a slight stirring in God's loins) and we coulda made this country grate (on everyone's nerves) a long time ago and avoided all of these elderly and poor living for so long without going totally bankrupt like they deserve.

Before I forget about Mr. Rock, this was good from his opening as well:

The annual in memoriam section "is just going to be black people shot by the cops on the way to the movies."

I wish him luck with it.

Actually, I take it back.

Enough already, it's freaking depressing.

I predicted right here weeks ago that the Republican candidates would soon begin tweeting dic pics at each other and us, because that's all they've got, other than their AK-47s.

Rubio, on Trump:

"He's like 6'2'' which is why I don't understand why his hands are the size of someone who is 5'2". Have you seen his hands?" Rubio said during a rally in Roanoke, Virgina. "You know what they say about men with small hands? You can't trust them. You can't trust them."

Next thing, at the next debate, Trump is going to grab the callow punk and give him a rough noogie and make him cry. And then crack a penis envy joke.

Besides, Rubio should remember that Fidel Castro (who Rubio would be nowhere in this country without, other than skipping his parking attendant job at Disney World in Orlando) infamously said: "Sometimes an exploding cigar is just a cigar."

Rubio's gambit reminds of when various celebs would take on Don Rickles at Dean Martin's roasts.

Good luck with that.

I guess marty has forgotten the push by Bush to sneak in the power of line item veto via executive order....and of course, we all know where in the Congressional Record where we can find the legislative authorization to conduct torture.

You mean, we can't bring ourselves to vote for Trump, but we may be able to swing a vote down ticket for an actual Klansman?

Count, I think it depends on what part of the country you are in. Here (northern California) we are actually seeing some Republicans at the local level who are social conservatives in their personal lives (which, if you think about it, pretty well describes Obama) and fiscal conservatives -- but on social issues pretty tolerant of others. Yeah, "tolerant conservatives"; what a concept!

My sense is that the Republican Party in California went far right earlier than most other places (outside the South). It had severe negative electoral experiences as a result. So we are finally seeing moderate conservatives start to displace the radicals. It gives me hope for the rest of the country.

"He's like 6'2'' which is why I don't understand why his hands are the size of someone who is 5'2". Have you seen his hands?" Rubio said during a rally in Roanoke, Virgina. "You know what they say about men with small hands? You can't trust them. You can't trust them."

WTF? There are dog whistles, speaking in code, and speaking in tongues, I think this is the last.

Been busy for a few days.

Taibbi masterpiece

For people who haven't been paying attention, such as a goodly chunk of the RS readership, that was probably quite good. He did cover the bases pretty thoroughly, while telling me little that I didn't already know. Trump fans won't pay it any attention; anyone not having a remote chance of voting for Trump will mostly love it.

I don't think he paid enough attention to Trump's pro wrestling career, though.

The methodology Trump [is] using is no different from Obama's

Let's elect him right this second, then!

"My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body,"

http://www.people.com/article/donald-trump-fingers-small-vanity-fair-hands

A Trump spokeswoman is on my TV just now, valiantly bullshitting in defense of He, Trump w.r.t. to The Donald's insipid, weak-ass, non-disavowal of David Duke and the KKK. Poor woman's gotta make a living, I guess.

A decent interviewer might well have asked her to explain why He, Trump has never used his considerable powers of contempt, insult, and bullying against the KKK -- rather than immigrants, Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, and other unsavory characters. Oh, well: interviewers have to eat too, and what matters to their bosses is the "get", not the substance.

Is this a great country, or what?

--TP

McArdle is collecting testimonials from Republicans who won't vote Trump.

https://twitter.com/asymmetricinfo?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

I don't think he paid enough attention to Trump's pro wrestling career, though.

Good point. I was unaware of that aspect of The Donald, but I am a cultural ignoramus.

Are all of the Repub d*cks going to sign a pledge not to vote for Trump and then wreak vengeance on those who do?

Will they sign a pledge to never do business and never send a single piece of legislation to a President Trump.

Which bricks in all of the walls the Republican Party is dying to build don't correspond with Trump's plans?

What part of the carpet will Republicans refuse to bomb that Trump will bomb, multiple times.

Just the shag parts? But flying carpets get the crap bombed out of them?

Trump is a perfect fit with that monstrosity.

What's the difference between governing by irrevocable pledges, punished by being primaried into oblivion if broken, and Trump's coming F*ck You Presidency.

Which blacks, Mexicans, women, gays, and liberals won't Trump punish that the Republican Party wants punished?

See, the Catastrophic Party is a little afraid because Trump won't put anything in writing and he's not taking the pigf*cker/ratf*cker moolah to get elected, so he might change his mind, which would be apostasy and we can't have that.

Pro wrestling.

Too bad Andy Kaufmann isn't alive to run.

He'd come out of meetings in a neck brace with Republican Party big wig scum like Paul Ryan and the big donors and be running a close second to Trump, even in the South.

He'd skip the middle men and women and hold rallies and caucuses with actual dogs, so they didn't have to run so far when he sounded the whistles.

For those who don't want the Death Star Trump, the only alternative is Black Hole Cruz.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/this-is-amazing--3

With a little makeup and a cape, Cruz would look like Dracula...

Grandpa Munster!

Sticking it to the liberals:

When I asked people at a rally here why they support Trump, the most common reason I heard caught me by surprise. Yes, some said they liked Trump on immigration and the border. Others mentioned his business experience. But the most common reason: He flouts "political correctness."
...
Chatter in the line ranged from to envious admiration of Trump's wealth ("I wanna see the inside of his plane!") to jokes about a crane near the football field where the event would be held ("You know what that crane's for, don't you? Protestors!" "One at a time.").

Ha. ha.

Cruz. Voila:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px5hvNWoVLE

Meanwhile, Trump:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLEMncv140s

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad