Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Hillary and the Keystone Litmus Test Fallacy

     She's taking a lot of hits for refusing to take a clear 'Yes or no' position on Keystone today and I couldn't disagree more with this reaction.

    Listen, not everything is a yes or no question with nothing in between as much as this might not satisfy dogmatists.

    Ed was all over her again-while being all over Bernie Sanders for categorically saying no to Keystone.

    There's this silly idea that she's refusing to take a position until she's President.

    People accuse her of being 'haughty' and 'regal.' They say she's unwilling to tell us what she'll do during the campaign.

   This is not what she's saying-the Hillary bashers are misconstruing this. This makes her sound like Mitt Romney in 2012 who wouldn't tell us what spending cuts he'd do until after he was elected.

   Hillary is not doing this here.

  "But in an email to me, climate activist Bill McKibben spelled out what’s wrong with this in process terms, too:"

  "Saying ‘I’ll tell you my position if I’m elected president’ can’t be the real answer. I mean, in that case why bother with campaigns and so forth? And it’s not like this is a small issue: it generated more public comments than any infrastructure project in U.S. history, sent more people to jail than any issue in many years, and so forth."

   "It really does seem wrong to duck it — especially since she was willing to say, publicly, that she was “inclined” to approve it before the stated department review even started."

   "Clinton has reiterated again and again that she will take a position only after the administration does. On Monday, she said: “I’ve been very clear, I will not express an opinion until they have made a decision.”

   "But what Clinton can’t avoid here is that climate advocates and environmentalists want to know her position on Keystone not just because they are naturally curious about her views on this project, but for a larger reason: they think it will indicate how strong her resolve is to stand up to fossil fuel projects and to combat climate change in a general sense."

   She's clearly saying that she's waiting not until she's President but until the current President makes his decision-she doesn't want to undercut him-how can you criticize her for that?

  As for this indicating her position on climate change, I think this is falling into the litmus test trap. Basically the right answer for Ed and the other Hillary bashers is a categorical no on Keystone.

  Yet there really are competing issues-there are reasons to support it and oppose it. Not every issue is black and white. I don't see this as outrageous as I haven't taken a categorical position on this or TPP.

  But you can be strong on the environment and yet disagree on a particular project. How can people extrapolate and assume this starkly? Do you think Obama is strong on the environment? Yet he too hasn't made up his mind yet.

  As for Bernie some of his positions and votes from the past are questionable as well.    

Jeb Bush Lashes Out at GOP Base Over Trump

     He doesn't think his own base likes compromise very much:

     "The Jeb Bush experiment continues to be fascinating to watch. As you may recall, Bush said not long ago that a GOP presidential candidate needs to be prepared to lose the primary in order to win the general election — implicitly suggesting that he will not fall victim to the dynamic that claimed Mitt Romney."

     "Here’s the latest example of Jeb Bush employing that strategy: He audaciously suggested that as a general matter, GOP primary voters are hostile to compromise. The New York Times reports on a Bush appearance in Orlando, Florida:

   “We need men and women of good will forging consensus, starting to solve problems, kind of building back the muscles of consensus, compromise and solution-finding to fix these things,” Mr. Bush told a group of businesspeople here, lamenting what he called a paralyzed democracy.

   “Apparently that is dangerous in a Republican primary,” he added, “but it’s what I believe.”

    "The overriding issue facing the next president, Mr. Bush argued, is finding “a way to reweave the web of civility” before progress on substantive issues can be made. “That is going to be first, second, third, fourth priority because everything falls into place once you get that done,” he said at a pastors’ luncheon."

    "It’s not clear whether this politically perilous advocacy in favor of compromise was intended as a joke. But either way, the polling actually lends some support to this idea. A Pew survey late last year found that two-thirds of Republicans want GOP leaders to stand up to Obama even if less gets done, while a majority of Democrats wants Obama to work with Republicans. Andan NBC/WSJ poll from last January found that a plurality of Republicans think the Congressional GOP has been too willing to compromise with Obama."

   Don't get me wrong, Jeb's criticism is accurate but how is this going to endear him to the base that he still needs to win? I would argue that if you want to bring back civility then vote for the Democrats. vote for Hillary.

   Seriously, prior to the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress, it was a much more civil place. This is why I'm a partisan-to get civility 'bipartisanship' is a losing proposition if both sides don't  want it.

   P.S. I am off to England my dear readers, to see my cousin get married. I'm leaving in just two hours to get to the airport.

  Don't get me wrong-you know me, if I there is a way to write some posts I will find it-I'm presuming they have wifi in Merry Ole England-which is the home of my birth.

  But my blogging might be cut into at least some maybe even a lot. Don't get me wrong I have another post after this planned-before going to the airport and while I'll physically be at the wedding Thursday, I'll try to get online and get some posts out. I'll be back Sunday night and then its business as usual on Monday.

  Thankfully as I like business as usual which may put me in the minority. 

Rush: 'Drive By Media' Can't Stop Trump

     Sounds good to me Rush. As I noted earlier there was a whole bizzare spectre of Trump's having raped his wife, Ivana years ago-out of revenge for having a bad hair day if you can believe it

     Then his lawyer comes out and says 'Well they were married so it couldn't' have been rape.'

     Cohen has now apologized for his comments. Trump says this talk wasn't sanctioned and that''s it right?

    "Cohen apologized for his comments Tuesday, calling them "inarticulate," and said the reporter's question sent him into a tailspin.

    "As an attorney, husband and father there are many injustices that offend me but nothing more than charges of rape or racism. They hit me at my core. Rarely am I surprised by the press, but the gall of this particular reporter to make such a reprehensible and false allegation against Mr. Trump truly stunned me. In my moment of shock and anger, I made an inarticulate comment - which I do not believe -- and which I apologize for entirely," Cohen said in a statement to CNN."

    Yes, he was inarticulate about saying that a husband can't rape his wife as he owns her. What would have been the articulate way to put it? Again, shades of Todd Akin-he too was 'inarticulate.'

    Rush however isn't worried about this and don't get me wrong-I'm happy he's not worried:

   "They tried to get Trump, the Daily Beast, claiming that he raped Ivana, and they were foiled when Ivana came out and endorsed Trump. She talked about how much she loved Trump and they worked together raising their kids and so forth and it didn't happen. Now, Trump's lawyer went out there -- and Cohen, Michael Cohen -- and said that (summarized), "Well, there's no rape in marriage anyway. A spouse can't rape another spouse." So, that guy's been flogged, and Trump has straightened that out.

   "But The Daily Beast, you will hear... The Daily Beast's source of the Trump-raped-his-wife story -- which broke last night just around 8:30. You will hear a writer from The Daily Beast admit they wrote the story because Trump insulted Mexicans and called them rapists. So, this was payback. It didn't matter whether it was true. Just get it out there and force everybody into denial mode. It didn't matter whether it's true. They don't understand. They're just gonna keep propelling Trump, the more of this usual crap they try to pull."

   It's just amazing to me that everyone seems to be in favor of the Trump canddiacy except the GOP establishment. Krugman is supportive.

Neo-Fisherism: RBC's Brilliant Trojan Horse Against Mike Woodford

      Let me admit right away that I'm not a big shot from within the Macro establishment-Sumner has often accused me of being too ignorant to even engage in a basic economic discussion.

     I think Scott has been pretty uncharitable-I don't have any academic training in economics and will be the first to tell you that I'm just an interested layperson who's trying to catch up. In fairness Sumner has tried to be more friendly to me recently and we seem to have possibly something of an uneasy understanding.

    Sometimes however, I wonder if my status of 'not being an economist helps me see the forest for the trees in ways that the insiders can't.

   One thing that Sumner always found every annoying about me is that I 'politiize everything.' But I think that there is a political dimension to economic debates they are not purely academic affairs. I still believe that his Market Monetarism-like all Monetarism-is really about trying to abstract the political aspect out of economic discussions.

   So to me when I look at the huge debate in the RBC world between Mike Woodford-considered by all the insiders to be the world's greatest monetary economist-and SW New Monetarism with its Neo-Fisherian theory about interest rates, my take on it is that this is a brilliant Trojan horse to cut off New Kenesianism at the knees.

  The RBC Empire is striking back-and with great success it must be said.

  This is all about Freshwater Macro taking back their journals from the dross of Saltwater. I take it that they're having some success by Woodford's need to invent a whole new model to refute them.

  The reason I say it's brilliant is think about it this way: the Neo-Fisherians want the Fed to raise interest rates-they feel that they've been ZIRP much more than long enough. So how do they get the CB to listen? Basically, they've changed their rationale. Before it was the spectre of galloping inflation.

  This led no one at the Fed to listen to them and a thousand Krugman posts mocking them for being so absurdly and obviously wrong. So it was counterproductive.

  Stephen Williamson himself warned about galloping inflation for years. Then suddenly he, Cochrane, and others from the Freshwater establishment started changing their tune.

 "One big challenge to the paradigm Woodford has built - which has won near-universal adoption at central banks - is the Neo-Fisherian idea. This is the idea that holding interest rates low for a very long time will either A) make the economy explode, or B) eventually cause persistently low inflation. Looking at the experience of Japan since 1990, (B) doesn't seem so crazy. John Cochrane explained the Neo-Fisherian idea in an epic blog post back in November, and the idea is supported by a more formal model by Schmitt-Grohe and Uribe. It's a big challenge to the Woodford paradigm because 1) the core of the idea is pretty simple, 2) it seems to fit with recent Japanese and possibly American experience, and 3) it says that central banks working in the Woodford paradigm are achieving the exact opposite of what they intend to achieve."

  You see what I mean? This is a brilliant adjustment. They had gone with A for years which made them look silly as while it was a simple idea it didn't fit with experience at all.

  So they switch to B which

  1. Fits with recent experience much better. We have seen a correlation of permanently low or zero interest rates for years with suboptimal inflation.

  2. It also makes the NFers seem like good guys now as they have subtly changed from opposing the Keynesian goal to supporting it. Before the NKers wanted more inflation but they were warning that this was a Pandora Box that would cause the economy to explode.

  Now they've switched to sharing the same goals as the NKers in raising the inflation rate; they're just helpfully explaining to the NKers that they have it backwards. They need to raise interest rates to raise inflation.

  It's a brilliant tactical retrenchment. Ok so that's what political analysis can do for you. Looking at it this way you see the NFers haven't learned anything at all they're just trying a new tact.

 Academic economists often seem reticent to admit the political dimension as obvious as it is here.

 UPDATE: Woodford's answer itself is fascinating. He'arguing for a pullback in the belief in Rational Expctations.

 "The question of whether interest rates affect inflation in a Woodfordian way or a Neo-Fisherian way depends on whether people's expectations are infinitely rational. Woodford's new idea - which will certainly be a working paper soon - is that people don't adjust their expectations to infinite order. He essentially puts bounded rationality into macro. He posits a rule by which expectations converge to rational expectations."

 "This is only going to make the SW, Cochrane, Freshwater types madder. SW has denied that this divide matters or even exists but it seems to me that only FW types argue this never SW."

Give it Up A-Rod Haters

     They'd love to play by these classic heads I win tails you lose with A-Rod. They had presumed he'd suck this year so they could have sat back and gloated.

     Instead he's better than anyone could have imagined and so now of course he must be cheating though there is no shred of evidence and he is the most tested man in America.

     But then this is the kind of knots people who root for the failure of A-Rod have to tie themselves up in.

     Coming in to this season my hope was maybe he could hit 20 hrs for the year. Instead, he's hit more than that in half the year. So the A-Rod haters can't just tip their hats to him. No, they have to start the baseless speculation that he's cheated.  The NY Post with its history of cheap and tawdry front pages-they probably agree with Trump's lawyers that a woman can't be raped by her husband.

     However, you'll have to excuse me if this holds no water in my eyes. Unless they can prove something, speculation is cheap.

     As I've said all year, A-Rod is an analogy for the 2015 Yankees who came into this year with as low a bar of expectations as the great slugger himself. The team of course is always reviled and A-Rod just gives Yankee haters another excuse.

    As the reason for their hatred is the success of the Yanks the haters have a lot to hate about now as the Bombers with last night's 6-2 win over Texas-helped with A-Rod's 24th of the year-are now a full 7 games up in the AL Least.

    However, even if you call the East the Least, the Yankees aren't the Least, as their 56-42 record puts them 14 games over .500 with the second best record in the AL and the fifth best in the Majors.

   "Hate him all you want — and, boy, some of you do — but Alex Rodriguez continues to make history in his surprising comeback season with the New York Yankees. As you know, he passed Willie Mays on the all-time home run list, joined the 3,000 hit club and took another step up the all-time RBI list"

  "The over-the-fence birthday present to himself was A-Rod's 24th homer of the year. Only eight players in MLB have more this season, and they're a lot younger than 40. The Yankees, meanwhile, are in first place in the AL East by an increasingly comfortable margin. It's now seven games."

  Happy birthday, A-Rod. This has been quite a couple of days.

  A-Rod's message to haters will make them even madder-he says he's clean and happy.

  "Before and after celebrating a milestone birthday by doing what only three others in baseball history have done, Alex Rodriguez insisted his system is devoid of PEDs."

  “I was hoping to get better and that happened. But it also is a nice reminder to me if you play clean and work hard that good things will happen,’’ Rodriguez said of his impressive bounce-back season before helping the Yankees to a 6-2 win over the Rangers Monday night in front of 33,691 at a sweltering Global Life Park, where fans endured a game-time temperature of 97 degrees.

  "After becoming the fourth player in baseball history to homer as a teenager and as a 40-year-old, which Rodriguez became Monday, the designated hitter stayed with the theme when asked about people not believing he isn’t getting chemical help."

  “I can’t tell what people are thinking, but I am [clean],’’ Rodriguez said. “And I am happy about it.’’

  P.S. To be sure, my radical position on steroids-much less HGH which if A-Rod were taking something would be the most likely-is that they should be legal. As I said after A-Rod's 3 hrs:

   "It's still amazing to me that time when in 2006 in Houston Clemens actually pitched to his son in batting practice. To me that's just a tremendous moment in human history."

  "Zarathustra said that 
Man is something that must be overcome."

  "I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? "

  "But the boobears don't think that old age should be overcome. No they like old age as it's part of the 'natural order of things.'"

   "To me A-Rod and Clemens have done a lot to overcome man whereas their critics do the opposite."


Civil War in the GOP Congress?

     When people complain that the Congress is dysfunctional Republicans play the game of 'Not are fault, it's the Democrats.' Yet, this latest Congress-with Republicans controlling both Houses-shows why it has to be the GOP's fault at least in large part.

     The GOP House and the GOP Senate can't come to any agreement among themselves-so how could there be any hope of agreement with the Dems?

    "During the 2014 election, McCarthy promised a unified House-Senate agenda to prove to voters that the GOP could govern. When the two chambers gathered in Hershey, Pennsylvania, this past winter for a rare joint retreat, the message from leaders was clear: To get on the same page, we have to keep expectations in check and recognize the dynamics the other side is dealing with. The House can move legislation quickly, the Senate cannot. House Republicans’ robust majority can run roughshod over Democrats; the Senate Republicans’ narrow majority still must deal with Democratic filibusters."

  “I don’t remember that. It was a long time ago,” deadpanned Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). Governing in tandem, he added, is “harder than it looks.”

  "The dissension, which has festered for weeks, is likely to lead to a short-term highway funding bill — the outcome nearly every congressional leader believes is the least desirable for the economy."

  "And so, seven months into Republican control of Capitol Hill, there’s still no definitive answer to this very basic question: Can these Republicans ever learn to get along?"

  “I’m not in the Senate conferences,” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said flatly when asked about the gulf between the two bodies.

   "The latest dispute on highways is over the length of the funding extension: The Senate wants to authorize six years right now while only paying for three. The House wants to authorize less than six months while it finds a way to craft a long-term agreement. Each chamber seems to be in denial about — if not quietly seeking to undermine — the other’s position."

  "Asked whether McConnell is misjudging internal congressional politics in insisting on a long-term bill when the House plainly won’t touch it, McCarthy said, “I don’t know about misreading or not, but we’re not taking up the Senate bill.”

   "Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a key author of the Senate’s highway bill, fumed, “Why are they not taking the conservative position?”

  “I have not gotten an answer,” he said.

   Read more:

   Meanwhile McConnell is trying to get his GOP Senators on the same side.

   Why battle the GOP at all these days when it is doing so much to self-implode?



Donald Trump and His Lawyer Michael Cohen on Rape

     As we saw in the last post, while Trump calls Mexicans rapists, he himself may have once raped Ivana Trump.

    And his lawyer and spokesman Cohen only muddies the water much more:

    “I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we’re in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don’t have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know,” Cohen told the website. “So I’m warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me?”

   What did Cohen mean-that he would rape the Daily Beat reporter?

  "The attorney then went on to issue direct threats regarding the resurfaced assertions:

  "You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word ‘rape’, and I’m going to mess your life up … for as long as you’re on this frickin’ planet.”

  “[Y]ou’re going to have judgments against you, so much money, you’ll never know how to get out from underneath it,” Cohen told the Daily Beast.

  "But the lawyer’s most specious claim in the vociferous interview arrived in a false assertion about the law: “You’re talking about the front-runner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as private individual who never raped anybody. And, of course, understand that by the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse,” he said.

  “It is true,” Cohen told the Daily Beast. “You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law."

  Bear in mind that he's allegedly a lawyer.

  It's tough to know what to say. Will this hurt Trump with the base? But then does the Republican party believe you can rape your wife? I say they don't and that they agree with Cohen. So I least think there's reasonable doubt that this is the smoking gun that sinks him.

  Maybe, I'm wrong but assuming the worst of the Republican party has never steered me wrong yet.

Shades of Bill Cosby: Could Trump be a Rapist Himself?

     After calling Mexicans rapists that would be more than a little ironic. It's tough to know what to make of a new story it's about Trump raping his wife back in 1993, it's so freakish.

     Apparently, The hair made him do it. Really. For Trump truth really is stranger than fiction.

    Does Donald Trump realize that if you rape your wife it counts as rape? Even if she's your wife?

   "Coming the heels of Donald Trump's now notorious slur calling Mexicans "rapists", folks at The Daily Beast have dug up a rape allegation against Trump himself from a book called Lost Tycoon, The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump, published in 1993. According to the book, Trump assaulted his then-wife Ivana in a freakish rage over a botched surgery on his hair. The circumstances of the alleged assault, which is said to have occurred in 1989, are bizarre even by Trump standards. Trump had had a scalp reduction surgery (no, I did not know this existed) to remove a bald spot. Ivana had recommended the plastic surgeon. And apparently it hadn't gone well and/or Trump was in a lot of pain. So he lashed out at Ivana, attacked her, held her down, began pulling hair out of her head to mimic his pain and forcibly penetrated her."

   "Now, Trump denies the incident occurred and for that matter denies he ever had the surgery. The account came in a deposition tied to Donald and Ivana's notorious divorce, which was finalized in 1991. I have no way to know the truth of the allegation. But what jumped out at me in this story is something much more current. In defending his boss, Trump spokesman and Trump Organization special counsel Michael Cohen said that the whole thing doesn't make sense since, regardless of what happened, you can't rape your spouse."

  "Here's the passage in question ..."

  "Michael Cohen, special counsel at The Trump Organization, defended his boss, saying, “You’re talking about the front-runner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as private individual who never raped anybody. And, of course, understand that by the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse.”

 “It is true,” Cohen added. “You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law.”

 "I'm going to assume Cohen doesn't practice criminal law because marital rape has been a recognized crime in every state going back to the early 1990s - and in many states going back to the 1970s and 1980s. It is true that it was once the case - legally speaking - that a man had a free right to sex with his wife by fact of their marriage. Even if a husband, by the most traditional definition, raped his wife, it didn't count because of their marriage. But that was a long time ago. And it's hard to imagine any lawyer doesn't know this, let alone human being in 21st century America."

 "The article is bizarre because a good bit of it involves Cohen going on a verbal rampage threatening all manner of legal and unnatural acts against the reporters if they publish the story. And fairly far down in the piece, the authors do note that Cohen is incorrect under New York State Law. But this is Trump's spokesman. He speaks for the candidate. He really thinks that in the eyes of the law a husband cannot rape his wife?"

  So this could be another Todd Akin moment for the GOP-recall that Akin claimed that a woman can't get pregnant from a rape as her body has a way of 'shutting it down.'

   Of course, for the establishment GOP to come out against Trump on this will only make the base defend him. In any case, I don't know that the base has any trouble with this view either. I doubt Rush Limbaugh will sour on Trump because of this.

  But I agree it's a good question for Trump to answer.


Rush Limbaugh: Trump Resonates

     Agreed. He resonates with everyone except the GOP establishment.

     "So what we're seeing is this:

    1. The GOP base loves Trump

    2. Democrats like me love Trump

    3. Moderate Republicans like Bartlett love Trump.

    4. However, the GOP establishment emphatically does not love Trump.

    As I argued in my last post, Trump's glass jaw is probably his history of verbal diarrhea-it's both his strength and his weakness-where he's often praised Hillary. President Obama, and indeed Democratic policies.

   It isn't even difficult to make the case that he's not a conservative-there is very little he's said policy wise to show that he is.

   Still, even this may not work. The truth is the base is really sick of the establishment and even the bloody shirt of 'He's a liberal Democratic plant' may not be enough to slow him. He is on record for his birtherism in 2012 and he is on record for insulting Mexicans and this may end up mattering more to the base than what he said in 2004.

  That's my hope anyway. I think Rush Limbaugh is as good a bellwether of Tea Party opinion as you're going to find. Based on that, things continue to go very well for Trump:

 "Republicans and Democrats hope to exorcise its explosion by telling the public that Trump's remarks on immigration and on the character of fellow member John McCain ... place him outside the boundaries of their polite society. ... Now what? The continued rise in Trump's poll numbers reminds all that Ross Perot -- in an era that was far more tolerant of the Establishment than is ours -- outdistanced both Bush 41 and Bill Clinton before self-destructing, just by speaking ill of both parties before he self destructed."

  "So what he's saying here is that the ruling class, the Washington establishment, they know they're governing against the will of the people, and they don't care. Especially they don't care when there's no opposition to 'em. Hello, Republican Party going silent. But now somebody like Perot is out attacking them and doing so on the basis of attacking both parties, and it's resonating. Therefore the ruling class knows that they are the minority governing against the will of the majority, and they're sitting atop an explosion waiting to happen."

   Mr. Codevilla writes, "have the greater reason to fear. Whereas some three fifths of Democratic voters approve the conduct of their officials, only about one fifth of Republican voters approve what theirs do. If Americans in general are primed for revolt, Republican (and independent) voters fairly thirst for it. Trump's barest hints about what he opposes (never mind proposes) regarding just a few items on the public agenda have had such effect because they accord with what the public has already concluded about them."

  "In other words, Trump is simply validating what a lot of other people already think and feel. He just happens to be the only one in public running for office saying it. "For example, Trump remarked, off the cuff, that 'Mexico does not send us its best.' The public had long since decided that our ruling class's handling of immigration (not just from Mexico) has done us harm. The ruling class -- officials, corporations, etc. -- booed with generalities but did not try to argue that they had improved America by their handling of immigration."

  Sounds good. Keep up the good work gentlemen. I mean both Trump and Limbaugh-you too Fox News.

  In all seriousness, what's happening is that the base is sick of it's own party'establishment's phoniness. Trump is not saying anything that the establishment doesn't agree with but he's putting it in the wrong way or when you're speaking in public.

If the GOP Stops Trump This is How They'll Do it

     If I were a GOPer-and I thank God I'm not-I wouldn't be wasting time blaming his rise on the polls and the media-because then you're making the hated liberal media all powerful.

   As for polls, thanks to Fox News they are kind of all powerful heading into next week's debate but that's the GOP campaign and they can run it how they want.

   No-this is the ticket. I'd be trying show that he's really a liberal-this is all an act. And this is not hard to believe as so much of it probably is an act. Meanwhile there is a lot in Trump's past to show that he once had a very high opinion of Hillary-and indeed later Obama.

  "A new video has been uncovered. One where Chris Moody of CNN did some digging. If you thought Donald Trump was an anti-establishment Conservative, it’s important that you watch this. This isn’t a mere “flip-flop”. This shows a consistent and enthusiastic support for Democrats, the Clintons and a long-running disdain for Republicans and Conservatives. Even if you like him, you need to know these things.

  “In many cases, I probably identify more as a Democrat,” Donald Trump told CNN in 2004. Watch the video, because It gets worse…

   In the same interview, he said: “It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans.”

  Then in 2007 Donald Trump said, “Hillary’s always surrounded herself with very good people. I think Hillary would do a good job,” as he praised her ability to negotiate and ultimately handle a deal with Iran. It’s also important to note that he praised Hillary, while simultaneously trashing Condoleezza Rice as unqualified and nothing more than a joke.

  "Compare that to a quote 8 years later, Donald Trump: “Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State in the history of the United States. …There wasn’t one good thing that came out of the administration or her being Secretary of State.” That’s from July 9, 2015."

  "The change is so shocking, who knows what to do with it? Is he simply bashing Hillary because she is now running against him? Or was he just so wrong in his prediction? Because he also donated six figures to the Clinton Foundation (both for her as a senator and later as she campaigned on a national platform)."

   "Now, I know Donald Trump says all the right things when he speaks—but that is simply a recent occurrence."

   "Everyone is allowed to change their mind, sure. However, Donald Trump does it more than anyone in the history of politics ever (switching his party five times alone since Reagan). But the funny thing here is that even with all of his “business experience,” when asked to rationalize his EMPHATIC support for Democrats (and particularly their great job on the economy), Trump doesn’t have a valid answer. He just loved Democrats, but was completely thoughtless in his response. Much like his responses today. A lot of bluster, not a lot of justification."

  Read more:

  Actually there is a lot of justification for the fact that the economy does better under Democrats than Republicans.

 But I digress. I'd say this is the winning meme. If the GOP wants to stop Trump they got to keep going back to moments like this. The truth is probably more that Trump is an opportunist than a Democrat but if anything sinks him I think this will be it.

 As I love the Trump campaign and want it to go on as long as possible I hope it won't. Assuming that these comments to this article are representative even raising this bloody shirt is no guarantee.

 Sandra Lewis: "Of course he’s changed his mind. I know that since 2005, I’ve probably changed mine, too. Get this straight. The problems we are experiencing as a country are the fault of both democrats and republicans. There are good people in both parties. That’s why I say, I’m not a democrat, nor a republican. I’m a conservative and an independent voter. The reason right now the Republican Party is so scared is because Donald Trump does not have to jump to their tune. He’s not a politician, he’s a wealthy patriot! He has my vote and if he continues to stand for the things I believe in, I hope and pray he wins the nomination and the presidency. We need a real leader!"

  Johnny Vargas: "Sandra, that’s exactly how I feel, the GOP is out of touch with America and I’m sick of backing losers like Bush and Romney, that doesn’t work and Trump is no Politician so he’s the Revolution against the Communist Ovomit!"

  Read more:

Anyway, Rush is still on the bandwagon so it's so far so good.

Bruce Bartlett Makes the Moderate GOP Case for Trump

     It's actually a pretty good case-it's related to my Democratic case for Trump.

     Basically, Trump will lead the GOP to a huge loss to Hillary. So I agree totally with Bartlett here-the only way the GOP can ever see reason is through some major sustained electoral losses.

     I should add that Trump doesn't have to win the nomination outright which seems unlikely even now-surely the GOP establishment won't allow this-to do damage, although his actually winning would be the ultimate.

    So what we're seeing is this:

    1. The GOP base loves Trump

    2. Democrats like me love Trump

    3. Moderate Republicans like Bartlett love Trump.

    4. However, the GOP establishment emphatically does not love Trump.

   "As a moderate Republican who voted for Obama, I should be Donald Trump’s natural enemy. Instead, I’m rooting for him."

   "The Republican establishment foresees a defeat of Barry Goldwater proportions in the unlikely event Trump wins the Republican presidential nomination. As Trump’s lead in the polls grows, so too does their panic. Yet, for moderate Republicans, a Trump nomination is not something to be feared but welcomed. It is only after a landslide loss by Trump that the GOP can win the White House again."

   Read more:

  I agree the GOP just needs lots of electoral pain. They are not exactly quick learners so they must suffer deep and sustained losses for reality to get through to them.

  "Trump’s nomination would give what’s left of the sane wing of the GOP a chance to reassert control in the wake of his inevitable defeat, because it would prove beyond doubt that the existing conservative coalition cannot win the presidency. A historic thrashing of the know-nothings would verify that compromise and reform are essential to recapture the White House and attract new voters, such as Latinos, who are now alienated from the Republican Party."

  "A best-case scenario would see the nation souring on the Democrats after three victories in a row, the most either party has achieved in the post-war era, and the election of a pragmatic Republican in 2020, unencumbered by the right-wing baggage essential for winning the nomination that dragged down John McCain and Mitt Romney."

  "The Trump phenomenon perfectly represents the culmination of populism and anti-intellectualism that became dominant in the Republican Party with the rise of the Tea Party. I think many Republican leaders have had deep misgivings about the Tea Party since the beginning, but the short-term benefits were too great to resist. A Trump rout is Republican moderates’ best chance to take back the GOP.
This makes sense-I follow all his game theory here. It's also true that for the Dems to win again in 2020 would seem long odds based on history-but then history is made to be broken."

  My caveat is I just don't see the GOP learning until they are truly wiped out. Even now with their inability to win the Presidency they are dominant in Congress and run most states. I think this national-regional divide plays out for much longer than 2016. The Republican party has to prove me wrong that they can learn anything. In 2012 they had learnt supposedly that they needed to do immigration reform but then Heritage convinced them they didn't need Latino votes after all-just more whites, more whites than they had even achieved before-while as a demographic whites are decreasing.



Desperate GOP Blames Media and Polls for Trump's Rise

    Things are really getting desperate in the GOP. I'm now not just a Trump Democrat but a Fox News loving Democrat. And why not? The two seem to be in a conspiracy to make the upcoming GOP debates a complete--but very entertaining joke.

    In 2012 one GOP diagnosis the party seems to be taking to heart is that there were too many debates. The Fox remedy seems to some people to do more harm than good. But I say-let the Republicans run their primary their way.

  There is a desperate scramble to get in the top ten in the polls before the debate. Now Scott Walker has a unique way to surmount Trump's lead: deny he has a lead-it's just those liberal polls. Right that's what Mitt Romney said when the polls showed him losing late in the 2012 election and that turned out alright-for those like myself who voted for Obama.

  "Such junk,” tweeted B.J. Martino, a pollster on Scott Walker’s presidential campaign, responding to NBC News/Marist polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, two of three surveys released Sunday that showed Trump at or near the top of the pack. The polls showed Trump leading in New Hampshire and running neck-and-neck with Walker in Iowa, where the Wisconsin governor has been the early favorite.

  "The problem, Republican political professionals say, is that Trump’s rise to the top has been driven by intense media coverage of his often circus-like campaign. That media attention, some Republicans gripe, causes his poll numbers to rise — which, in turn, leads to more media attention."

   Hmm. So what you're saying is that the hated media is all-powerful and that whoever gets the most media attention will lead in the polls. But then they also blame the polls themselves. 

   "In recent national polls, Trump performs as well or better among self-identified Republican-leaning independents — the kind of voters who might be overrepresented in public polls — than those who identify as committed Republicans. That’s why GOP campaign professionals are telling anyone who will listen that the polls are overestimating Trump’s appeal among the small group of voters who will eventually participate in the party’s nominating process."

  “Iowa Republican caucus goers are roughly 10% of registered voters in the state,” Martino said in a follow-up tweet. “NBC/Marist’s poll? 37% of registered voters.”

   "With national polling serving as the most important part of the criteria for participation in the first two televised GOP debates, the methodology issue is suddenly front and center. Fox News Channel, which is hosting the first debate next week, has said only the top 10 candidates in an average of national public polls will be invited."

  “Normally these polls would be great entertainment value,” said Patrick Ruffini, the co-founder of Echelon Insights, a GOP analytics firm. “The problem is we’re using this to determine who gets into the debates.”

   "Media pollsters defend their work. Random-digit dialing is the best way to achieve a true random sample, they say, and it’s too early for the horse-race numbers to be predictive of the election result."

   So they are arguing that when Trump calls Mexicans drug dealers and rapists this appeals more to Republican leaning independents than Republicans themselves? I have to agree with Ruffini, however: it sure is ironic that these flawed polls are what's going to decide who's in the debate which will basically decide whose campaign isn't viable. 

  I find this methodology a wonderful way-for Republicans-to decide who will be in their debate. I don't know why Rachel Maddow would suggest there's anything wrong with this method. Don't listen to her GOPers, she's the liberal media. 

  I'm a liberal but a liberal who really likes Trump and Fox News.

  Actually if the GOP is going to stop him this is the direction they may have to go-to show how in the past he had very nice things to say about Hillary and suggested in 2004 he was more a Democrat than Republican.

 The only way to get the base off him is to really push that he's a liberal carpetbagger-which is more or less true-not so much a liberal but just a carpetbagger opportunist. He even said the economy does better under Democrats which is true but a highly inconvenient thing to come out for him now. 

Monday, July 27, 2015

The 2016 GOP Debates: 'Never Seen Anything Like it'

       That's the consensus on the way next week's GOP debate is shaping up. Some people worry that this is a not very scientific way to decide who's in a debate. I say let the GOPers do what they want, it's their party and their debate.

     That's basically my answer when people worry about absurd Donald Trump's campaign is. It's their primary and they love Donald Trump. Don't vex the Republicans when they are having their primary or picking who's in their debate. 

    Rachel Maddow for some reason tonight seems worried about this idea where Fox News picks the top 10 GOPers in the polls and everyone else is SOL. Why is that? Rachel let the Republicans do their primary their way. 

   Sean Spicer thinks this is going to work out great-why spoil it for him?

  "Today, RNC communications director Sean Spicer took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to proclaim that the debates are going to be great this time around, mostly because there are fewer of them than in previous years. His defense of the rule limiting the debate to the 10 top performers in polls (the other six will appear in the political equivalent of the third-place match at the end of the World Cup, the one no one cares about) is reasonable enough; there may be no good way to contain the number of participants. But that doesn’t mean it might not still be a disaster."

   I'm sure this will work great:

   "Rick Perry is attacking Donald Trump's credibility and branding the billionaire businessman "a cancer on conservatism." Rick Santorum, a conservative stalwart, popped up on a TV program popular with liberals. Lindsey Graham set his cellphone on fire.

   "With the first debate of the Republican presidential campaign approaching, the White House hopefuls are trying everything they can to improve their polling position. A candidate needs to place in the top 10 in an average of national polls to meet the criteria Fox News Channel has set to take the stage Aug. 6 in Cleveland."

  "Those kept out risk being overlooked by voters and financial backers heading into the critical fall stretch before the nominating contests start early in 2016."

"If you're not on the stage you're irrelevant, you don't matter," said Republican pollster Frank Luntz.

 "Unless you have some serious ad dollars, it's not a glass ceiling. It's a concrete ceiling."

 "At of this past week, former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former New York Gov. George Pataki, ex-Pennsylvania Sen. Santorum and South Carolina Sen. Graham were outside the top 10. Others close to the edge including Ohio Gov. John Kasich, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and ex-Texas Gov. Perry."

That would relegate them to a second-tier debate, only an hourlong airing before the prime-time event.."

     I've said it before-I'm a Trump Democrat. It's obvous what is going on here-Trump and his buddies at Fox are singlehandedly destroying the 2016 GOP Presidential campaign. Just one brick in the wall at a time. 

    “It’s a roll of the dice,” said Monmouth University polling director Patrick Murray. “It’s going to come down to the vagaries of how independent pollsters round off their results — we’re talking tenths of decimal points. It could come down to the five or six people who didn’t pick up their phones for a national survey and the five or six people who did.”

   "New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, businesswoman Carly Fiorina, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal are separated by only 1.5 percentage points, according to the RCP national average at the end of last week."

   "Christie looks to be in the best shape of the bunch, sitting in 9th place with 2.8 percent support. Perry and Kasich are tied for 10th with 1.8 percent support, followed by Fiorina and Santorum at 1.4 percent, and Jindal at 1.2. (By contrast, the lowest of the top eight, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), has 5.4 percent support; the highest, Donald Trump, has 18.2 percent.)"

   "Getting left out of the first debate would be a significant blow to all of their prospects."

  “It’s extremely important to be out there,” said Republican strategist Ron Bonjean. “If you’re not there, it’s out-of-sight-out-of-mind for voters, and just as importantly right now, for your fundraising efforts.”

  “We’ve never seen anything like this,” said GOP strategist David Payne. “These candidates who are not polling well are forced to spend early money for national ad buys, while the earned media pathway is complicated by Donald Trump, who is costing every other candidate a chance to get in front of the camera. It’s a challenge.”

   Not only am I a Trump Democrat I'm becoming a Fox News Democrat as well.

Plan B: How Long Had Greece Been Thinking the Unthinkable?

     There's a big furor now with some opposition parties demanding an investigation of Varoufakis' involvement. Here was an earlier post about Plan B.

     Tyler Cowen who has set himself up as kind of the spokesman of the Very Serious People is laughing about this. I for my part am glad that someone in Greece really had contemplated Grexit at some point.

    For Varoufakis at this point he has to establish that he wasn't a 'rogue finance minister'-like Schauble.

  "Yanis Varoufakis has insisted he did nothing improper as part of a five-month clandestine project he ran as Greek finance minister that prepared for his country’s possible exit from the euro."

  "The scheme, which was almost completed but not fully implemented, involved hacking into Greece’s independent tax service to set up a parallel payment system — accessing individuals’ private identification numbers and copying them on to a computer controlled by a “childhood friend” of Mr Varoufakis."

  "It would have allowed transactions to continue in case of a prolonged bank holiday and the imposition of capital controls."

  "Mr Varoufakis described the project in a 25-minute teleconference with private investors on July 16."

  “We decided to hack into my minister’s own software programme in order to be able to bring it all, to just copy, just copy the codes of the tax systems’ website on to a large computer in his office, so he can work out how to design and implement this parallel payment system,” Mr Varoufakis said on the call.

“We were ready to get the green light from the prime minister when the banks closed in order to move into the general secretariat of public revenues, which was not controlled by us but is controlled by Brussels, and to plug this laptop in and to energise the system.”

 Interestingly, apparently Galbraith was in on Plan B:

 "The disclosures about Mr Varoufakis’s “Plan B” come on the heels of revelations by the Financial Times and other media organisations that far-left members of the governing Syriza party were contemplating a far more radical plan to seize government reserves and take over the country’s central bank in a transition to a new currency."

  "James K Galbraith, the University of Texas economist and a longtime Varoufakis associate who worked on the finance ministry plan, issued his own statement saying their efforts never overlapped with the more radical efforts other than an “inconclusive” phone call he had with an MP from the Left Platform."

 Tsipras' government denied giving the green light to any plan-which doesn't mean he didn't direct Varoufakis to set up this parallel banking system:

 "The revelations were shrugged off by government officials, who said Mr Tsipras never gave Mr Varoufakis the go-ahead to activate his plan."

 “I can’t imagine this [happened],” said Dimitris Mardas, the deputy finance minister in charge of revenues. “But what a government minister’s team proposes doesn’t constitute government policy.”

  "Mr Tsipras is known to have grown wary of some of Mr Varoufakis’s ideas, a concern that contributed to his decision to replace the outspoken finance minister with Euclid Tsakalotos, a more low-key loyalist, earlier this month."

   If Varoufakis considered Plan B it's just as well as this is the Schauble German plan as well-Grexit.

   Nick Rowe analyzes the monetary economics of Plan B.

Why Trump is Leading the GOP Primary in Two Polls

     The GOP is supposedly 'libertarian' but here is one thing GOP voters wants the government to do-deport lots of Latinos.

    "This new poll finding, courtesy of CNN, is not all that surprising, but it is very illuminating of the demographic challenges the GOP faces right now: A big majority of Republicans believes that the government’s main focus on immigration should be not just on stopping the flow of illegal immigrants, but also on deporting those already here.

   "The poll asks:

   "What should be the main focus of the U.S. government in dealing with the issue of illegal immigration — developing a plan that would allow illegal immigrants who have jobs to become legal U.S. residents, or developing a plan for stopping the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. and for deporting those already here?"

   "By 56-42, Americans support developing a plan to legalize undocumented immigrants over stopping their flow and deporting those already here. Independents agree by 58-39, and moderates by 59-40."

   "But Republicans favor stopping the flow of undocumenteds and deporting those already here by 63-34. So do conservatives, by 55-43. “Those already here,” of course, amount to some 11 million people."

   As we saw this morning CNN has another new poll which shows that Trump is still leading the field despite his making fun of McCain's war record.

  These two polls explain Trump's popularity. There isn't any need to dig deeper than this. For some reason Time Magazine is throwing Trump under the bus and claiming he's not as anti-immigration as he sounds.

  Time must really want to take Trump out. Here is the best part: the first GOP debate is next week and we get to see the Trump show.

  "With the first Republican presidential primary debate only a week and a half away, one can’t help but sense a rising level of fear from the party establishment. And who can blame them? All their primary polls are being led by a buffoonish vulgarian who is not only scorned by strong majorities of Americans, but happens to be setting out to alienate the constituency Republicans most need to court if they’re going to win the White House. The rest of the field is a chaotic mess of 15 other candidates, none of whom has managed to perform up to expectations in any area apart from raising money."

  "And it could all come to a head next Thursday in Cleveland — or maybe before."

   "Whatever you think of Donald Trump, he’s now the hub around which the race revolves, and that only makes the rest of the candidates’ problem more acute. It’s hard enough to get noticed when you have 15 competitors, but when one of them soaks up so media attention, it becomes even harder. All that pushes candidates — at the debates, and elsewhere — to do something, anything, to get some notice.

   "Attacking Trump is one logical way to try, but only a couple of candidates have stepped up to take that opportunity. Rick Perry has called Trump a “cancer on conservatism,” and Lindsey Graham has called him a “jackass,” but so far, neither one seems to have gotten much out of it. Perry is averaging2.2 percent in the polls, while Graham pulls in an impressive 0.3 percent. In the coming days, candidates will have a strong incentive to say something outrageous. Case in point: Mike Huckabee made a play for the lunatic vote bysaying that the deal to restrict Iran’s nuclear program “will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven.”

   Speaking of Huckabee's Holocaust talk:

 "The debate could play out in a number of ways: candidates could attack Trump, or a few might go after Jeb Bush, hoping to become the alternative to the closest thing the race has to a non-Trump frontrunner, or something else entirely might occur. But if all of them are looking for someone to strike at, it could end up being a demolition derby — fun to watch, but not exactly the thing to inspire faith in the participants. And with so many candidates to choose from and so little time for each, the chances of any one breaking out with a terrific performance are low."

  "A primary campaign with this many candidates is unprecedented, so no one knows for sure how this race will look a month or six months from now. But when Sean Spicer says the Republican Party has “an abundance of riches,” he sounds a lot like someone trying to make the best of what he knows is a dangerous situation. With so many candidates scoring so low and getting increasingly desperate to find a way to move up, the possibility of ugliness and chaos increases dramatically. Which is good for those of us in the media hoping for an entertaining show, and good for Democrats hoping Republicans will tear each other to pieces. But not so good for the GOP."

   No matter how exactly it plays out, it will be good for everyone-except Republicans.


Why Do GOPers like Huckabee Talk About the Holocaust So Much?

     I mean they are so critical of things that they claim remind them of the Holocaust-and everything seems to remind them of the Holocaust. If you disagree with them on Israeli policy they will definitely claim you yourself are a 'Holocaust denier.'

     "Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) on Saturday blasted President Obama for agreeing to a nuclear deal with Iran, invoking the Holocaust to describe how he believes the agreement may impact Israel.

    "This president’s foreign policy is the most feckless in American history. It is so naive that he would trust the Iranians. By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven," he said in an interview with Breitbart News on Saturday.

    "This is the most idiotic thing, this Iran deal. It should be rejected by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and by the American people. I read the whole deal. We gave away the whole store. It’s got to be stopped," Huckabee continued.

    Yet, regarding the Holocaust itself, they are often much less critical.

  "Buchanan has repeatedly defended Adolf Hitler and once labeled him "an individual of great courage." He claimed "in a way, both sides were right" during the Civil War. He declined to disavow the idea that minorities have inferior genes. He defended a school's ban on interracial dating. He opined that "this has been a country built, basically, by white folks" and falsely claimed only "white males" died at Gettysburg and Normandy. He once claimed "conservatives are the niggers of the Nixon administration" and urged President Nixon not to visit Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow because King was "one of the most divisive men in contemporary history."

  "On immigrants, Buchanan claimed America is "committing suicide" while "Asian, African, and Latin American children come to inherit the estate." He complained that immigration will turn the U.S. into "a polyglot boarding house for the world, a tangle of squabbling minorities." He objected to states like California having a majority Hispanic population. He said of Mexican immigrants: "They are militant, and they have no interest, many of them, in becoming American."

  "Buchanan repeatedly appeared on a white nationalist radio program. He wrote the foreword to a book compiling the works of a white supremacist. He relied on the work of white supremacists for research in his own work. He praised David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, as having a "portfolio of winning issues."

  Is Pat an outlier? Well he's not the only prominent Republican to praise David Duke. What about the House GOP's third ranking member, Steve Scalise?

 You can't call him a marginal guy in today's GOP.

 Meanwhile. today's GOPers are upset with Obama for not pushing or war with Iran but Buchanan now seems to think that Neville Chamberlain had a point after all.

 "If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war?"

 "In 1938, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain refused. In 1939, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Poland. Chamberlain agreed. At the end of the war Churchill wanted and got, Czechoslovakia and Poland were in Stalin's empire."

 "How, then, can men proclaim Churchill "Man of the Century"?

 He doesn't seem to think the Holocaust is worth remarking on at all.

Then of course there is Trump's campaign itself which is literally built on bigotry


Some Thoughts on I am Cait

     I don't really know what to make of it but I watched the first episode of I am Cait last night. One thing that occurs to me is that people seem to like to rub it in to Kris Jenner. I have seen a lot of tweets about how Cait is a better looking woman than Kris.

     I don't know how to not have some confusion about this topic however, Dont get me wrong I accept that Bruce has the right to become Caitlyn as that's who he/she thinks she really is or whatever. I'm not a Republican and don't think the law needs to prevent transgender folks from living their identity-what ever exactly it is.

    But it is confusing. For instance he told Diane Sawyer in his interview when she asked him if he will date men now and he replied 'No, I've never been gay.'

    But if he's now a woman then doesn't a woman dating another woman make her gay? But the reply of the transgender community is that your gender is a function not of your genitals but of your brain. In a way this makes sense-I've always felt that intelligence is gendered and that there is a gender aspect of intelligence-some knowledge is masculine knowledge some is feminine.

   Still, are you telling me that heterosexual men are bigots if they refuse to date a transgender woman in the way that you would call a white man racist for saying he doesn't date black women?

   And yet Cait remains his daughters' father? Correct? I don't believe 'she' wants them to see her as another mother.

   What s more, I have have to say again Kris Jenner and to a lesser extent the Kardashian clan has really kind of been treated like crap. It kind of makes you think that even men who decide they are women get treated better than natural born women-even among natural born women.

   "The premiere episode of I Am Cait, on E!, represented both the most-anticipated reality-TV premiere in years, and the one that was anticipated with the largest aggregate of good feelings. Even defenders of the reality genre will admit that most reality series get their thrills from the unflattering angle, whether that angle depicts a newcomer voted off early or an established star exposing a whole new banal tragedy. But the Caitlyn Jenner story—that of the former Olympian and Keeping Up With the Kardashians star who announced earlier this year she had long identified as a woman—was depicted with an abundance of good taste by E! The show made its mark, in its premiere episode, with its willingness to risk boring the viewer."

  So in a way I am Cait is not reality tv but something real on tv? But I like reality tv better, that's the whole point.

  Meanwhile, I'm glad to see the girls pushing back at Cait a little for throwing Kris under the bus. I've never really liked Kris either but I do think that Cait is being a bit one-sided in how she remembers things.

  In my last post I talked about the meaning of my new blog title Last Men and OverMen. I can't help but think that making gender itself merely an option is what you would expect from the Last Men.

  On the other hand, what the Trans community actually is saying is that gender is not optional that it is something deep and fundamental. So what would it make of another cultural cross current: early education schools that ban the use of any gender pronouns whatsoever?

  It might seem that this trend and the Trans trend conflict but do they really? Why do I get the sense that they're all part and parcel of the same agenda which is to decenter and hystericize masculinity?

   Sometimes I do kind of thing that I am Cait is the fitting conclusion to The Kardashians-though I've always been a huge Kardashian fan. Masculinity is now impossible. It is now no more possible than to believe in God or metaphysics to believe in masculinity.

  P.S. A lot of people I know think last night's episode was boring and in a way it was-as it's clearly anti reality tv. Yet I found it fascinating as it pertains to current social evolution which I always try to keep up with.

Tom Brown and What's in a Blog Title?

     I have to give Tom credit-he asked the right questions so he got some answers. That's the key to knowledge-the right questions.

   "Also, do you have post on your choice of your blog's new name? I don't get it. Are "OverMen" anglicized √úbermensch?"

   "Mike, how did you get all your old blog posts transferred over to the new blog? Was it a pain or did it go smoothly?"

  This led me to a whole host of answers-so as together it basically was a blog post, I will copy me comments here:

  "You ask a good question about the transition to the new name. The answer to the question remains open-as we're still in transition."

   "I was able to keep everything because this is still the exact same blog but was a new name. What I did was change my name.

"However, my worry was how all my readers would find me here. At least regular readers like you and Nanute and my Twitter friends know I'm here. I haven't from Greg but surely he's found me."

"Blogger gives you no clue as to how to transition. Initially people who looked up Diary of a Republican Hater were served with a 'This page does not exist' message' which for me was a nightmare. "

"How would they find me? Finally in looking at a few discussions among some tech geeks I figured out that I had to reopen the old blog and write just one post that tells everyone 'Hey, I'm not allowed to hate Republicans anymore but I'm at this link now.'

"So anyone who wants to can find me."

 "Still, right now while I still get a lot of readers when I publish a new post, sometimes during the down hours, my visits are way down what they used to be."
  "So not everyone has caught up yet by a long shot. A lot of people have to change their twitter notifications, etc."

"The history of the name change is here."

  You can maybe compare the transition to saying increasing or decreasing the inflation rate. In theory it shouldn't be a big deal as it's a 'merely nominal change.' I mean this is still the same blog but with a new title. Luckily I figured out out to leave a link for everyone who goes to the old Diary of a Republican Hater title.

  Even so the transition has not been without pain. As for Superneutrality of Money for once I'd like to believe in this-I'm hoping in the near future I'll at least 'return to trend.'

  Now the question of the meaning of the name.

  "Now regarding the meaning of the title you ask the right question-and you're on the right track. I was rather coy in announcing the name-I only really give any hints as to what it means in this post about A-Rod:

   "In any case this is pure speculation. A-Rod is no doubt the most tested man outside of prison so if he is taking something the MLB tests are worthless."

   "And to me, if there is some wonder drug that allows him to perform at this level why would you begrudge this? What a boon to humanity if it enables us to at least put a dent in the Spirit of Gravity of age?"

   "It's still amazing to me that time when in 2006 in Houston Clemens actually pitched to his son in batting practice. To me that's just a tremendous moment in human history."

   "Zarathustra said that Man is something that must be overcome."

   "I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?

   "But the boobears don't think that old age should be overcome. No they like old age as it's part of the 'natural order of things.'

   "Yes, for those of you who are really on the ball-I'd like to think that's a few of you at least-the overman might just have some relation to the 'overman' I speak of in my new, no Republican Hating title."

   " P.S.S. To me A-Rod and Clemens have done a lot to overcome man whereas their critics do the opposite."

   Of course, Tom nailed it-this is Ubermensch:

   "So you are a bright student-yes, it is Ubermensch. I mean to me if we are not allowed to use the word hate in public then clearly this already is the Age of the Last Men.
"I would have kept the Republican hating title but it was an advertiser issue-this platform that got me a lot of readers was giving me a hard time so I had to make the switch."

  "In truth I don't mind the switch. I liked DOA but really that was the title I came up with on the spur of the moment back in 2011. I had forgot the title I'd intended to use-'Abortion on Demand.'

 "I thought of using that this time but I want no more trouble with advertisers so I figured I'd go with a much more esoteric title this time. Only people who knew something about the history of philosophy would even have a clue what it means."

  "I'm glad to see you're one of them. LOL"

  "So I'm happy with the new name but not happy that down time visits are down. At least everyone can find me now if they go to the old link. Hopefully in the near future the transition will progress a lot more."
  "What sucks is that my Alexa rating-which under DOA had gotten pretty good-I was down to just number 1.3 million ranking in US websites-which is pretty good when you think of how many websites there are out there-it seemed only a matter of time until it got beneath the magic 1 million mark-is now 'unknown' as Alexa doesn't get that this is still the exact same website."

   I just figured that I should go more esoteric this time as censors are never subtle.

  I was wondering how many of my readers would know the allusion. So if you're interested this would be the place to start to follow what I'm thinking about here.


Say it is So: Trump Leads GOP Field after McCain Comments are Digested

     You have to wonder about the logic that says that Trump's numbers are going to tank because he made fun of McCain's war record. I mean they sure had no problem when George W. Bush did it back in 2000.

    This is the problem with the entire anti Trump campaign in the GOP: it's so hypocritical. They don't disagree with what he has said about Mexicans, etc-just the way he says it. Again, they don't even really care about insulting McCain-as they've done it plenty of times before.

    I think what we are having right now is just this wonderful moment of convergence in the electorate. The GOP base loves him and the Dem base loves the GOP base loving him. You go Rush:

   "And if you want to know why Donald Trump is resonating with people -- You know, I saw somebody in the Drive-By Media today -- maybe it wasn't -- it was somebody at PJ Media, I don't remember who -- made the point (Paraphrasing), "Hey, Trump's not resonating 'cause he's Trump. Trump's resonating 'cause he's channeling the anger." Well, how do you separate the two? It is Trump because he's the only one that is actually behaving in ways Republican voters thought they were gonna get in 2010 and 2012, '14, and the midterms. "

  Yeah, Rush, don't you listen to that drive by media-you love you some Donald Trump.

  So as neither the base nor the establishment has nay real problem with making fun of McCain why is there surprise that this hasn't hurt Trump in the polls?

  "In the first national telephone poll since Donald Trump earned rebukes from Republican leaders over his comments about Senator John McCain's military service, the real estate mogul has increased his support among GOP voters and now stands atop the race for the party's nomination."

  "The new CNN/ORC Poll finds Trump at 18% support among Republicans, with former Florida governor Jeb Bush just behind at 15%, within the poll's margin of error."

   "They are joined at the top of the pack by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, with 10% support among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who are registered to vote. Trump's backing has climbed 6 points since a late-June poll, while support for Bush and Walker has not changed significantly"

  "Though Trump currently tops the race for the nomination, his advantage is by no means firm. A majority of Republican voters, 51%, say they see the field as wide open, and that it's too soon to say which candidate they will ultimately get behind. Among that group that see the contest as wide open, Bush has 14% support, while Trump has the backing of 13% and Walker stands at 9%."

  "Trump does much better among those Republicans who say they've narrowed it down to one or two candidates, 24% of that group backs him, 16% Bush and 12% Walker."

  I'm happy to see I agree with Republican voters:

  "Still, the poll suggests Republican voters haven't yet had their fill of Trump. A majority (52%) say they'd like to see Trump continue his run for the GOP nomination, including nearly six in 10 conservatives, tea party supporters and white evangelicals. Even among those Republican voters who support someone other than Trump, 42% say they'd like him to remain in the field."

  I'd like to see him continue his run too even though I support someone else and most certainly have not had my fill of Trump-this will never happen.