Ted Cruz: We're in a 90 Day Sprint

I will say this for him: Ted Cruz is talking like a confident guy. What does he know that we don't?

"Ted Cruz took a victory lap Thursday following a strong fundraising report, repeatedly telling supporters on a phone call that he expects the race to be over by March -- but only after getting through an increasingly nasty run-up to the Iowa caucuses."

The political attacks, he warned, will get “uglier and uglier and uglier.”

“We’re winning right now, and as a result, I want to tell everyone to get ready,” he said on the call. 

“Strap on the full armor of God. Get ready for the attacks that are coming. We’ve already seen hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in attacks directed at us. Well I went to tell you that come the month of January, we ain’t seen nothing yet.”

"Still, Cruz observed at several points during the call that he expects that the race will finish well before the end of the primary season in June, saying “there’s a very good possibility that the Republican primary will be decided by the end of March.”

"The call came one day after the Texas senator’s campaign announced he had raised around $20 million in the last three months of the year, an impressive haul that adds to his momentum in Iowa, where he leads in recent polls."

“I want to encourage everyone to get ready, because starting tomorrow morning, we are in a 90-day sprint to win this nomination, and then to turn around and win the general election,” he said. “To defeat Hillary Clinton in November of 2016 and to turn this country around.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/ted-cruz-gop-race-ends-march-217260#ixzz3vwBIv4PE
Listen if that were the truth I'd put that in the bank tomorrow. Yes, I'm a Trump Democrat, but a Cruz nomination would be very much in line with the Spirit of what that means.

He may be a little optimistic here; he seems to be presuming that he will take Iowa and Trump will fade elsewhere. But the main target for a Trump Democrat is no Marco Rubio for the GOP nomination-this assumes that it's Rubio or bus for the Establishment.

So let's unpack Cruz-what are his assumptions here? It's interesting, they are assuming that Cruz will be the Establishment candidate. That the Establishment will coalesce around Cruz as the only viable alternative to Trump.

"Cruz is widely expected to be among the top two finishers in the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses, with many activists and operatives saying he looks on track to win it outright. His front-runner status has led to a growing number of attacks from rival campaigns and other outside groups, leading him to reassure supporters Thursday that it was better to be attacked than ignored."

“There’s an old line, if you’re not taking flak, you’re not over the target,” he said. “If we were sitting here on Dec. 31 and no one was attacking us and no one was going to be attacking us, I would be deeply, deeply concerned because it would mean we weren’t winning.”

"Cruz continues to trail behind Donald Trump in national polls."

His political director, Mark Campbell, asserted, “The other thing we’re really watching with great fascination is how more and more of the establishment wing of the Republican Party is coming to our campaign as the alternative to Mr. Trump. We wish Donald Trump a happy New Year and hope he had a wonderful holiday season, but all of us believe very firmly that Ted Cruz will be the next President of the United States.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/ted-cruz-gop-race-ends-march-217260#ixzz3vwD7xB6e
You have to admit these guys have a deft way of wishing someone a happy New Year. And I suppose that in terms of what a traditional GOP candidate is supposed to look like, Cruz most resembles that in terms of organization and money.

True he'd normally be too conservative, too much a creature of the religious Right to get the nomination. But this is not normal times as everyone but Nate Silver seems to get.

But if you compare him to Rick Santorum back in 2012 the big difference was that Santorum won Iowa but had no organization beyond the state.

So Cruz looks like the most normal frontrunner. So he owes a lot to Trump-Cruz is literally the most unpopular person in Washington, and probably the most unpopular Republican among his own party. But thanks to Trump, maybe the GOP grins and bears going with Cruz.

So this would be as close to how things traditionally work in a GOP primary, with the little proviso that nothing this year in the GOP and especially the primary is at all going like it does traditionally.

The NSA and Israel: the Latest GOP Much to do About Nothing

No doubt the GOP will try to make a mountain out of the latest molehill-that we spied on Israel when Netanyahu was coming in for his big speech to the GOP Congress. The real scandal is that he was trying to interfere in US affairs and that Boehner and friends were so eager to allow him to do just that.

But really, spying on Israel is shocking? All nations spy and not just on their enemies.

"Top Democrats in Congress are brushing off a report that U.S. intelligence intercepted communications between Israeli government officials and lawmakers on Capitol Hill."

"Rep. Eliot Engel (N.Y.), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said it is no secret that the U.S. and Israel spy on each other, even though they are allies."

“I’m not surprised,” he told The Hill. “I kind of think the report is much to do about nothing.”

"Engel, a staunch supporter of Israel, said he met twice behind closed doors with Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer during the heated debate over the nuclear agreement with Iran. He said Dermer presented the Israeli government’s case against the deal."

"The New York congressman indicated he decided to oppose the deal based on details he learned in briefings from U.S. officials, rather than arguments made by the Israelis. He said he wouldn’t be concerned if his conversations with Dermer happened to be caught by American intelligence."

“I assume that everything I say — someone is listening. I am careful that what I say in public is what I say in private,” Engel said. “You just have to assume that when you’re a public person, what you say [could be monitored] … I don’t know what this really tells us.”

"Engel’s comments come one day after The Wall Street Journal published a report saying the National Security Agency (NSA) spied on communications between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli officials during the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran."

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/264473-dems-brush-off-latest-spying-report

Not surprisingly, the biggest empty suit running for President, Marco Rubio, is trying to take issue with this pretty commonplace revelation. 

"Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a 2016 presidential candidate and member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told Fox News on Wednesday that U.S. spying on allies “might be worse than what some people might think.”

“They have a right to be concerned about the fact that while some leaders around the world are no longer being targeted, one of our strongest allies in the Middle East, Israel, is,” he said.

Rubio who didn't even make it his business to show up to work after San Bernandino and who has a very shallow understanding of foreign affairs seems not to get that Israel has also spied on us and that this is part of the game for how nations operate.

"Engel said the story might cause another “bump” in the U.S.-Israel relationship but predicted it would be easily overcome. "

“I have every confidence this does nothing to hurt the relationship,” he said.” Countries are all big boys and big girls, they understand this is the way of the world."

Of course, Rubio doesn't eat at the big boys and girls table-to busy out there not campaigning for President.

UPDATE: Actually the biggest irony of this is that he thinks it's an outrage to spy on the Israeli government but he approves of wiretapping American citizens.

https://theintercept.com/2015/12/31/rubio-outraged-by-spying-on-israels-government-ok-with-mass-surveillance-of-americans/

This adds toe the perception that Neocons like him care more about Israel's interests than that of their own country. 

Two Things We Seem to Know About Marco Rubio

First, is he's just a very lazy guy.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/12/gop-cant-take-out-trump-for-same-reason.html

He doesn't do his Senate job anymore because he's supposedly campaigning, but then he doesn't' campaign because-? Supposedly campaigning is obsolete and all that matters is appearing on Fox News and the Internet.

Rubio going back to his earliest posts in Florida politics, has always seemed to treat each new job as a stepping stone to the next one. Ok, so maybe if he got the POTUS job he could climb no higher-would he then take that one seriously? Or maybe he'd be another Reagan in the pejorative sense that Reagan was totally uniformed and disengaged.

Not only is he lazy but there is nothing that indicates he's much more than an empty suit with a winning smile and a compelling personal biography-made all the more compelling by his embellishments and exaggerations.

Rubio should resign as a Senator as he's ripping the people of Florida off. You know who else should resign? Rubio's new big supporter, Trey Gowdy, who is now effectively investigating Hillary Clinotn while supporting her potential opponent.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/gowdy-217238

Speaking of conflicts of interest, this takes us to the other thing we know about Rubio. He abuses privileges that he's attained as a high ranking elected official. He used a Florida GOP card for personal use to buy groceries and go on trips with his wife, etc.

He has a long history as a corruptible pol.

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/05/were_missing_the_real_marco_rubio_scandal_the_problem_isnt_his_financial_trouble_its_that_hes_a_corruptible_sneak/

Now, there's a new story out in the Washington Post that he may have pulled some strings to help out his brother in law who is an ex con with a cocaine habit.

"Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio used his position in the Florida legislature to help get his coke-dealer brother-in-law a real estate license, a report said Wednesday."

"While Rubio was majority whip of the Florida House of Representatives, he sent a letter to the Florida Division of Real Estate in 2002, recommending Orlando Cicilia “for licensure without reservation,”according to a Washington Post investigation."

"Rubio failed to mention that Cicilia, a former coke dealer, was married to his sister or was living in the same West Miami home as Rubio’s parents, the report claims."

"Cicilia was arrested in 1987 in one of the largest drug cases in Florida history. Rubio has shied away from discussing Cicilia’s case in detail. Rubio-affiliated PACs and campaigns have paid Cicilia’s two sons more than $130,000 in the past decade."

“Orlando made some very big mistakes almost 30 years ago, served his time, and has paid his debt to society,” Rubio’s presidential campaign adviser, Todd Harris, told the paper about Cicilia. “Today, he is a private citizen, husband and father, simply trying to make a living.”

http://nypost.com/2015/12/31/marco-rubio-pulled-strings-for-his-coke-dealing-brother-in-law-report/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-marco-rubio-helped-his-ex-con-relative-get-a-real-estate-license/2015/12/30/a1d96816-ae7f-11e5-9ab0-884d1cc4b33e_story.html

It just contributes to the narrative that Rubio has all to many times used his public position for personal gain or benefit.

Tom Meserau on Bill Cosby

A lot of Americans feel that justice was done yesterday-and maybe it was.

"Justice comes for Cosby: Already guilty in the court of public opinion, America’s Predatory Step Uncle now gets his day in court."

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/justice-cosby-article-1.2481125

I think that's the sense a lot of folks have and one that I tend to have myself. But remember, public opinion is one thing, court is another, or certainly should be. 

Meserau-Michael Jackson's successful attorney- was on cable tv yesterday and from what he says, it's clear this will also be a very grueling process for the accuser. 

"Tom Mesereau, the former attorney for pop singer Michael Jackson, told CNN today that the prosecution in the case of Bill Cosby will have a difficult time proving guilt. Mesereau, who was hired by Jackson about nine months before his own criminal trial in 2005, spoke to CNN’s John Berman of how prosecutors will have a difficult time proving “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the comic legend is guilty of the crimes levied against him."

“It’s deja vu!” Mesereau claimed, linking the current accusations against Cosby to those against the pop star over a decade ago. “It comes down to credibility,” said Mesereau, noting that the woman in question — a former Temple University employee — has been seeking financial gain through the case. “They’re going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this woman was drugged against her will — which I just can’t believe happened… that a man his age wanted to have sex with her while she was unconscious and under drugs. It doesn’t make any sense to me.”

http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-michael-jackson-attorney-goes-off-on-cosby-charges-i-just-cant-believe-it-happened/

Well, but, surely Meserau realizes that Cosby already admitted to having sexual relations with the accused. As for the drugs, he admitted in the deposition that is at the center of this case to using Quaaludes

But what makes me think Cosby surely has to be guilty is that there are so many other accusers. Fifty different accusers all lying, all telling a very similar story? But Mesereau points out that in the Michael Jackson case, the prosecution thought that by having all these witnesses accusing Jackson would be overwhelming evidence but the opposite was true as Mesereau and the defense just had to poke holes in the narrative of one accuser to cast aspersions on the testimony of all of them.

“Financial motive can come into the question of bias: what motivates someone to make claims and why were they willing to take money and go away? There’s a lot more to this than what meets the eye at the moment,” Mesereau continued.

It is true that defense will make an issue out of her already getting paid in a civil case. Why is she pushing for criminal charges now after taking money in 2005? Because of a newly released deposition of Cosby during the civil trial:

"]Prosecutors declined to filed charges in 2005 and Constand settled a civil case out of court with Cosby in 2006, but in a press conference on Wednesday, Steele said that the charges filed now were, in part, due to the newly released deposition relating to Constand’s civil case. In his deposition, only publicly released this year after Cosby’s lawyers had it sealed, Cosby admitted to getting a prescription for Quaaludes for the purpose of giving them to women he wanted to have sex with."

“There’s not a question in terms of pills being provided to [Constand], there’s not a question in terms of a question of what went on in terms of the digital penetration,” Steele said.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/30/bill-cosby-sexual-assault-charges-courtroom-justice

For his part, Meserau wants to know who all these accusers are, what their relationship was to Cosby, what they were doing in that part of their lives, 'Were they partiers?', etc. No doubt, this is why so few victims come forward: it's such a difficult process where they have relive the violation again and justify their own actions as if they're on trial.

 No doubt there has been a conviction in the court of public opinion for a lot of folks-as I've suggested that's been me to an extent. Indeed, the district attorney bringing charges now literally campaigned on a promise to prosecute Cosby. 

Thankfully court is something different and let's just hope justice is served-whatever that is. Obviously if he's guilty he needs to pay a very steep price. 

Some Thoughts on Bill Cosby

Melissa Harris-Perry was subbing for Rachel Maddow last night-come back Rachel! Ok, Harris-Perry is never my favorite host in light of her attitude towards Hillary. Just because she's white doesn't mean she hasn't struggled as a woman, Ms. Harris-Perry!

And she wasn't born privileged in the sense that Jeb Bush and the other Bushes were born privileged. If you want to call the Clinton's a 'dynasty' I'd argue its a meritocratic middle class dynasty.

Ok, I digress. Harris-Perry has done a pretty decent job covering for Rachel. Last night of course H-P discussed Bill Cosby. She said it's always tough to see a black man in America doing a perp walk.

She then compared it to the white officer in Cleveland who shot Tamir Rice who was let off. Ok, but not everything is apples to apples. You can argue that the reason the Cleveland cop is off and Cosby was taken is was race. But then you have the fact that in the Freddie Gray death, the first cop charged in Baltimore just walked and he was black.

What we have seen in the these tragic incidents with the police is that it's very tough to get a cop convicted regardless of race. Besides, if Bill Cosby is going to be found guilty now-we don't know that yet-it' was hardly easy.

Indeed, if Cosby is guilty then you have to say it's amazing how long he was able to avoid justice. He has 50 different accusers, some black, some white, some rich, some poor, from all different walks of life and for the longest time he seemed totally beyond reach. So he wasn't treated poorly because he was black.

What his case actually might show-again, presuming he's guilty-is that despite the belief of someone like H-P who presumes that race privilege always trumps gender privilege, in the case of Cosby, clearly gender privilege was stronger as many of his victims were white women of at least decent means, in pretty prominent places in society. Yet what mattered in their case was not that Cosby was black and they white but that they were female and he was male.

Again, this is all presuming that he is guilty which I do strongly suspect though he will get his day in court.

Then again, what's interesting, is that while M-P may decry a black man taking a perp walk, it seems to me that a large reason why this happened was that a big slice of the black community had turned on him. His 'black credit card' had maxed. you could argue.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/12/hannibal-buress-man-who-took-down-bill.html

Why was this? H-P also touched on this-Cosby was decried for playing 'respectability politics.' It was felt that he lectured black folks, told them to tuck in their shirts and that they shouldn't be shocked if a cop shoots them when they steal a poundcake, etc.

Cosby was preaching the politics of individual responsibility and a large part of the black community has decided this is a reactionary and even offensive message. That was that Hannibal Buress was aiming at that fateful night he told the joke about Cosby being a rapist. It was meant to shut up Cosby's lectures.

But when Buress did this, it was like hitting a switch. Because Buress was a black comedian is why. If a white comedian had done this it would not have had this effect. But after Buress did this, it gave everyone permission to go after Cosby, America's favorite black father.

So you can argue that what happened yesterday is largely about the black community turning on Cosby and even feeling he's getting his just deserts here.

Now H-P argued that it was a tough day for black America but I think there is also a good bit of schadenfreude for some.

I would say that Cosby falling is tough on all of America-white folks too. Because he was such a cultural icon. I never liked the Cosby Show but even I now feel sort of bad in a way. Seeing a cultural icon fall is almost like a death in the family or a close friend.

Hannibal Buress-the Man Who Took Down Bill Cosby

After all, the Cosby rape and sexual battery stories had been around for years prior to his joke but only after it did this give a real impetus to the social media drive that finally ended with Cosby being charged today.

"The charging of Bill Cosby with alleged aggravated indecent assault against a former Temple University employee – months after dozens of women came out with accusations, more than a decade after dark rumors began to circulate – has been strange in a number of ways."

"The story of Cosby’s alleged crime has been in the news so much – and things move so quickly in the age of social media and 24-hour coverage – that it seems a very long time coming. The case is also emotionally complicated for a lot of people: Cosby was not just another pampered, reckless celebrity, but someone who entered public consciousness as a racial pioneer. His grumpiness and patronizing bootstrap rhetoric over the years did not entirely destroy the residual warm feelings a lot of people held for him. For anyone who remembers “I Spy” or Fat Albert, Cosby’s downfall has been disorienting."

"But what may be the strangest of all: Despite the usual call that a suspect of a crime should not be “tried in the media” or “convicted in the court of public opinion,” it was the media – especially social media — and public opinion that drove the case. It was a joke about rape by Hannibal Buress, captured on video, and an ensuing storm online that kept the story alive. Meanwhile, the judicial system groaned along, and statutes of limitations kept a number of cases from moving forward. Between the New York magazine cover, other print coverage, and steady outrage online, this has worked very differently than previous sexual assault cases."

"In the old world – in the days before video clips that could go viral, online venting, the recent visibility of standup comedians – would Cosby have ever come to justice? Would he still be treated deferentially by reporters and, when challenged, give the kind of vague, evasive answers he’s so practiced at?"

"It’s hard to know for sure, but what’s certain is that for years, Cosby’s alleged crimes were an open secret among many in the press and media. So what took so long? “What took so long is that those in the know kept it mostly to themselves,” the late David Carr wrote in November, 2014, as the accusations picked up traction. “No one wanted to disturb the Natural Order of Things, which was that Mr. Cosby was beloved; that he was as generous and paternal as his public image; and that his approach to life and work represented a bracing corrective to the coarse, self-defeating urban black ethos.”

"Journalists as respected as Ta-Nehisi Coates (in The Atlantic), Kelefa Sanneh (in The New Yorker), and Carr himself (in the on-flight magazine Hemispheres) mostly or entirely dodged the issue. Carr continued: “Those in the know included Mark Whitaker, who did not find room in his almost-500-page biography, ‘Cosby: His Life and Times,’ to address the accusations that Mr. Cosby had assaulted numerous women, at least four of whom had spoken on the record and by name in the past about what they say Mr. Cosby did to them.”

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/30/why_it_took_so_long_to_charge_bill_cosby_social_media_and_public_opinion_had_to_force_hand_of_justice_system/

It's strange. I was never a fan of the Cosby Show-it was a little too, eh, wholesome; I was a teenager and to me it was sort of like the black Brady Bunch. I found the show scarcely watchable-today even more so with all the cable and video choices.

I did enjoy his stint on Fat Albert as a younger kid. But yet, I feel something of a sense of loss. He was a cultural icon. When a cultural icon falls like Cosby has, it's almost like losing a close friend or family member. Bill Cosby as social icon is dead.

I for one find it impossible to believe he isn't guilty-if this is one or even a few accusers maybe it could be about money or fame but with all these different women coming forward-some white some black, some rich some less so, from all different backgrounds and walks of life, it's impossible to believe they are all lying.

Cosby's one saving grace is that his history with the other 39 accusers may not get mentioned in court-obviously the prosecution is fighting to include it while the defense fights to keep it out.

Buress is seen as a feminist hero but this wasn't his goal and he's not entirely psyched by the notoriety it's garnered him prospectively.

"Since the joke, more than 40 women have come forward to accuse Cosby of sexual abuse. Cosby has since been vilified by comedians (Judd Apatow, most prominently) and pundits alike, and the evidence against Cosby continues to pile up — a 2005 deposition uncovered earlier this month by the Associated Press revealed that Cosby acknowledged that he obtained quaaludes with the intention of "giving them to young women he wanted to have sex with."

"Nonetheless, Buress' public reaction to the media firestorm he helped ignite has been one of relative apprehension."

"In an interview with GQ, Buress opened up about the situation and revealed that the buzz around his Cosby joke actually halted Comedy Central's announcement of his new show, "Why? with Hannibal Buress."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-comedian-hannibal-buress-life-153944615.html

http://www.gq.com/story/hannibal-buress-bill-cosby-comedy-central

Let's face it, what made Buress' words so powerful is that he's a black comedian. If a white comedian had said the same thing it would not have given the social license to go after Cosby this way.

"Pull your pants up black people, I was on TV in the '80s," Buress said in the bit, mocking Bill Cosby's public persona. "Yeah, but you rape women, Bill Cosby," Buress reasoned, "so turn the crazy down a couple notches."

"Shaky video footage of Buress' Cosby joke went viral."

There's a joke that another black comedian made-I can't remember who, maybe Chris Rock? Whoever it was I believe I heard it on the Howard Stern Show. He made a joke about just how far some black folks push the 'the black credit card'-the idea that black folks will have your back if you're also black.

What happened to Cosby is about a lot of things. But one thing is that he didn't have such a card-he had maxed it out. There was a lot of anger in the African-American community over his jibes about how the black community needs to just pull its socks up and take personal responsibility. This, maybe more than feminism was what led Buress to make the joke.

In any case, the rest is history.

UPDATE: if Cosby has a chance of winning, maybe he should hire Tom Mesereau who got Michael Jackson off and seems to think there are a lot of questions here-starting with the politicization of the case; the prosecutor actually ran in the election on prosecuting Bill Cosby and this is being filed literally a few days before the statue of limitations has run out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbBiQ-GmNQw

Chris Cillizza tries to Hide His Own Terrible Year

This is the only way to explain his absurd claim that Hillary along with Jeb Bush had the worst year's in politics. Sure, Hillary is at 55 percent and Jeb is at 3 percent. You see the similarities?

"I write a weekly column awarding someone — usually a political figure — the "Worst Week in Washington." It's just what it sounds like. At the end of the year, I write one big piece about who had the "Worst Year in Washington." President Obama won it in 2013 and 2014. This year, I named co-winners:Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.

"Outrage!"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/30/why-i-said-hillary-clinton-had-the-worst-year-in-washington/

Well, not so much outrage, as just hilarity and laughter at how silly a choice this is.

"How could I compare Jeb(!) with Hillary, people screamed. One is barely relevant in the presidential race; the other is a clear front-runner for her party's nomination. Naming Clinton as a co-winner was either evidence of my "both sides do it" obsession or the latest example of me being just plain dumb."

Yes, I would agree that just as Reince Priebus is the chair of the RNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of the DNC, Cillizza is the chair of the Both Sides Do It party's national committee.

He felt that mocking Jeb was partisan unless he mocked someone equally on the Dem side and so he drew a false equivalence between Jeb and Hillary.

"Roughly 1 billion people sent me this tweet from ESPN's Nate Silver, which provided further proof of my (a) bias or (b) stupidity."

"Hillary Clinton, whose chances of becoming the 45th president have risen from ~35% to ~55%, has probably had the best year in Washington."

"First of all, it's important to define the terms of "Worst Year." This "award" is not meant to be predictive. It's focused on the self-contained year and how a politician did in those 365 days. Obama had the Worst Year in 2013 and 2014; he had, arguably, his most successful year in office in 2015. By giving Clinton the Worst Year, I had no intent making some sort of statement about her chances of winning the primary or the general election in November; those odds, as Nate notes, are pretty darn good — and always have been."

Now, to Clinton herself. There's no question that her past few months have been quite good. Starting with her strong performance in the first Democratic presidential primary debate, which was quickly followed by Vice President Biden ruling out a run of his own and her 11-hour star turn in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Clinton turned the narrative of her campaign around."

Right so how can someone whose odds of of winning the White House are pretty darn good of had the worst year in Washington? Worse than say Reince Priebus? And it's silly to look at the year in a self-contained way-you should look at it in relation to where they are at the end of it. Otherwise it's a wholly senseless exercise.

"But all of that started to happen in October — the 10th month of the year. The previous nine months were, if not disastrous for Clinton, certainly something well short of how she and her campaign dreamed they might play out."

But what matters is where you finish not where you start. In 2011 the NY Giants were 7-7 after 14 games. It was questionable whether they'd make the playoffs. They won their last two over the crosstown Jets and hated rival Cowboys and went on to win all four playoff games culminating in another upset of the New England Patriots.

By Cillizza's framing this was a subpar year as they were only 7-7 till late December. But where you finish is what matters.

"The biggest problem was, of course, her botched handling of the revelation that she had exclusively used a private email address (and a private server) during her tenure as secretary of state — the first person in that job to use such a setup. Clinton and her team misunderstood the depth of the problem from the jump and spent the spring and summer fighting a fight — that this story mattered — that they had already lost. Her numbers dipped accordingly as the controversy over her email setup reinforced many of the things — paranoia, a sense that the rules don't apply to them, etc. — that people already didn't like about the Clintons."

I don't think it's people, but rather what the Beltway media tries to tell people they shouldn't like about the Clintons. They've been trying to sell this tired narrative for 24 years without success. At the end of the day, most pubic officials have used private emails and Cillizza and friends have never been able to explain why it's so much worse in her case than all these other cases.

And this is what I think is going on here. Cillizza is miffed that the email thing wasn't the big deal he and his fellow Beltway pundits said it would be. The issue has totally fizzled. Yes, he argues that it could be used again in teh general. I'm sure in taht case it would be as effective as it was in 2015-not very.

What is really going on is that Cillizza is miffed. The Clintons have this quality that drives the media crazy-sort of like how Trump does. They hammer and hammer and hammer about emails, or Whitewater, or Monica Lewinsky and it has no impact whatsoever on the future standing of the Clintons.

Maybe this is Cillizza trying to suggest 'Sure she's in good shape now but she'd be in even better shape if I and my fellow pundits hadn't blown up the emails for all those months.'

I've argued this is why the press got so up in arms about Trump-he breaks their rules. He's supposed to heal when they tell him he's been a bad boy. Similarly the Clintons have always been teflon to all their phony attacks. Cillizza is desperate to believe they had some impact this year.

Yet I'd argue she's about where she would have been anyway.

Like in 1998 when Clinton had an approval rating of 70 percent or above, surely Cillizza was arguing then that it'd be even better had it not been for him and his frontrunning Ken Starr's phony investigation.

I think you can argue that the Beltway has had a terrible year.

1. They were wrong about Trump either not running or not having staying power or being 'over' at his or that juncture.

2. And they were wrong about Hillary all year too. We're not even touching on the Beltway's absurd pushing of Biden''s faux campaign.

Cillizza ought to just quite while he's behind.

GOP Can't Take out Trump for Same Reason There's No anti ISIS Coalition Yet

In time maybe the ISIS coalition will be easier. But it's the same basic scenario. Some have argued that the best interests of the Establishment is for the Establishment lane to be winnowed before NH.

Yes, as Rubio, Jeb, Kasich, and Christie all have about 10 percent give or take each, if a couple got out of the race there's be a better chance to take out Trump there.

But here is why this won't happen. Yes, each of these candidates-particularly Jeb and Kasich who have some sense of party loyalty and concern for the party would much rather have someone other than Trump or Cruz win.

But more than having an Establishment candidate win, they each want to be that Establishment candidate. And each believe they have a real shot-and based on the polls why shouldn't they?

In this sense the Trump threat for the GOP is sort of like the ISIS threat in the Middle East. No, the Arab countries in the Middle East don't like ISIS but they see Assad as their biggest enemy. Russia and Iran on the other hand want to buffer Assad. Only the US wants ISIS gone above all.

Similarly with Trump. Yes, the Establishment candidates would like Trump taken out, but their main focus is not in taking out Trump but being the Establishment candidate left standing.

Meanwhile the other Establishment candidates are all taking aim at Rubio. I hear some in the press wonder why as he's not in the lead. No, but he's in their lane. The goal in NH at this point is simply to finish first among Establishment candidates.

Establishment rivals rip into Rubio

Sensing that he’s the biggest obstacle to mainstream GOP voters, Christie and Bush attack Rubio's absenteeism.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/marco-rubio-republicans-christie-bush-senate-217206#ixzz3vouyPBeF
Interestingly, some pundits like Paul Waldman try to claim Rubio's absenteeism won't ''resonate'.'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/12/29/why-we-shouldnt-care-that-marco-rubio-isnt-doing-his-job-as-a-senator/

But Rubio has in fact been asked about it at his town hall meetings.

https://twitter.com/ajjaffe/status/662054631418290176

There is the sense that Rubio has done this all through out his career. He's treated each stop as a stepping stone. He talked about how horrible the recent Omnibus bill was but then failed to show up to vote.

Waldman seems to think it's a law of nature that once you are campaigning you can't be expected to do your job anymore that you were elected to. Ok then, but you know there are other Senators running for President-Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul-and at the time-Lindsay Graham. All managed to make it to the Omnibus vote.

Then there's the point that Rubio is also not campaigning very hard-which does suggest maybe he's just lazy. Yet, Waldman wants to insist that this is a baseless charge:

"What if we granted that Rubio isn’t fulfilling his duties as a senator? What would that tell us about what kind of president he’d be? That he’s lazy, and if he were president he’d be skipping out on Fridays to get drunk and play Xbox with his buddies while crises raged? I have trouble believing that anyone thinks that. Like all the other candidates, Rubio would be perfectly committed to the job if he were president. And everyone would think he was a good or bad president depending on what decisions he made and what priorities he pursued, not how much time he logged at his desk."

"People in both parties criticize presidents from the other party for taking too much time off, but nobody really means it. Republicans feign outrage at how many rounds of golf President Obama has played, but none of them were particularly upset about the fact that George W. Bush spent 879 days of his two terms either at Camp David or his “ranch” in Crawford, Tex. Bill Clinton worked late into the night when he was in the Oval Office, while Ronald Reagan reportedly worked about 32 hours a week. “The president isn’t working hard enough!” is something said only by people who wish he wasn’t president at all."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/12/29/why-we-shouldnt-care-that-marco-rubio-isnt-doing-his-job-as-a-senator/

Oh, but no. In fact, Reagan was universally understood to not have been working hard enough, by members of his own staff. 

Behind the Ronald Reagan myth: “No one had ever entered the White House so grossly ill informed”
Reagan embarrassed himself in news conferences, Cabinet meetings. Recalling how GOP cringed at his lack of interest."

"His team devised ingenious ways to get him to pay attention. Aware that he was obsessed with movies, his national security adviser had the CIA put together a film on world leaders the president was scheduled to encounter. His defense secretary stooped lower. He got Reagan to sign off on production of the MX missile by showing him a cartoon. Once again, the president made a joke of his lack of involvement: “It’s true that hard work never killed anybody, but why take a chance?” Cannon, who had observed him closely for years and with considerable admiration, took his lapses more seriously. “Seen either in military or economic terms,” he concluded, “the nation paid a high price for a president who skimped on preparation, avoided complexities and news conferences and depended far too heavily on anecdotes, charts, graphics and cartoons.”

"Subordinates also found Reagan to be an exasperatingly disengaged administrator. “Trying to forge policy,” said George Shultz, his longest- serving secretary of state, was “like walking through a swamp.” Donald Regan recalled: “In the four years that I served as secretary of the treasury, I never saw President Reagan alone and never discussed economic philosophy….I had to figure these things out like any other American, by studying his speeches and reading the newspapers. . . . After I accepted the job, he simply hung up and vanished.” One of his national security advisers, General Colin Powell, recalled that “the President’s passive management style placed a tremendous burden on us,” and another national security adviser, Frank Carlucci, observed: “The Great Communicator wasn’t always the greatest communicator in the private sessions; you didn’t always get clean and crisp decisions. You assumed a lot. . . . You had to.” Numbers of observers contended that Reagan conducted himself not as a ruler but as a ceremonial monarch. In the midst of heated exchanges, a diplomat noted, Reagan behaved like a “remote sort of king . . . just not there.” After taking in the president’s performance during a discussion of the budget in 1981, one of his top aides remarked that Reagan looked like “a king . . . who had assembled his subalterns to listen to what they had to say and to preside, sort of,” and another said, “He made decisions like an ancient king or a Turkish pasha, passively letting his subjects serve him, selecting only those morsels of public policy that were especially tasty. Rarely did he ask searching questions and demand to know why someone had or had not done something.” As a consequence, a Republican senator went so far as to say: “With Ronald Reagan, no one is there. The sad fact is that we don’t have a president.”

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/behind_the_ronald_reagan_myth_no_one_had_ever_entered_the_white_house_so_grossly_ill_informed/

So claiming that charges of being lazy, disinterested, or not up to the job are red herrings is a mistake by Waldman. I think there's a case to ask what exactly makes Rubio so qualified to be President? Isn't it possible that he would be very much like Reagan-a sort of disinterest ceremonial monarch whose staff ran the country? I'm not at all sure that Rubio isn't just as ill-informed. Certainly his time at the Senate isn't auspicious. 

Trump Manages Expectations in Iowa

I said yesterday, I think he gets this a lot better than the media wants to admit. There is talk whether he will really do the new ads he's talking about but then those who doubt this doubted he'd ever get in and if he did that he'd last.

As for ground game were here some contradictory stories, but I'll say this-I was impressed that I myself received a Christmas card from him just for buying a couple of shirts and hats from him-for a joke-a couple of months ago.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/12/why-trumps-supporters-may-just-be-for.html

If he literally sent everybody who has bought a piece of merchandise off his website, a Christmas card, that's pretty impressive. It also shows he is keeping track of potential supporters.

He's been speaking at his rallies to his supporters of the importance of voting-he's noted that the media has been saying 'Yeah, he's got a lot of supporters, but will they vote?'

The last bastion of refuge the pundits have hung their hats on is that he's going to lose Iowa and won't be able to deal with it. That this will somehow unmask him as not being the big winner he claims to be and he will lose everywhere else for not winning everywhere.

Yet Trump seems to be getting this as well:

"Donald Trump seemed to come to terms Tuesday with an unfamiliar prospect: He might lose in Iowa, the first state to weigh in on the Republican presidential nominating contest."

"At a campaign rally in Council Bluffs, Trump ran through a list of polls showing him leading the Republican race nationally and also in the Hawkeye State, which holds caucuses on Feb. 1. But he also noted that a handful of polls have shown him "very close" in the state, presumably trailing Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who has begun a steady surge there."

"If I come in second by 2 points, they'll say 'Ooh, this is a terrible defeat,'" he said, referring to media and pundit pronouncements. "It's not terrible."

"It seemed like a classic case of expectations-setting common to presidential campaigns, but rarely seen from Trump, who has consistently led both in national and early-state polls. He heaped praise on Iowa's first-in-the-nation status and warned of political plots to bump Iowa "to the back of the pack" in future primary seasons. He said that if he wins, he'd ensure that Iowa remains the first state to hold a nominating contest."

"It comes as he foreshadows a sustained ad blitz — at least $2 million a week — in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. He also told Iowa rally-goers to expect him to be there so often "You're going to get so sick of me."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/donald-trump-iowa-caucuses-217216#ixzz3vocDfay4

Say what you want but this shows he understands how the game is played.

As a Trump Democrat, I'm not even sure what the best outcome in Iowa is. Yes, the obvious answer is that I should want Trump to win. But this actually could be seen as a real setback for Cruz who despite it being very tight between he and Trump in the state has become the odds on favorite in the conventional wisdom.

But being a Trump Democrat is first and foremost not so much solely about Trump doing well and optimally winning the primary but making sure the Establishment doesn't do well.

Looking towards New Hampshire, the optimal scenario seems to me that Trump finishes first and Cruz pulls off an upset and finishes second. That would really hit the Establishment were it hurts as Cruz is not the sort of candidate who's supposed to do well in NH.

But if Cruz finishes behind Trump in Iowa maybe this hurts his chances of finishing second in NH? So anyway, optimal in NH is:

1. Trump

2. Cruz

3. Any of the Establishment Four, except Rubio. Christie, Kasich, yes, even Jeb, would be optimal. Let Rubio not finish the highest among the E in NH. Then the E will truly be in entering the twilight zone.

Great Minds Think Allike

The minds in question here are those of Dean Obeidallah-and me.

"Trump's various tweets alleging sexism versus Bill bring to mind the famous line from the movie "Princess Bride." In that classic comedy, Mandy Patinkin's character challenged another's incorrect use of a word with the statement: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/28/opinions/obeidallah-trump-sexism/index.html

Thank you, I've argued the same.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/12/im-not-sure-donald-trump-knows-what.html

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/12/rush-marcus-great-adventures-in-false.html

Back to Obeidallah:

"Now there's no disputing that Bill had extramarital relations. But that's not in and of itself sexism. The dictionary definition of sexism is generally two fold, either discrimination based on gender or "behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex."

"A dictionary definition, however, can only go so far in grasping what a concept such as sexism actually means. Real world examples tend to be a better teaching tool. So let me give you some real life examples of what are undeniably examples of sexism -- all courtesy of Donald J. Trump:

- Trump told a female reporter: "I mean, we could say politically correct that look doesn't matter, but the look obviously matters." Adding, "Like you wouldn't have your job if you weren't beautiful." Telling a woman she only got her job because she's pretty is about as sexist as you get."

"-- Trump about fellow GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina: "Carly -- look at that face. Would anybody vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?! I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not s'posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?" Conversely, saying a women isn't qualified for a job because she isn't pretty enough is again textbook sexism."

Trump in April tweeted: "If Hillary Clinton can't satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America."

"Trump blames Hillary for her husband's infidelity because apparently to Trump, the wife is required to satisfy her husband and if she doesn't, the man will understandably seek satisfaction elsewhere. Behold: Sexism!

-- After Fox News' Megyn Kelly challenged Trump's history of sexist remarks by noting that he had called women, "fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals," Trump went on CNN and attacked Kelly with the statement: "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes...Blood coming out of her wherever."

"Trump deserves an award of some sort for this incident -- he responded to charges of being sexist by being even more sexist by claiming that Kelly only asked him challenging questions because she was having her period. Apparently to Trump, female journalists can't possibly be good reporters unless it's a certain time of the month."

"And there are so many other examples of Trump's sexism over the years documented in articles like "The nine most sexist Donald Trump quotes" and "18 Real Things Donald Trump Has Actually Said About Women." If a sexist hall of fame were ever built, Trump would be in it. (But knowing Trump, he would likely want the hall to be named after him.)"

"Now if cheating on your wife was in fact a sexist act, then Trump has that covered, too. Trump very famously cheated on his wife and the mother of his three children, Ivana, with Marla Maples in 1990. That affair made headlines, which reportedly caused Ivana "to been completely humiliated by Donald through his public association with Marla Maples."

Yep, Obeidallah pretty much covered everything except that Ivana Trump also accused Trump of rape.

I'll say this for Trump-the guy can change on a dime. He was for the Clintons before he was against them.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/28/opinions/obeidallah-trump-sexism/index.html


UPDATE: Somebody sent this link to me on Twitter and suggests that maybe Donald Trump was Tony Clifton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viRVZQeRumQ&feature=youtu.be&t=23

Why Trump's Supporters May Just be for Real

Think about it, who else but true believers are going to go out in the cold and the rain last night in NH to attend a Trump rally?

While everyone else is shutdown for the holidays he's still out in full force and they are still out in full force to see him.

I give him and them some credit at least. Nothing drives me crazy more than how everyone goes home for the holidays in the Beltway press. No news for the week! Cable show after cable show-no Rachel Maddow, no Chris Matthews, no Joe Scarborough. There's a word for these folks: pikers.

 Trump warned the crowd that the media is saying 'Gee Trump has lots of supporters; let's see if they vote.' He again warned that they hit the polls.

There has been varying stories about Trump's 'ground game/' Some say he hasn't done enough, others say he's done more than is appreciated. Josh Marshall argued that the ground game is not that important outside of the caucuses-which is just in a few states, Iowa, and others.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/12/josh-marshalls-reality-check-on-ground.html

However, this impressed me. Guess who I received a Christmas card from in the mail box today? You guessed it-Donald J. Trump. How did this come to pass? Well as  gag I and my buddy Kev both got Trump t-shirts and wore them around as a joke to see what reaction they lead to. I was able to bull some Republicans into thinking I was one of them too!

But this shows Trump is thinking-he sent me a card though this was the only time I bought anything or made any overture that could be read as support.  You can dismiss this as no big deal but it's more than most political campaigns do. The card really had a personal look and touch to it as well.

So while the media is dismissing his plans to spend big in the early states, well, the media has been wrong countless times in 2015 about this race.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/trump-spending-early-states-217192

In another hilarious encounter, Trump went after Christie.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/donald-trump-chris-christie-new-hampshire-217184

Still, as I've said I'm now a Chris Christie Democrat-in NH for him to place best among the Establishment candidates would be a great boon.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/12/how-i-became-chris-christie-democrat.html

Some Thoughts on the Tamir Rice Decision

I watched the press conference of the Cleveland Mayor, Frank Jackson, and the police chief, Calvin Williams-who happens to be black-and thought they did a pretty good job. Despite no charges against Rice there will be a review and if those involved acted wrongly they will be disciplined accordingly.

http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/local/cleveland/2015/12/28/cleveland-mayor-frank-jackson-address-media-regarding-tamir-rice-case/77977766/

Will this mollify public outrage? No. There are too many problems with the picture.

"On November 22, 2014, Tamir Rice was throwing snowballs and playing with a toy pellet gun in a Cleveland park when a police car rolled into the snowy field. Within two seconds of getting out of his squad car, officer Timothy Loehmann shot and killed the 12-year-old. The officer has claimed he thought the pellet gun was a real firearm."

"On Monday, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty announced there will be no criminal charges filed against the officers involved. McGinty said that while there was evidence of miscommunication between a 911 dispatcher and the police officers, there was not enough evidence to suggest that the cops had cleared the very high bar for criminal charges in police shooting cases. Ultimately, a grand jury decided to file no charges, as McGinty said he recommended."

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7275297/tamir-rice-police-shooting

For one thing , McGinty hardly acted like a prosecutor-he sounded like Loehmann's defense attorney. Yet his is very common when prosecutors are forced to go after cops-they usually end up sounding like the police defense attorney.

The obvious solution here is to no longer have these cases tried with a local prosecutor-who fears going after the police he or she needs to work with on a daily basis-but an independent counsel. That's what Eric Schneiderman did in NY.

http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-requests-executive-order-restore-public-confidence-criminal-justice

So this is where they should start in Cleveland. I do believe that Loehmann legitimately perceived a threat.

"The FBI agent at the scene, Loehmann, and Garmback thought Rice —who was 5-foot-7-inches and 195 pounds — was an older teenager or in his 20s. "Shots fired, male down, black male, maybe 20," said the officer who called in the shooting, according to BuzzFeed's Mike Hayes."

"It's not uncommon for police to overestimate the age and size of black boys. Various studies have found that the general public and police tend to see them as less innocent and older. For police officers, this can result in overestimating them as a threat."

Right but 5 foot 7 195 pounds is pretty large, and they saw him in a shaded, foggy area, without good light. And in any case, young kids in this day and age often kill other young kids. A 12 year old kid with a real gun is not unheard of.

What's more I have to admit that when I saw the gun on tv yesterday it looked pretty real to me. When I first heard of this story I had envisaged a plastic shiny gun that was obviously fake. This was not that. I do think it's fair to say that parents should tell their children not to ever point a fake gun at the police. This is not by along shot the first time this has happened.

However, Loehmann and Garmback wrongly endangered themselves by driving in so closely and putting themselves in a position of having to shoot themselves out of it.

And Loehmann has the sort of history that makes you wonder why he was o the job at all:

"A police officer who shot a 12-year-old dead in a Cleveland park late last month had been judged unfit for police service two years earlier by a small suburban force where he worked for six months, according to records released on Wednesday."

"Officer Timothy Loehmann, who killed Tamir Rice on 22 November, was specifically faulted for breaking down emotionally while handling a live gun. During a training episode at a firing range, Loehmann was reported to be "distracted and weepy" and incommunicative. "His handgun performance was dismal," deputy chief Jim Polak of the Independence, Ohio, police department wrote in an internal memo."

"The memo concludes with a recommendation that Loehmann be "released from the employment of the City of Independence". Less than a week later, on 3 December 2012, Loehmann resigned."

"Other records reported by Cleveland.com's Andrew Tobias showed Loehmann failed the written entrance exam for the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Department. He also reportedly failed to get hired at police departments in Akron, Euclid, and Parma Heights."

"City officials said they weren't aware of Loehmann's troubled history at other police departments when they hired him."

So that's the first question the investigation should answer: why were city officials unaware of such a troubled history? Isn't this just gross malpractice in terms of their vetting practices for someone who is going to be carrying a gun among the general public?

What's more the Cleveland police department itself has a rather troubled history:

"A federal investigation found Cleveland police are poorly trained and inappropriately violent."

"A Department of Justice investigation, which didn't look at the Rice shooting, found Cleveland police officers used excessive deadly force, including shootings and head strikes with impact weapons; unnecessary, excessive, and retaliatory force, including Tasers, chemical sprays, and their fists; and excessive force against people with mental illness or in crisis, including one situation in which officers were called exclusively to check up on someone's well-being."

"Police officers also used "poor and dangerous tactics" that often put them "in situations where avoidable force becomes inevitable and places officers and civilians at unnecessary risk," according to the report."

"The Justice Department attributed many of these problems to inadequate training and supervision."

"Supervisors tolerate this behavior and, in some cases, endorse it," the report said. "Officers report that they receive little supervision, guidance, and support from the Division, essentially leaving them to determine for themselves how to perform their difficult and dangerous jobs."

So the question for the department is when are they going to respond to this report and make some changes?

Yes Trump is the Perfect Candidate-for Democrats

Regarding the recent war between Trump and HRC, I've argued that it's a win-win for both of them. It helps him with his base, her with her base with the only victim being the GOP Establishment.

Chris Hayes had a very interesting interview of the Union Leader's Grant Bosse-the UL endorsed Chris Christie a few weeks ago. Bosse was very dismissive of Trump's criticism of the paper. But I thought that Hayes actually got him in a telling moment when he pointed out that the UL endorsed Pat Buchanan in 1992 and 1996.

As Hayes pointed out, Trump and Buchanan have very similar appeals on things like immigration, the trade deals, etc. Bosse had no real answer but that Buchanan was 'serious' because he had a past as part of the Nixon and Reagan White Houses so somehow he but not Trump would know how to deport all the Latinos presumably.

Furthermore, under questioning, Bosse also revealed himself a Trump-Clinton truther-he agrees with the conspiracy theory that Bill Clinton told Trump to run. Bosse argued that Trump is the best choice for Democrats. I agree, Trump is the best Democrats to see run in the GOP primary.

http://www.unionleader.com/Grant-Bosse-Trump-is-the-best-choice-for-NH-Democrats

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clearly-the-donald-works-for-hillary-1438382894

While I-for marketing reasons!-had to recently retire my old blog name as a Republican Hater; turns out it's ok to hate but not ok to hate the haters-according to Frank Luntz's focus groups many of the base hates the GOP Establishment just as much as I do.

"Outraged by what Donald Trump says? You are not alone. No high-polling presidential candidate in the modern era has so intrepidly drawn the ire of so many within the American electorate. And there remains no end in sight."

"Yet in rendering one voting bloc utterly apoplectic, he has appealed viscerally to another. The balance of middle ground politics is not, shall we say, Mr Trump’s bailiwick. But America is no longer a middle ground country. We are already scared by our division — and it is getting worse."

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1b8318aa-a99f-11e5-9700-2b669a5aeb83.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3viZWjY5h

This is why Trump is the perfect candidate. The more he offends the larger electorate, he delights his base-but the larger electorate is a lot bigger. This is why the prospect of Trump going after Bill Clinton doesn't worry me. These attacks delight the base but disgust the larger electorate. 

Yep-this is why I'm a Trump Democrat and he is the perfect candidate. Maybe Bill Clinton didn't tell him to run. Maybe the Clintons are just this lucky. 

"And here is the prediction that will furrow brows on both sides of the Atlantic. Mr Trump’s supporters today will be Mr Trump’s supporters next November if he is still a candidate — no matter what party banner he runs under. Half will follow him out of the Republican Party if he breaks his promise and declares as an independent. For better or worse, his supporters will follow him to the ends of the Earth — or to the White House. Whichever comes first."

Frank Luntz's words are like music to a Trump Democrats' ears.

The Trump supporters are more than big enough to royally screw the GOP but not nearly big enough to win the election. And even if he did win-he's not a Republican.

Luntz tells us the Trump supporters want revenge. And they are having it-on the GOP Establishment.

Rush Marcus' Great Adventures in False Equivalence

This has been my point regarding all the medial handwringing over the rise of Trump. They-along with the GOP dog whistle tactics-have created the space for a Donald Trump to rise and thrive.

I don't mean the media is wrong to cover Trump-that's absurd. It's a campaign for President and the man is leading his primary by a lot. The idea that the media should refuse to do so in the hope that this will bring down his poll numbers is absurd and wrong. They have no right to pick a winner in the GOP primary.

But I've argued that what has really upset the media about Trump is not so much because he's told a lot of lies or that he's said a lot of really racist and bigoted things, but that he has broken their rules.

The media is upset to the extent that he has showed their irrelevance. They have many times decreed he's done and that hasn't been the case at all-the opposite has proven true. The media may not care that much about the truth or bigotry but they do care about their own ability to make or break someone in the public eye. When they say someone has to eat poop he or she is supposed to eat poop.

But the media hasn't been doing it's job. What they have been doing for years is a lazy game of false equivalence. What this means primarily is being evenhanded between the two parties. Krugman has described this perfectly-the media just assumes that there are reasonable people in both parties and then just a couple of nuts or wildmen outliers. If you point out something wrong, bigoted, or just plain loco a Republican says, you have to right away take away from the criticism by going after a Democrat.

The media is very uncomfortable going after the Republican party as a whole-in their mind criticizing the party as such is bias-even if the criticism happens to be true. You can't say anything about the GOP that isn't balanced out with a criticism of the Dems. This would be fine and correct if the two parties were really equal in terms of truth telling and sanity. But of course that they aren't is not an open secret.

Yet the media continues to deny this open secret.

This whole attitude I've argued goes back to Rush Limbaugh-both him and his imitators in the 90s. I believe that for years prior to Rush and friends, the media basically had been pretty decent in terms of reporting the news and distinguishing fact from fiction. It was not perfect objectivity by any stretch-as if such a thing is possible-but it was pretty good.

Dan Rather in Truth and Consequences tells  Mary Mapes that 'It wasn't always like this. It used to be about the truth. I promise you that.'

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/11/01/dan-rather-says-the-truth-movie-is-true.cnn

There is a lot truth in this. I think that when Rush started accusing the media as being biased in favor of the Democrats it absolutely terrorized the media and they've more or less since been in Krugman's Very Serious People mode of both sides do it to avoid any criticism by Rush. Yes, I think in large part the story is this basic.

In the 90s, the media with absolutely relentless savagery pursued Whitewater. Vince Foster, Monica Lewinsky, and every other scandal the GOP could come up with. It pursued these stories as legitimate news not wild eyed conspiracy theories.

In 2000 they let W skate on the lies and misrepresentations of his budget, but focused like a laser beam on whether or not Gore invented the Internet, was really the subject of Love Story, and why he was at a Buddhist temple. What they never explained is why the answers to these burning issues mattered either way.

A lot of what has got the media so upset with Trump this year is that he has messed with their rules-their both sides do it game. They want to be 'evenhanded' but he makes this so hard. They want to pretend he's a pure outlier and that his antics in no way stain the larger Republican party-even though 60 or 70 percent of voters support Trump, Cruz, or Ben Carson.

But now to just prove may point in the starkest terms possible, we have the media sort of playing it down the middle now that Trump attacks Hillary. When he attacked Republicans like John McCain, or Carly Fiorina, the media made a big fuss but now that he's attacking Hillary, they are sort of going back to both sides do it mode.

Like when she called him out for his wild comments on Muslims as helping ISIS, the media went into hyper fact checking mode-there's no proof of this! Meanwhile, the media and the GOP Establishment had been saying the same thing for weeks about his comments. But now that Hillary said it, they were calling it a lie.

But then in a way, the Clintons have always gotten under the media's skin in a way like Trump does in that the media has tried their level best to destroy the Clintons again and again and at the end of it, they're always about the same as when it started-even this year they had tried again with the obsession over her emails which get nowhere.

Now that Trump has attacked Hillary in vile terms just for going to the bathroom and is claiming that Hillary can't 'play the gender card' because of her husband, some members of the Very Serious Beltway are-yes, agreeing with him. The very serious Rush Marcus thinks he has a point. Hillary is a hypocrite for using her husband in her campaign.

"Trump is right: Bill Clinton’s sordid sexual history is fair game."

"But Hillary Clinton has made two moves that lead me, gulp, to agree with Trump on the “fair game” front. She is (smartly) using her husband as a campaign surrogate, and simultaneously (correctly) calling Trump sexist."

"These moves open a dangerous door. It should surprise no one that Trump has barged right through it."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-right-bill-clintons-sordid-sexual-history-is-fair-game/2015/12/28/70a26bdc-ad92-11e5-b711-1998289ffcea_story.html
I would point out that it also opens the door to a conversation Trump certainly will not welcome. His
own history of philandering and the fact that his own ex wife, Ivana Trump, has accused him of rape.

Marcus seems to think that if Trump uses this against Hillary it will be devastating to her. She must have slept through the 90s. After all, if this didn't sink Bill Clinton then why will it sink Hillary Clinton now? Is there anybody n America now that doesn't know about Monica Lewinsky?

As for sexism, I don't think that Trump knows the meaning of the word. He himself has engaged in some legendary sexist slurs. And the GOP is for sexist policies. Women are supposedly going to support these policies-Rubio for instance doesn't' believe in exceptions for rape or incest-because Trump 'reminds' them that Bill Clinton at one time had some sexual affairs? Surely they'll punish HRC for Bill but not Trump for his own sordid sexual history.

This is the strange calculus of Very Serious People like Ruth Marcus. 

How I Became a Chris Christie Democrat

The reason is that it's becoming clearer and clearer that the Establishment needs Rubio to win NH-not necessarily outright; Trump may well win the whole thing, but he must place first among the Establishment candidates. If he doesn't this could hobble his entire campaign early.

Chris Christie has surged into contention in NH. However, if he places first among the Establishment it's doubtful that he'd have the legs to carry the Establishment's flag all the way to the nomination with all his baggage both ideological-too moderate-and personal-Bridgegate.

Christie has been hitting Rubio very hard lately.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/chris-christie-marco-rubio-attack-217057

He's been quite rightly arguing that Rubio ought to resign his Senate job as he is not doing it. The puzzle for me last week was why wasn't Rubio hitting back. The answer is that Rubio isn't good at such confrontation-he likes prepared lines. 

What we have seen over the weekend is that his surrogates have started to hit Christie-on his exaggerations on his national security experience, his accepting Obamacare's Medicare expansion, and also his prolife conversion story. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/12/27/why-did-chris-christie-embrace-obamacares-expansion-of-medicaid/

http://theweek.com/speedreads/596233/chris-christie-reportedly-exaggerating-national-security-experience

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/new-jersey/2015/12/8585823/public-document-complicates-christies-pro-life-conversion-story

"All of these attacks are coming from Rubio surrogates-the Forbes piece is by a Rubio adviser. So hopefully Christie is on his game here. The obvious place to hit Rubio is on amnesty. If there is a single issue for the base, it's clearly immigration. Ann Coulter said Trump can preform abortions in the White House if he cracks down on immigrants."

"As far as the NH primary, the more Establishment GOPers, the better."

"The GOP's New Hampshire nightmare."

"Forget Iowa. This is where an anti-Trump contest becomes a four-way fight that could doom them all."

"Chris Christie is mocking Marco Rubio for not showing up. An hour’s drive up the road, Jeb Bush is hammering away at Donald Trump — oh, and there he goes attacking Christie, too. Just a few blocks up the road, Rubio is quietly lashing Ted Cruz, reminding the people at his town hall that “some Republicans” voted to cut defense spending."

"Welcome to New Hampshire, where the fight for the establishment lane of the GOP presidential primary is turning into a circular firing squad."

"As the year winds down, four Republicans have crisscrossed the state, pointing their attacks in all directions. And with less than 50 days until the first-in-the-nation primary, it’s only going to get worse."

"Forget Iowa, which Cruz appears to be locking up. It's New Hampshire that will cull this field. And with Christie, Bush and John Kasich making the Granite State the singular focus of their campaigns, and Rubio, should he lose Iowa, needing a top-tier finish, the fight to be the mainstream alternative to Cruz or Trump could end here."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/new-hampshire-2016-primary-217145#ixzz3vdFIzfTC

A beautiful logjam.

Virginia Republicans not Treating Trump Fairly!

The GOP has been cheating to keep black folks and other Dems from voting for years. This was aided by the Roberts Court striking down Clause four of the Voting Rights Act. Now the Virginia GOP is trying to disenfranchise Trump voters.

"If Donald Trump plans to win the 2016 republican nomination, he may have to do so without any help from the voters of Virginia. The republican party leadership in the state is taking unusual steps to prevent Trump from doing well in its primary voting, and if the measures aren’t reversed in court beforehand, it could ensure that an actual republican wins the state’s delegates, shutting Trump out entirely."

"The move involves forcing those Virginia residents who want to vote in the republican primary to sign something called a “statement of affiliation” in which they confirm they are in fact republicans. While there may not be any enforceable legal consequences involved, it could be enough to scare independents away from showing up and voting for Donald Trump. Large swaths of his supporters are such extremist conservatives that they don’t consider the republican party to be conservative enough for their tastes and therefore are no longer eligible to vote for him in the primary. A look at the voting calendar suggests it could have a significant impact."

"Virginia is part of “Super Tuesday” in 2016, a day in which several states hold their primaries simultaneously. It’s essentially impossible for Donald Trump or any other candidate to lock up the nomination prior to Super Tuesday, meaning that Virginia will be a relevant state in the republican primary. The Richmond Times-Dispatch has the story. Trump responded by calling the Virginia republican party “stupid.”

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/virginia-gop-delivers-major-blow-to-donald-trumps-primary-chances/23366/

Here's the trouble though. This is preciesely the sort of dirty tricks that will lead to huge blowback from the base. Even if the GOP gets away with this, then the Trump supporters will see the whole process as rigged. They aren't going to just eat their vegetables and vote for Marco Rubio if the GOP has to cheat to stop Trump from winning. 

Kasich Says Trump has Toned Down the Rhetoric

He just said something that is news to everyone: Donald Trump has toned it down lately. Huh? When exactly did this start?

"Republican presidential candidate John Kasich said Sunday that poll leader Donald Trump has “toned down the rhetoric” — a remark that might come as a surprise to supporters of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton."

“I’ve been listening to him lately, and you notice he’s toned down the rhetoric,” Kasich said on ABC’s “This Week.”

"His comments come amid a controversy over Trump’s use of the word "schlonged" to describe Clinton’s 2008 loss in the Democratic primary to Barack Obama."

"Kasich was asked Sunday whether he would support Trump if Trump wins the GOP nomination. The Ohio governor declined to answer the question, instead saying that Trump is “toning it down.”

“I’m just hoping as we go forward that he’s going to be a unifier,” Kasich said. “If we have a candidate that comes into Ohio who’s a divider, there’s no chance they’re going to win it.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/john-kasich-donald-trump-toned-down-217148#ixzz3vcp9BwWu
Yes, talking about Hillary's bathroom break as 'disgusting' is toned down rhetoric in Kaisch's book. Good to know where he draws a line!

I don't know when Kaisch started the drugs but it must be a nice stash. Come to think of it, I did notice that Kasich toned down his own wild anti Trump rhetoric at the last debate; probably due to how much his own poll numbers have 'toned down.'

Meanwhile Carly Fiorina thinks that Bill Clinton is fair game.

"Donald Trump is on solid ground attacking Bill Clinton, Carly Fiorina said Monday. But, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard added, it's not the way to win."

"Of course Bill Clinton’s fair game. He’s a former president," Fiorina told "Fox and Friends," reminding the co-hosts that Trump has frequently denounced former President George W. Bush, in addition to his more recent attempts to tie Hillary Clinton to her husband's fraught history with women. "But you’re not going to beat Hillary Clinton by attacking Bill Clinton," she said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/carly-fiorina-bill-clinton-fair-game-donald-trump-attacks-217159#ixzz3vcq1LpKV
The difference is that with W it was a policy issue where as Clinton it's the personal nonsense that failed in the 90s. Fiorina is right though that attacking Bill Clinton won't defeat Hillary Clinton; heck, in the 90s attacking Bill Clinton didn't beat Bill Clinton. 

Good News and Bad News for Marco Rubio

The good news is he has a major Congressional Republican endorsement. The bad news is who it's from.

"Marco Rubio, despite being the republican establishment darling of 2016, is twenty points behind in his own party’s primary race and has struggled to garner endorsements from republican luminaries. Now Rubio has landed a high profile endorsement from a republican congressman, and ordinarily it would be something to write home about. The trouble in this case: the endorsement is coming from Trey Gowdy, who was last seen being crushed by Hillary Clinton during the Benghazi hearings."

"Can Rubio be serious about wanting the endorsement of a congressman who is widely considered the biggest punchline in all of congress? Trey Gowdy is, after all, the guy who insisted on pushing forward with the Benghazi witch hunt against Clinton while the rest of his party had largely moved on from the losing battle. Gowdy spent eleven hours being embarrassed by Clinton in a face-off that was so one sided, it boosted her poll numbers and made the issue disappear from the election cycle entirely. But, considering the way things are going, Rubio is just that desperate."

"Thus far Marco Rubio has earned the endorsement of zero current republican governors and just three of his fellow republican senators. Accordingly he’s not only significantly behind republican frontrunner Donald Trump, he’s also losing badly to extremist senate rival Ted Cruz. So now Rubio will try his luck by taking the biggest loser of 2015, Trey Gowdy, out on the road with him. Good luck."

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/marco-rubio-finally-gets-an-endorsement-from-benghazi-loser-trey-gowdy/23364/

Yes, Gowdy is still removing the egg from his face now. Trump not surprisingly had something to say about that:

"Donald Trump on Sunday morning bashed Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), the chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, following reports that the congressman will soon endorse Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) for the Republican presidential nomination."

"Trump criticized Gowdy's performance at an October hearing with Hillary Clinton on the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, during an appearance on "Fox and Friends."

"His hearings were a disaster. Everybody was looking forward to something that was going to be really productive. And he didn't win with those hearings. It was a total not-good for Republicans and for the country," Trump said, according to Business Insider.

"I mean, beyond Republicans it was very bad for the country," he continued, according to Business Insider. "So I hope he does a lot better for Marco than he did for the Benghazi hearings. Because they were not good. That was not a pretty picture."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-trey-gowdy

Yep, disaster pretty much sums Gowdy's investigation up. 

I'm not Sure Donald Trump Knows What Sexist Means

He is claiming that Bill Clinton is a 'sexist' and that therefore his campaigning for his wife won't hurt her, if not hurt her:
"Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, increasingly focusing on Hillary Clinton rather than his GOP rivals, says he's not concerned by reports Bill Clinton will soon hit the trail for the Clinton campaign."

"I think that Bill Clinton turned out to be a liability against Obama when [Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama] ran against each other in 2008," Trump said Sunday morning on "Fox and Friends." "If you look at that whole campaign, it was a mess. [Bill Clinton] said things that were very problematic and troublesome ... certainly Bill Clinton is not going to be the end-all in the campaign."

"Trump also explained his charge, made in a tweet Saturday night, that Bill Clinton has a "penchant for sexism." In the tweet, Trump said "Hillary Clinton has announced that she is letting her husband out to campaign but HE'S DEMONSTRATED A PENCHANT FOR SEXISM, so inappropriate!"

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-sexist-bill-clinton-wont-help-hillary/article/2579113

He's obvoiusly referring to Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, etc. He wants to re-litigate the 90s, in other words. He might want to recall how that movie played out-it didn't work. The more the GOP pursued the 'bimbo eruptions' and assorted faux scandals like Whitewater, the higher Bill Clinton's poll numbers rose and the more it hurt the Republican party itself-they actually lost five seats in the off year election of 1998.

No one mentions that stuff today as it didn't work. Trump now seems to think that reminding Americans of the 90s scandals will harm the Clintons. It won't-Americans have seen this movie before.

The Clintons are not the Bushes; they've had all the mud in the world thrown their way and it never ends up sticking-which is why their enemies hate them so much.

As for Trump he doesn't seem to know what sexism means. What makes Clinton a sexist? Because he has cheated on his wife on occasion? Admittedly that's not a great character trait-perhaps he's outgrown that now-I don't now either way.

But if so, he shares it with a lot of men-including Trump, which is another reason why this will not be productive terrain for him to try to plume-for the general election. Obviously it helps him in the primary.

Trump has cheated on each of his ex wives with the next in line. I also get it that Trump might bring up Juanita Broaddrick back in the 90s the Right pushed a rumor that Clinton had raped her.

Again, Trump lives in the wrong house to be going here as Ivana Trump claimed in her own book that Trump had raped her-for of all things out of anger that he didn't like what her hair specialist did to his hair.

But what this whole Clinton is a sexist meme does is misconstrue what sexism is. For one thing, it's not clear why Hillary should be guilty for the crimes of her husband-as far as his adultery was concerned she was the true victim not all these Right wing phonies exploiting her pain.

But you could say that sexism has its individual, its institutional, and it's structural dimension. At most, you could say that cheating on one's wife is individual sexism. In truth, I'm not sure that simple adultery is sexism per se.

There is also institutional and structural sexism. and on this Bill Clinton at least has been on the side of angels. Certainly compared with his GOP enemies whose goal was to turn back the clock. Indeed, you could say that unlike Trump marrying eye candy half his age, Clinton is standing by the woman now who stood by him all these years.

But on an institutional level in particular the GOP record is horrible. We have Rubio who doesn't believe in exceptions for rape and incest. We have Trump's many attacks on women's looks-which is more individual sexism such as he's trying to accuse Bill Clinton of.

It's pretty clear who is for women's rights and who isn't. The Clintons have been for them forever 40 years since they met in college. The GOP has been against it. Trump has certainly not shown how he is for them and his vile attacks on Hillary are not the way to show that he is.

He lives in a glass house. If he is going to use this argument in the general, it's going to be a very tough one for the Republican party.