ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [359] -- Every Sulfurous Belch

[ Posted Friday, August 28th, 2015 – 17:00 PDT ]

OK, I fully admit I stole that title. Well, maybe not "stole," since I'm about to give it proper credit, but it certainly wasn't my own original idea. The line comes from George Will, and (of course) refers to Donald Trump. Part of the fun for Democrats this summer has been watching the angst of serious-minded conservative columnists as they realize how large a portion of the Republican base doesn't really care what serious-minded conservatives inside the Beltway think about much of anything. Will was the best (but by no means only) example of this last week, as he started his column off with a real humdinger of an opening paragraph:

Every sulfurous belch from the molten interior of the volcanic Trump phenomenon injures the chances of a Republican presidency. After Donald Trump finishes plastering a snarling face on conservatism, any Republican nominee will face a dauntingly steep climb to reach even the paltry numbers that doomed Mitt Romney.

Ah, c'mon George... tell us how you really feel about Trump! Heh.

The entire Trump phenomenon reminds me of a basic rule from the world of magical/fantasy fiction. It's not quite Asimov's "three laws of robotics," but it's still been used by many authors who write about wizards casting dangerous spells. The rule of thumb among wizards? "Do not call up that which you cannot put down." Don't summon demons or otherworldly forces if you're not strong enough to defeat them, in other words.

You can probably see where I'm going with this, in relation to Donald Trump. The Republican Party has called up a force of nature that it is, quite obviously, completely incapable of controlling or defeating. Hey, couldn't have happened to a nicer political party! All those decades of dog-whistle language, coded references, and wink-wink-nudge-nudge that the Republican Party has benefited from are now coming home to roost.

George Will isn't the only one freaking out by this new reality. Bill Kristol, who is famously always wrong about pretty much everything, wrote a column this week proposing eight or nine new candidates for the Republican presidential race (the most absurd: Samuel Alito). Because, obviously, seventeen is not enough. Frank Luntz, famous Republican pollster and spin doctor, held a focus group of Trump supporters which left him (according to his own statement) weak in the knees, with his legs all a-tremble.

Of course, not everyone is horrified at Trump's success. He just picked up the endorsement of David Duke, for whatever that's worth. Trump also tossed out Jorge Ramos from a press conference, and called two of his supporters "passionate" after they beat a homeless man with metal pipes, in support of Trump's position on immigrants. All the while, Trump's numbers continue to improve in the polls, where he's now edging towards 30 percent of all Republican primary voters. If he manages to top 35 percent, then he may become absolutely unstoppable (much to serious-minded conservatives' collective dismay).

Some Republicans are now even contemplating rigging the primary so Trump's name doesn't appear on their state's ballots. As usual, when Republicans can't win at the polls, their fallback position is to cheat. State-level party bigwigs in Virginia and North Carolina are considering taking this route, and South Carolina already has the rule the others are contemplating -- every Republican candidate must sign a "loyalty oath" to support the party's eventual nominee and not run as an independent in the general election, or their name doesn't appear on the primary election ballot. Obviously, these sorts of pledges are utterly unenforceable, so it'll be interesting to see how Trump plays it. But the mere fact that the state-level party honchos are even considering this sort of thing is an accurate measure of the desperation which exists among establishment Republicans right now.

Trump continues to roil the Republican waters on the immigration issue. The other GOP candidates are being exposed as complete cowards when it comes to reacting to Trump's grand "ship them all home" plan. Scott Walker probably stumbled the worst, as he floundered around for days trying to figure out his stance on the Fourteenth Amendment. He was for changing it, against changing it, and tried to brush the entire question off; none of which made him seem even one tiny iota presidential.

Jeb! Bush thought he might tap into some of the Trump anger by tossing around the term "anchor babies," which was almost as spectacular a failure as Walker's vacillation. Jeb! then tried to explain that anchor babies were really more of an Asian problem, thereby offending two minority demographics at once. Boy, it's fun to watch the Republican "minority outreach" effort in action, isn't it? As George Will so accurately predicted (most especially on Latino and Asian vote percentages), Republicans "face a dauntingly steep climb to reach even the paltry numbers that doomed Mitt Romney." Jeb! also (you just cannot make this stuff up, folks!) marked the ten-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina by releasing a new ad this week showing Jeb! standing right next to Mike "Heckuva Job" Brown, the disgraced former head of FEMA who fiddled while New Orleans drowned. As the image is shown, Bush intones: "We have the best emergency response team on the ground, in the country, and in the world." Heckuva job, Brownie!

Over on the Democratic side of the race, there was an explosion of interest in a new candidate that might be labeled "Bidenpalooza." Joe's obviously seriously considering a run, and the Wall Street Journal even reported he is currently leaning towards throwing his hat in the ring. Don't expect an announcement any time soon, though, as Biden says he'll make a decision by the end of next month.

Bernie Sanders got a front-page story in the New York Times this week. Of course, being the mainstream media and all, it was a total hit piece full of the snarkiest language possible. It absolutely ignored Bernie's entire message and platform (of course), and absolutely refused to analyze why so many people are flocking to support him. Cornel West just endorsed Bernie's candidacy this week, but very few political reporters noticed, since it doesn't fit in with their "only white liberals support Sanders" go-to storyline.

That's enough from the campaign trail for one week. In other fun news, the oldest message-in-a-bottle ever was returned to its sender recently, after a journey of more than a century. A British scientific group sent out a thousand postcards in bottles from 1904 through 1906, to study the currents in the North Sea. A couple just found one on a German island, and sent the postcard back to the group (which still exists). The Marine Biological Association made good on the century-old promise on the card, and sent a reward of one old shilling to the couple for returning the postcard. I don't really have any reason for including this story, but it did make me smile, in an otherwise Trump-filled week. Maybe Sting or The Police can write a song about it, or something!

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

We're changing the title of this award this week, because they're not technically Democrats. So we're handing out the Most Impressive Activist Group Of The Week to Neighborhood Legislature, for their amusing and entirely appropriate political theater in California. From the story:

A group of protesters in California took a stand against the influence of money in politics Wednesday by imagining what it would look like if lawmakers had to publicly advertise their campaign donors on their clothes à la professional stock car drivers.

The protesters placed cardboard cutouts of all 120 California state lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in front of the state capitol in Sacramento. Each legislator wore the logos of the corporations that back them in the style of NASCAR drivers' brand-filled uniforms.

The photos alone are worth clicking that link to see.

We've long been an advocate of this idea, although we certainly can't claim to have thought it up ourselves. As far back as FTP [189] (scroll down to Talking Point 7), we've been big fans of plastering donor logos on congresscritters and other politicians. If America is going to be run by bribery, the least we should be able to do is see who is forking over all that money to buy the politicians!

For taking this idea and running with it, and for an absolute brilliant piece of political theater, the Neighborhood Legislature is hereby awarded the Most Impressive Activist Group Of The Week. This is one of those ideas we truly wish would go viral, on a national level.

[Congratulate Neighborhood Legislature on their official webpage, to let them know you appreciate their excellent stunt.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

Before we get to the main award, we do have one (Dis-)Honorable Mention this week, for New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, for waging a silly war on boobies. Laws banning topless women from appearing in public were changed a while back in New York, and some enterprising women are using their newfound right to bare their breasts in Times Square. Among the people dressed in Elmo suits or dressed as Captain America, there are now women wearing nothing but a thong and body paint. All of these folks are there for the same reason: to separate the tourists from their money. Charging ten bucks (or whatever the traffic will bear) to appear in a photo has long been a tradition in Times Square, so this is really nothing new.

Now, Times Square does have an even older history of being a sex district with triple-X theaters and whatnot, which was all cleaned up (so as not to scare the tourists) a while back. In other words, Bill de Blasio wanting to ban topless women from Times Square isn't happening in a vacuum. He doesn't want a return to the "bad old days," but at the same time he seems to be overreacting to the perceived problem. If Hizzoner truly does want to end this practice, there's really only one acceptable way to do so: change the law back. Ban boobies everywhere. This, however, might be a political problem for him.

In fact, the whole fracas really nothing short of knee-jerk "Won't someone think of the children!!!" overreach. You know what? I bet children who see a painted lady's chest won't actually be as traumatized as all the pearl-clutchers think. Bill de Blasio should have stayed out of this fight, which is why he earns a (Dis-)Honorable Mention this week.

But, for the second week in a row, Hillary Clinton is the recipient of our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week. Clinton, like all presidential candidates these days, is struggling to be heard among the thousands of "Did you hear what Trump just said?" stories. So she apparently thought she'd use some shocking language of her own, and compared her political opponents to terrorists, because (by her logic) they both treat women badly.

Where to begin? First, there are hard lines in politics that should never be crossed. You don't call someone a traitor, for instance, under any circumstances short of them being legally accused of actually selling the country out. Another of these rules is that you don't call a political opponent a terrorist. Clinton crossed that line, almost flippantly.

Did Clinton have a point to make? Yes she did. Planned Parenthood and abortion are about to be the focus of an enormous political battle in Washington -- one that might even result in another government shutdown. The battle has already been joined, and it is going to get fierce next month. Clinton was jumping in to this fray in an admirable fashion, rather than waiting on the sidelines and mouthing vague platitudes. She's always been a champion for women's rights, so it is entirely within her wheelhouse.

Even so, Clinton went too far. This is American politics, folks, and terrorist groups aren't a part of it. The Taliban is not on any American ballot, to put it another way. While there are indeed many groups and countries around the world with horrendous records on women's rights, it really has no bearing on domestic politics.

A final point: almost all American politicians are gigantic flaming hypocrites on the issue of women's rights around the world, including not only Hillary Clinton but everyone else running for the presidency as well. If we really want to get up on our high horse about the way the Islamic State treats women, then it would require us (if we're not going to be gigantic flaming hypocrites) to immediately suspend all ties with Saudi Arabia. The Saudis execute people by publicly beheading them, after all, and women in their country are not even allowed to do simple things like driving on their own. They're about to have an election where -- for the first time ever -- women will be allowed to vote. If our gold standard for who America remains friends with is that women's rights be respected, then our relationship with Saudi Arabia would be the first to go. If Hillary Clinton -- or anyone else for that matter -- speaks disparagingly about how terrorists treat women, then we would really like to hear someone ask her what her Saudi policy would be.

So for multiple reasons, Hillary linking her political opponents with terrorists was more than a little disappointing. Just because Trump is sucking all the oxygen out of the room right now does not mean Democrats should be stooping to his level (or even lower). Clinton can fight for women's rights as fervently as possible without making such odious comparisons. She needs to back down on this one, but for now it has earned her another Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

[Hillary Clinton is a private citizen, and our longstanding policy is not to provide contact information for candidate websites, so you'll have to search her contact info out yourself, sorry.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 359 (8/28/15)

It's still the Silly Season in Washington, so we don't have a whole lot of substantive political talking points this week. When Congress returns, we're in for a number of high-profile fights, but until then we're just making do with what we've got. Just to warn everyone in advance.

 

1
   Making America Grate

Every so often, we are so struck by a clever turn of phrase that we have to give it a standalone talking point. This is one of those times, as Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post ran an article this week under the best headline we've yet seen to describe the Trump phenomenon -- a play on Trump's own campaign slogan. It's a cheap pun, but that doesn't make it any less funny:

How Donald Trump Makes America Grate

 

2
   From denial to anger

This framing of the Trump situation is likely going to appear again and again, but Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post gets credit for being the first to point it out.

"The Republican Party seems to be destined to go through the classic 'five stages of grief' as they come to grips with Donald Trump's success. Most establishment Republicans are still in the first stage, denial. Some have already moved on to anger -- the second stage. I mean, did you read George Will's 'every sulfurous belch' column this week? The third stage is going to be problematic, since it is bargaining -- and Trump is a notoriously tough bargainer. This will inevitably lead to depression, and sooner or later to the final stage, acceptance. You might call it the grief of watching the Republican Party die, right in front of their eyes."

 

3
   Strong growth

This is one to hit Jeb! with, in particular.

"Jeb Bush is running on a promise to achieve four percent growth in America's economy. I wonder if he saw the most recent numbers, which showed the economy grew 3.7 percent in the second quarter of this year? Seems like President Obama's doing almost as well as what Bush is promising, which reminds me of Mitt Romney's promise to get unemployment down to six percent before 2016. Remember that one? Obama managed to achieve that in about half the time Romney promised. Seems like Republicans can't even promise they'll handle the American economy as well as Democrats routinely do in the real world."

 

4
   $200 million and counting

Data to use in other state-level legalization fights.

"Colorado and Washington have so far taken in over two hundred million dollars in marijuana tax revenue. We don't yet have data for Alaska and Oregon, but you can bet they're raking in millions as well. By legalizing recreational marijuana use, these states have turned a big drag on their state budgets -- policing, prisons, clogged courtrooms, and all the rest of it -- into a huge asset. I'm sure there are other state governments out there who are paying attention. The success of legalization continues to benefit the states which have implemented it. $200 million ain't exactly pocket change."

 

5
   President Barack Obama Highway

This is going to be lots of fun for Democrats, for years to come.

"I see that Riviera Beach, Florida just voted to change the name of a road from 'Old Dixie Highway' to 'President Barack Obama Highway.' Personally, I can't think of a better way to get rid of institutionalized racist memorials than to rename them after the first African-American president. In fact, I would bet that after Obama's term in office ends, there will be a lot more things named after him all across America. Call it the revenge of Democrats after the orgy of naming so many things after Ronald Reagan a few years back."

 

6
   Maybe Amazon will step in

This one is pretty funny.

"Among the many creative uses of drone aircraft we can now add their use to deliver banned things inside prison walls. An attempt was made in Maryland recently to fly in some drugs and pornography aboard a drone. While this attempt was foiled, it seems such an obvious use of new technology that we'll likely see more and more of these attempts in the near future. How exactly are the cops going to keep the skies over prisons clear of drones? Skeet shooting?"

 

7
   Jade Helm invasion a total flop

This qualifies as rubbing salt in the wound, really.

"I notice that the predicted invasion of Texas by the United States military seems not to have materialized. It wasn't so long ago that the Texas governor was issuing dire warnings of the nefarious intent of America's own military in carrying out an exercise called 'Jade Helm 15,' which did nothing but stoke paranoid delusions within the state. Well, the summer's drawing to a close and I still haven't seen one headline about the Army taking over Texas, or confiscating everyone's guns, or rounding up its citizens for concentration camps, or any of the rest of the nonsense the rightwingers were spouting not so long ago. If Jade Helm really was a planned invasion of Texas, I have to say it's been a total flop so far."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

51 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [359] -- Every Sulfurous Belch”

  1. [1] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    The Trumpletons... er, um, Trumpeteers aren't as scary as they will be when the serious minded "conservative" columnists reach the acceptance phase and suddenly start defending every belch.
    We have all experienced these types when they think they're winning even when they're actually losing. They make 3rd graders look like adults.
    And they just don't care if their actions drive away even potential supporters.

    Bernie getting the shaft by the NYT was a sight to see... or rather read. I think I made it to comment 200 (their system is horrible) and it was pretty much a bloodbath with the "liberal media" and the author in particular feeling the bern.

    Bernie and O'Malley trashing the DNC at the DNC meeting was also good to see.

    Hillary shooting herself in the foot again is starting to remind me of European Vacation... look kids, Big Ben, Parliament.

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I'm with Bill Maher on this one. The sort of religious thought disorder that results in proposing that a woman should die for your beliefs rather than have an abortion is just a little "terroristy".

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, fixed a broken link and, thanks to a discreet nudge from BashiBazouk, fixed a typo as well.

    Mea culpa.

    :-)

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I really enjoyed the Trump-Ramos drama. Trump was acting like a typical Washington politician putting on a phony press conference where he doesn't answer any questions and the reporters were once again asking the man who never apologizes if he'd apologize to Megyn Kelly as if anybody gives a damn.

    Ramos was the guy who was breaking the Washington rules - asking real questions and not backing down. Suddenly decorum is back in style.

    "I can't deal with this." - Trump

    His inability to deal with one Mexican-American immigrant makes me suspicious about his ability to deal with 30 million Mexican rapists. I wonder if he's lying.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    George Will isn't the only one freaking out by this new reality. Bill Kristol, who is famously always wrong about pretty much everything, wrote a column this week proposing eight or nine new candidates for the Republican presidential race (the most absurd: Samuel Alito).

    Actually, Chris ... that's not the most absurd. It's the most productive!

    Well, it beats throwing Alito under a bus. Ahem.

    Now, what to do about Scalia ...

  6. [6] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I have heard reporters ask Donald the Bible lover several different questions related to The Big Book of Multiple Choice and he has astonishingly been unable to answer any of them.

    Are you an Old Testament guy or a New Testament guy? I believe the correct answer is NT, but he's clearly OT. Trump just said he loves the whole thing.

    What's your favorite Bible verse? Trump refused to answer. This was an unwise choice on his part. He should've just said he likes the one about stoning the rapists. Now he's left himself open to gotcha questions like "What do you think about that camel and the eye of a needle verse?"

  7. [7] 
    dsws wrote:

    All of these folks are there for the same reason: to separate the tourists from their money. Charging ten bucks (or whatever the traffic will bear) to appear in a photo has long been a tradition in Times Square, so this is really nothing new.

    If it's a commercial activity, they should be able to regulate it without any first-amendment problems. Require a license. Zone it out of Times Square completely.

    George Will isn't the only one freaking out by this new reality. ...

    There's a saying that a developer is someone who wants to build a cabin in the woods, and a conservationist is someone who built theirs last year.

    I don't see anything new. Every four years, the Republicans have presidential primaries, where the Party Establishment wrings its hands over the dire consequences of the current round of people doing what they did a couple cycles before. This looks to me like a perfectly routine campaign. Nothing that The Donald could possibly do will push the Republican Party into third place next November. Nor stop them from winning again in 2018.

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    So for multiple reasons, Hillary linking her political opponents with terrorists was more than a little disappointing. Just because Trump is sucking all the oxygen out of the room right now does not mean Democrats should be stooping to his level (or even lower). Clinton can fight for women's rights as fervently as possible without making such odious comparisons. She needs to back down on this one, but for now it has earned her another Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

    While I am very heartened to see this well-deserved MDDOTW award, I am constrained to point out that referring to Republicans as "terrorists" is not the sole purview of Hillary Clinton..

    On many occasions Democrat Party (so-called) "leaders" called Republicans terrorists in the midst of legislative battles..

    Sad to say, even quite a few Weigantians..

    While I am not defending Clinton in the least over this, she is simply following a dubious, albeit well-documented, tradition of the Hysterical (and not so Hysterical) Left...

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Before we get to the main award, we do have one (Dis-)Honorable Mention this week, for New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, for waging a silly war on boobies. Laws banning topless women from appearing in public were changed a while back in New York, and some enterprising women are using their newfound right to bare their breasts in Times Square.

    I guess deBlasio is not the Left Wing darling he used to be, eh?? :D

    If it's a commercial activity, they should be able to regulate it without any first-amendment problems. Require a license. Zone it out of Times Square completely.

    Troo dat...

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ramos was the guy who was breaking the Washington rules - asking real questions and not backing down. Suddenly decorum is back in style.

    Actually, Ramos was being a prick and interrupting other reporters..

    Typical of your run-o-the-mill hysterical Left Wing activist..

    No one else matters but THEM...

    As you can tell, once Ramos waited his turn, Trump was happy to answer Ramos' questions..

    And proceeded to annihilate Ramos' position..

    And ya know what?? Mexican immigrants (REAL immigrants, not criminals) loved Trump for it! :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know it's fun to laugh and yuk it up about the Republican Party and it's primary woes...

    Martin O’Malley Rails at Democrats for Debate Schedule ‘Rigged’ to Aid Hillary Clinton
    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/08/28/martin-omalley-rails-at-democrats-for-debate-schedule-rigged-to-aid-hillary-clinton/

    Makes it easier to ignore the Democrat's brutal civil war...

    :D

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Well now Clinton has well and truly blotted her copy book, who is left as a viable Democratic candidate? Joe Biden hasn't declared and surely it's too late by now to put a campaign together and raise the kind of money Clinton has taken 18 months to accumulate. However, since everyone is convinced he will run, maybe you're all right and I'm totally wrong. But as wrong as I may well be, until there's an official declaration, I consider that he is not officially in the running.

    That leaves Bernie Sanders. While I like Bernie's platform I realize that he doesn't have "coattails", at least not at this stage. There's also the following to factor in: many Democrats don't consider Sanders to be a Democrat; there remains in the American mind a very real though misconceived fear of the word "socialist"; and there's no understanding of the meaning of "Democratic Socialist" as the term is applied in Europe.

    None of the other also-rans have a chance: Chaffee (who's pleasantly nuts but nuts all the same and definitely not presidential material), O'Malley (what a whinger he is!) and Webb (who is so obviously in the wrong party - he doesn't seem to support support anything in the current Democratic platform).

    It looks like the Republicans may have a clear run after all. Gasp! That would be interesting for the world: a Republican President, Congress and Supreme Court. I doubt any country will escape the impact.

    As for Trump, I'm not horrified by his success at all. I'm finding it all quite intriguing. I'm wondering how the Republican Party are going to cope with his economic policy:

    Republican front-runner Donald Trump began to flesh out his economic vision for America, and it includes raising taxes on the wealthy.

    Trump said during a Wednesday interview on Bloomberg's With All Due Respect that he would like to change the tax code.

    "I would change it. I would simplify it," Trump told hosts Mark Halperin and John Heilemann from the lobby of Trump Tower on New York's 5th Ave. Specifically, Trump targeted hedge fund profits, which are currently taxed at a lower rate than regular income.

    "I would take carried interest out, and I would let people making hundreds of millions of dollars-a-year pay some tax, because right now they are paying very little tax and I think it's outrageous," Trump said. "I want to lower taxes for the middle class."

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-26/donald-trump-says-he-wants-to-raise-taxes-on-himself

  13. [13] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    I have to say, Clinton's use of the word "terrorists" to refer to opposition was not only stupid but indefensible in a presidential candidate.

    I agree with CW that she desperately needs to take off a month or so, go away somewhere isolated, and take intensive training from Bill (who must cringe every time she sabotages herself) as to how to conduct herself.

    Unfortunately for her supporters, she's unlikely to heed the advice and it may already be too late anyway.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    I agree with CW that she desperately needs to take off a month or so, go away somewhere isolated, and take intensive training from Bill (who must cringe every time she sabotages herself) as to how to conduct herself.

    I guess it's true what they say that opposites attract...

    When it comes to the political/likability factor, Bill and Hill are as about as opposite as is possible to be...

    Unfortunately for her supporters, she's unlikely to heed the advice and it may already be too late anyway.

    Hillary's problem is that it is virtually impossible that any surprise news will come down the pipe that is actually GOOD for Hillary...

    It's a tough row to hoe knowing that any new surprises, any future startling revelations will be bad news for Hillary...

    In other words, she can't count on a 3am phone call or a natural disaster that would allow her to shine...

    For Hillary, down is the only path open to her...

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Paula wrote:

    Go Hillary!

  16. [16] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Champion conservative ignoramus Sarah Palin interviewed Trump yesterday on One America News Network, whatever that is. This does seem like a clear sign that The End is near (or at least the Idiocracy).

    “WTH? Lamestream media asks GOP personal, spiritual "gotchas" that they’d NEVER ask Hillary” - Palin

    Palin is still whining about questions that any fifth-grader should be able to answer. Her definition of "gotcha" question seems to be an easy personal question that a exposes a fraudulent public image. I suspect that HilRod could quote some Hocus Pocus even though she never seems to give the Bible the thumbs up in public. She could probably tell us what newspapers she reads too.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    JFC,

    Why don't you and Palin just get a room already!! :D

    Paula,

    I have to say, I admire your spunk in the face of such overwhelming facts that Hillary is going down... :D

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, think about it..

    Quinnipac polled Americans and asked what ONE WORD would they use to describe Hillary Clinton...

    Top word was LIAR....

    Second word was DISHONEST...

    Third word was UNTRUSTWORTHY....

    Don't you think these facts have any meaning??

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Well, when Bernie got into the race, the pundits said look at Hillary's commanding lead in the polls.

    When Bernie surpassed Hillary in New Hampshire polls, they said yeah, but look at her commanding lead in Iowa.

    With the latest poll in Iowa showing huge gains for Bernie, who wants to bet they'll say yeah, but look at South Carolina?

    Like I said, I'm still not sold on Bernie.
    I may still vote for Jill.
    But if Bernie keeps making headway as fast as he has, we could have a really interesting election.

    I hope you do another column on this soon CW.

    Thanks
    A

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hope you do another column on this soon CW.

    Every Friday....

    Same Bat Time.... Same Bat Channel.... :D

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    altohone wrote:

    Michale

    I was thinking along the lines of the topically specific columns like Bernie vs Trump, Biden Speculation, etc.

    But good to know you're trying to be helpful even though you reached the wrong conclusion.

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I can see this is going to be fun ... :)

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    But good to know you're trying to be helpful even though you reached the wrong conclusion.

    I'll let you know whenever that happens..

    Me reaching the wrong conclusion, I mean.. :D

    I can see this is going to be fun ... :)

    I just hope he can hang around til Thanksgiving.. :D

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I just hope he can hang around til Thanksgiving.. :D

    Indeed!

  25. [25] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    To altohone,

    So now it's Jill Biden who will be running? I hope the media catch onto this story soon. Everyone does so enjoy them.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was thinking along the lines of the topically specific columns like Bernie vs Trump, Biden Speculation, etc.

    That's CW's raison d'etre :D

    Weigantia is a reality-based land..

    Which is why I fit in so well here.. :D

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    The GOP debate furor has died down.. Thank the gods...

    But I am curious why there isn't a peep around here about the debacle that is the Democrat Party debates..

    I realize that talking about one's OWN Civil War issue isn't pleasant. It's much more fun to poke at the other guys...

    But what's the prevailing opinion?? Is the DWS and the DNC protecting Hillary??

    Is the fix in??

    Are we going to have a coronation, not a primary??

    Come on.. Give.... :D

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's kinda funny in a way...

    Hillary's slogan is her first initial, a big H with an arrow...

    Jeb's slogan is his own name with a punctuation mark..

    Trump's slogan is a statement of what voters want.. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

    And it's TRUMP who is the narcissistic one?? :D

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale,

    Yes, there's a furor among Democrats over the debates.

    No, DWS and the DNC committee didn't limit the debates to help Clinton.

    The DNC reduced their number of debates from 26 down to 6 for the same reason the RNC reduced their number of debates from 20 down to 9. I'm very certain the RNC did not limit their debates because Reince Preibus is trying to benefit one candidate in particular, do you? No of course you don't because it's ridiculous.

    When it comes to supporting Democratic candidates, the DNC is incompetent and, as its chair, DWS has to take responsibility for that. All Democrats know it.

    But that incompetence does not extend to the Democratic debates. For once, they recognized the good sense reasons why Republicans reduced their debates and the DNC sensibly followed suit - but of course they don't want to admit that publicly!

    Martin O'Malley, who is a political opportunist and a champion whinger, is the one who started all this. By the way, he's being investigated for ethics violations which tells you a lot about how honorable O'Malley is.

    He's pissed that he's so far behind Sanders and HRC, and figures he can bring his own brand of malice to the debates to attack HRC and make a name for himself.

    You see he's suffering from lack of name recognition and has decided to blame it on DWS or HRC or Putin or the cat next door rather than take responsibility for it himself and design a campaign to ensure he's better known.

    The debates are free publicity and that's what he's really looking for because he can't raise as much money as HRC and Sanders.

    Those Democrats who are cheering O'Malley on are doing so because they intensely dislike DWS (I actually don't know any Democrats who like her) and/or they intensely dislike HRC. O'Malley is deliberately exploiting a deep rift in the Democratic Party (not the smartest thing for a Democrat to do but he's a selfish bastard) and picking on easy targets in hopes of picking up more support.

    While I admire HRC's inner strength, her campaigning is awful and I wish she'd just go away and be a grandmother quietly somewhere. DWS, in my opinion, should have been booted out as chairperson immediately after the midterms. As for Martin O'Malley, I hope he's indicted, tried, found guilty and thrown in jail as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, the US seems to have the slowest judicial system in the world so the the whole thing is likely to take years.

    Meanwhile, Democrats are tearing themselves to pieces over Clinton vs Bernie. While the most malicious are among the Bernie supporters (which is ironic since he himself is such a gentleman), the more I see of both groups, the more I am turned off to both candidates. Their stupidity over the debate debacle is only succeeding in wrenching their party further apart and the whole argument is completely fact-free. I've read three pieces about it today and not one of them had a single factual statement. They've all gone down the rabbit hole to Wonderland.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Well said.. :D

    Sorry... Try as I might, I just can't find anything to argue with.. :D

    Something so well written deserves more of a response than a simple "Kudos"...

    But, to paraphrase Benjamin Bratt in DEMOLITION MAN...

    "It's what {I} got.."

    :D

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, for Hillary Clinton, the hits just keep on coming...

    Mystery deepens into how classified emails got onto Clinton's unclassified server
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/31/did-clinton-emails-jump-from-classified-to-unclassified-system/?intcmp=hpbt1

    If Clinton is actually elected POTUS, it's going to be bigger than Watergate....

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know, it's funny..

    Hillary has stated emphatically that she never transmitted or received classified intelligence on her home-brewed bathroom-closet email server...

    Yet, hundreds and hundreds of emails that the State Dept has released had to be heavily redacted or withheld due to security classifications...

    The fact that Hillary can make the claim with a straight face and people actually BELIEVE her???

    It's gabberflasting...

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in other news..

    Gun control groups accused of ‘swatting’ open-carry permit holders, putting lives at risk
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/01/gun-control-groups-accused-swatting-open-carry-permit-holders-putting-lives-at/?intcmp=hpbt2

    I'll say one thing...

    If I were a patrol officer today and I responded to one of these calls, if the RP couldn't provide a rational and tangible reason WHY the 911 calls was made, the moron would be going to jail for filing a false police report and improper use of the 911 Emergency system!!

    What is it about fanatical Left wingers that don't have more than 2 brain cells to rub together??

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    If I were a patrol officer today and I responded to one of these calls, if the RP couldn't provide a rational and tangible reason WHY the 911 calls was made, the moron would be going to jail for filing a false police report and improper use of the 911 Emergency system!!

    For the record, seeing a persona carrying a gun, in and of itself, is NOT a rational nor tangible reason to file a false police report...

    Morons...... They are nothing but morons...

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    altohone wrote:

    Mopshell

    Per comment 24

    Sorry I missed this a couple of days ago.

    I was referring to Jill Stein- Green Party

    Bernie is under consideration, but I'm not sold yet.

    A

  36. [36] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    altohone,

    While I didn't know who you were referring to (I've never heard of Jill Stein), I didn't really believe you meant Jill Biden. It was just too tempting at the time to do a US-MSM and suggest yet another "rumored Democratic challenger". :-)

    Incidentally, it's been announced that Joe Biden will be a guest on the first Late Show with Steven Colbert. This has set off a bunch of Biden and Bernie supporters declaring for certain that he will officially announce a presidential run... on a late night, light entertainment show.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Incidentally, it's been announced that Joe Biden will be a guest on the first Late Show with Steven Colbert. This has set off a bunch of Biden and Bernie supporters declaring for certain that he will officially announce a presidential run... on a late night, light entertainment show.

    Stranger things have happened.. :D

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was referring to the possibility of a Iran supported terrorist attack that kills hundreds of innocent Israelis or, worse (for the deal at least) hundreds of innocent Americans...

    If that were to occur NO ONE in Congress would support Obama's kiss-kiss with Iran...

    Which, according to ya'all, would be exactly what Iran wants....

    So I wouldn't put it past them...

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    As the White House secured their last needed vote to block a veto override in the Senate on the nuclear deal, Iran unleashed a double-pronged attack: vowing to block inspector access to some sites, and vowing to continue preparations to destroy Israel.
    -http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/09/02/iran-commander-were-getting-prepared-to-overthrow-israel/

    Remind me again how, exactly, Iran is a worthy partner???

    I seem to have forgotten...

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    "It is a totally legitimate argument that sanctions relief will enable Iran to do more of the bad things they’re doing now like fund terrorism and destabilize the Middle East."
    -Vice President Joe Biden

    Imagine that!!

    Uncle Joe and I are saying the EXACT SAME THING!!!

    Who would have thunked it!!??

    :D

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    "It is a totally legitimate argument that sanctions relief will enable Iran to do more of the bad things they’re doing now like fund terrorism and destabilize the Middle East."

    Such an admission opens up the US Government to a buttload of lawsuits if Iran is implicated in ANY future terrorist attacks...

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Uncle Joe and I are saying the EXACT SAME THING!!!

    It's Vice President Biden to you, Michale. And, I mean that sincerely, I'm not trying to be facetious, here ...

    And, do you know what he said after that? Remember how dangerous it is for you to quote out of context.

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Such an admission opens up the US Government to a buttload of lawsuits if Iran is implicated in ANY future terrorist attacks...

    That is SUCH an American thing to say ... reminds me of a joke ...

    What do you call a thousand lawyers on the bottom of the sea? ...

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    A good start! Heh.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, do you know what he said after that? Remember how dangerous it is for you to quote out of context.

    It was perfectly in context..

    No matter how you try and sugarcoat it, Iran is going to have hundreds of billions of dollars to put towards new terrorist activity...

    This is a fact that no amount of ideological BS can cover up...

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Iran will proceed along that pathway at its own peril.

    Do you really think that nothing will be done in a serious effort to prevent that sort of behavior?

    The US Congress, if it so desired and if it is so competent, could do quite a lot in that regard, especially with the support of much of the international community. Oh, wait ... the US Congress prefers to thumb its nose at the international community ...

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Michale!

    Have you seen this ...
    http://www.vox.com/2015/9/3/9257235/obama-iran-humans-new-york

    You can call me a cockeyed optimist all you want but, I prefer to be extremely hopeful of good things to come after reading something like this ... it puts a smile on my face ... maybe now I can get some sleep. :)

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iran will proceed along that pathway at its own peril.

    What "peril"??

    I have asked that many times with no response??

    Ya'all have already stated unequivocally that sanctions won't work..

    So what "peril" are you envisioning for Iran here??

    Do you really think that nothing will be done in a serious effort to prevent that sort of behavior?

    From Obama??

    Yea, I think nothing will be done..

    Remember the "red line" in Syria???

    Nothing will be done...

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can call me a cockeyed optimist all you want but, I prefer to be extremely hopeful of good things to come after reading something like this ...

    Hope...

    Yea... Cuz it's worked SO well, eh??

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Have you seen this ...
    http://www.vox.com/2015/9/3/9257235/obama-iran-humans-new-york

    Obama had his chance to help the Iranian people back in 2009. He stood by and let them be slaughtered...

    Fast-Forward to today and Obama jumps into bed with the Mullahs and the Republican Guard... The very people who SLAUGHTERED their own people...

    And you think this is cause for hope???

    On what planet??

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of the BLM racist hate group??

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/04/dnc-black-lives-matter/?intcmp=hpbt1

    They just told the Democrat Party to F.O.D.!! :D

    Ya gotta appreciate the irony...

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.