Pages

Thursday, October 1, 2015

President Obama is Right it is Past Time to Politicize Gun Violence

It is depressingly like clockwork. Every few weeks or months another gunman goes off and shoots up a school or a workplace-or a church.

Some are white, some are black. some did it for racism. some do it because they believe themselves to be victims of racism but what happens is everyone expresses sorrow, grief, outrage, but when it's over it's pass the popcorn. Nothing gets done.

And the GOP tells us we can't politicize it and that the problem is not guns but the mentally ill and that anyway, if everyone in school or at work had a gun we'd all be safer.

Sure, that's the basis of a  healthy, secure society. I won't shoot you because I realize you're packing too and will shoot me.

The only thing stopping us from shooting up a library is that everyone else in the library is also packing. That's the kind of society we should strive for.

Silly me for thinking the reason I don't shoot up a school is because the very notion is vile and abhorrent to me. Nope, it's just the worry that the NRA has a gun in everyones holster.

I'm sure that's the only reason why you don't do the same.

So the GOPers tell us nothing but what we can't do: we can't blame the guns. It's not them, it's the mental illness or maybe if we enforced the laws already on the books.

So we don't politicize it, go back to the popcorn and Starbucks, and Instagram and in a month or so it happens again.

President Obama tonight is fed up and rightly so. He says this should be politicized-and that's correct: provided you actually want to solve the problem rather than sing an ode to evil and mental illness are all around us and we're just powerful against these dark forces.

I don't want to make this primarily about Bernie Sanders but in all candor if we do have to politicize this it's fair to ask him about what he intends to do about this epidemic as he's less strong on gun control-he voted against the Brady bill for starters and the NRA is surprisingly fond of him.

Here is the President:

"An exasperated Obama delivers what has become a frequent refrain, and asks the American people to demand more gun controls."

"Reiterating that "thoughts and prayers" are not enough, a visibly frustrated Obama called on state legislatures, governors and Congress to work with him to implement effective gun legislation that could prevent future shootings."

"Everything about these events "has become routine," the president remarked. It was not even the first time Obama had delivered nationally televised remarks on a shooting this year."

"The reporting is routine. My response here at this podium ends up being routine. The conversation and the aftermath of it. We’ve become numb to this," Obama said, delivering a meta-analysis of the cycle between shootings and media coverage of the past two decades. "We’ve talked about this after Columbine and Blacksburg, after Tucson, after Newtown, after Aurora, after Charleston… It cannot be this easy for someone who wants to inflict harm on other people to get his or her hands on a gun," he added.

"The number of mass shootings has piled up. According to Everytown for Gun Safety, a Michael Bloomberg-backed nonprofit that bills itself as a gun-violence prevention group, there have been 142 school shootings since the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. In 2015 alone, the group estimates, there have been at least 45 school shootings in the United States"

"Other countries like the United Kingdom and Australia, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to stop most future incidents, Obama claimed."

“So we know there are ways to prevent it. And of course, what’s also routine is somebody somewhere will comment and say, Obama will politicize this issue. Well this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to our body politic," he said, urging news organizations to publish statistics comparing the number of Americans killed by acts of terror to those killed by gun violence."

“This is a political choice that we make. To allow this to happen every few months in America. We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of their inaction," he added, urging Americans to elect officials who reflect their views.

Obama also called upon responsible gun owners to make sure their views are being accurately represented by groups that claim to have their best interests at hand.

"I hope and pray that I don’t have to come out again during my tenure as president to offer my condolences to families in these circumstances," Obama said, ending his address on another somber, yet hopeful note. "But based on my experience as president, I can’t guarantee that. And that’s terrible to say. And it can change.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/obama-oregon-shootings-214352#ixzz3nMhkONI5

He's right that other countries have solved the problem. Scotland did it in what would be totally politically incorrect in America-they banned guns.

Now I'm not saying that's the right answer for us; I don't think you need total abolition-but surely the answer is in the direction of more sensible regulation.

As the President says to not do so is a political choice as well. It'd be nice if the takeaway was not that we can't politicize gun violence but that we are demanding no more mass shootings.



Democrats Aren't Leaving Benghazi Committee Despite McCarthy Gaffe

And I think it's the right choice.

I had considered the issue earlier today.

"Even if it is good the Dems were on BC could it be time for them to get off of it now that McCarthy has exposed it so blatantly?"

"Maybe. Maybe not."

"The question is Hillary Clinton. Does she still testify on October 22? If so then I'm assuming the Dems will not want to let Gowdy interrogate her alone."

"As for Hillary herself can she now blow it off? Possibly, though I'm not sure about that."

"But here is what's so interesting. She has been requesting a chance to testify for a long while. It's been Gowdy who has been dragging his feet."

"This is rather strange-she wants to testify much more than he wants her to?"

"For months what stopped the testimony is she wanted her testimony public, he wanted it behind closed doors. Again-this is about government transparency?"

"If Hillary were in anyway a guilty person would she be demanding to testify publicly?"

"If Gowdy were confident she in anyway was guilty wouldn't he be demanding that she did?"

"So he must think that just like when she testified last year, it will make him rather than her look bad. She has the goods."

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/after-mccarthys-revelations-should.html

Kevin Drum made more or less the same argument as well.

"This is a possibility that's long intrigued me, but I can't make up my mind if it would be a good decision. On the plus side, letting Republicans meet all by themselves would pretty dramatically make the point that this is little more than a partisan boondoggle. On the minus side, losing access to the committee's materials would prevent Democrats from fighting back whenever Trey Gowdy or his staffers decide to leak a partial transcript to the New York Times."

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/should-democrats-all-quit-benghazi-committee

So he basically had the same thought process as I did-we'd rather shutdown the asylum but as long as its open Dems can't let the inmates run it.

This is what the Dems have decided it looks like. I agree with Congressman Elijah Cummings here:

"But in a statement, Dem Rep. Cummings says:"

“As Rep. McCarthy’s statement made crystal clear this week, Republicans created the Benghazi Select Committee from the very beginning to wage a taxpayer-funded political campaign against Hillary Clinton’s bid for president. Obviously, this is an unethical abuse of millions of taxpayer dollars and a crass assault on the memories of the four Americans who died, and I believe it should be halted immediately. However, I am not naive in thinking Republicans will cease their political attacks on Secretary Clinton, which is why I will be in that room defending the truth.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/01/despite-gop-admission-about-hillarys-polling-democrats-wont-boycott-benghazi-probe/

Like I argued in my earlier piece the Dems certainly aren't going to let the GOP interrogate Hillary alone:

"Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi said today that Democrats just might pull their participation one of these days, but that she is encouraging Democrats to attend, for now, anyway:"

“It’s obvious that it should be disbanded based on the leader’s own words. But since we recognize Republicans do not intend to do that I would encourage my members to continue to participate, and then we will see how much longer they want this to go on,” Pelosi said. “How long we will participate depends on how serious they are, and we haven’t seen any signs of seriousness.”

"So Dems will continue to dangle the threat of a boycott, to continue feeding the storyline that this whole thing has become a full blown farce. But in the end, when Clinton testifies, they’ll be there in that room."

P.S. Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats have a great letter out today demanding Trent Gowdy and friends quit conducting a political action committee under the cover of the Benghazi Investigation. 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/senate-democrats-shut-down-benghazi-mccarthy

I've said it before but it bears being said often: I love me some Harry Reid. 

One of his best moments was when he talked to that friend of his about how Mitt Romney didn't pay any taxes a few years. The GOP got so mad and demanded the name of that friend. LOL.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/09/harry-reid-still-isnt-sorry-for-saying-mitt-romney-doesnt-pay-taxes/


Paul Waldman is Wrong That Bernie Hasn't Gotten Enough Coverage

This is a common gripe of the Bernie Maniacs and Waldman picked it up here. You see how determined the Beltway press is to keep its foot on Hillary's neck.

Finally she gets an opening to fight back against Emailgate with Kevin McCarthy's confessions and now the media wants to talk about nothing but Bernie.

He's raised all this money! Well that's it, he's gong to win. She ought to get out now. Maybe we can still get Biden though he isn't going to be in the first debate surely he can still jump in at any time.

First of all regarding fundraising the rap is that she's this creature of Wall St. You know Bernie is supposed to be taking all this money out of politics. Now he's praised for bringing all this money in. He gets it both ways.

I know, Bernie is different right because his money is from small contributors but hers are all from hedge funds. Except:

"Sanders, who is receiving a vast majority of the donations through his website, has set his sights on raising $40 million to $50 million by year's end. The new numbers suggest that his long-term goal is certainly reachable. "
"Of course the best way to measure the power of a candidate's campaign coffers is through comparison to their rivals, and Clinton, the front-runner in the polls, is a fundraising colossus. Clinton, who announced her bid for the White House a few weeks before Sanders, has pulled in $45 million so far — the largest quarterly figure pulled off in the primary stage of a race. "
While Clinton's greatest advantage over Sanders in piling up cash is that she has strong ties with Wall Street and is coordinating her campaign with powerful super PACs, 91% of the contributions to her campaign were for $100 or less. 
http://mic.com/articles/121727/bernie-sanders-raised-15-million

HT: Uppity Woman on Twitter

https://twitter.com/UppityWomanBlog

As I said the media is not happy that Hillary was able to push back at the Benghazi Committee yesterday so now they are trying to kill her with Bernie stories.

Yet Paul Waldman claims the press has been unfair to Bernie. I guess he hasn't' seen Hillary's coverage lately.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/01/its-time-to-treat-bernie-sanders-like-a-real-presidential-candidate/

Hes under the false impression that Bernie doesn't get enough coverage. To the contrary:

"In the case of Sanders and Clinton, I don’t think the volume of coverage reflects a problematic bias. Surely dominant candidates don’t deserve all the news coverage. But I don’t think that the volume of Sanders coverage has been “too low” — especially given his likely chances of winning the Democratic nomination — currently, 12 percent in the prediction markets. Indeed, if anything, you could make the case for the opposite: that Sanders is getting more coverage than he “should” based on his chances of winning, perhaps because the media’s framing the Democratic race as competitive makes it more interesting to readers."

"(You might also ask: Should media coverage even be indexed to the candidate’s changes of winning? That’s another blog post, probably. But I think the answer is yes.)"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/09/23/is-the-media-biased-against-bernie-sanders-not-really/

Then you remember that Bernie has had zero negative press and Hillary's press has been brutal for three months and you realize that he's' been treated with kid gloves for the expressed purpose of harming her campaign

 
So if the Benghazi mess is back on its heels today they want to bury her with Bernie. 




On Bernie Maniacs Boasting About the Money He's Raised

My first reaction is Gee, I thought he was going to get money out of politics. No more dirty money. 

I don't mind him raising some cash but why be so self-righteous about it?

The reality is that we Democrats oppose the Post Citizen's United world but we still have to play by its rules-for now.

Now in a few years after Hillary is President and she appoints a few liberal Supreme Court Justices we may see this world change markedly. But for now you have to raise money.

As Bernie rightfully is as well.

Now I know some Bernie Maniac will come running in and chirp But Bernie doesn't use a Super PAC which proves he's an angel while she's a Wall St. devil.

But Bernie doesn't have to deal with the level of attacks that Bernie does. While Bernie fans claim that he hasn't been treated fairly by the press this is dead wrong.

Political scientist John Sides:

"In the case of Sanders and Clinton, I don’t think the volume of coverage reflects a problematic bias. Surely dominant candidates don’t deserve all the news coverage. But I don’t think that the volume of Sanders coverage has been “too low” — especially given his likely chances of winning the Democratic nomination — currently, 12 percent in the prediction markets. Indeed, if anything, you could make the case for the opposite: that Sanders is getting more coverage than he “should” based on his chances of winning, perhaps because the media’s framing the Democratic race as competitive makes it more interesting to readers."

"(You might also ask: Should media coverage even be indexed to the candidate’s changes of winning? That’s another blog post, probably. But I think the answer is yes.)"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/09/23/is-the-media-biased-against-bernie-sanders-not-really/

So Bernie is getting his fair share of coverage-arguably a little bit more.

Now when you move from volume of coverage to tone, it's obvious that Hillary has gotten just brutal coverage for three months while Bernie has gotten very little negative coverage at all.

He has suffered no negative scrutiny whatsoever, while she has suffered relentless slings and arrows. So she needs a Super PAC as he doesn't-as there are so many Right wing Super PACs out to get her-Citizen's United itself is who is driving the Emailgate scandal with its FOIA lawsuits.
There are literally 17 different FOIA cases with 18 different judges led by Right wing legal groups trying to troll her emails. 
It's easy for him to preach unilateral disarmament-the missles aren't pointed at him. 
However, there is another thought about Bernie Manaics' boasts about money. 
"All told, Clinton, the former secretary of state, raised $28 million between July and September of this year, a haul that her campaign called the “largest off-year third quarter for a non-incumbent.” That figure falls short of the $47.5 million she raised in the preceding three months, though it still puts her on track to reach her campaign's goal of $100 million goal for the year."

"Sanders was right behind her. According to a campaign aide, the senator is on track to raise over $25 million during the third quarter. Early reports put that figure at $24 million, but the aide explained that the campaign was experiencing its best fundraising day of the cycle on Wednesday, helping to stuff its coffers even more."

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/huffington-post-is-becoming-anti.html

The real story is less how much Bernie made-he want up from $15 million in the second to $24 million in the third-the Bernie Maniacs are trying to inflate the numbers further by including money Bernie claims he has raised the last day. 
But you'd have to know how much she made the last day to include that. 
Hillary's donations did come down a little in the quarter. Is this cause for concern?
I definitely would not say it's Time to wet the bed-that was the Obama's campaign slogan: No bed-wetting and Hillary supporters should do the same. 
The media and GOP want us to wet the bed-ie, panic. Is it possible that some Democrats reduced their donations in the last quarter out of worry over Emailgate? Are they taking the bait and looking at Biden as some savior?
That'd be absurd. Biden is a terrible Presidential candidate. I love the man and he's been a great partner to the President but those who think he's better than Hillary seem to forget that he lasted seconds against her and the President in 2008. 
On the other hand maybe even some diehard Hillary supporters like me and you have been too complacent. 
I'm hardly a rich guy but I donated a little to her before. But I myself haven't felt like I can donate too much for now-I did my bit I figured and in a few months when I'm more comfortable I'd do more. 
Besides, I figured she is a big shot and will get plenty of donations from rich Hillary donors. But I see this as a wakeup call. After reading some Bernie Maniacs bragging they have donated but will donate more I made another donation-not huge, but $50. 
She needs our help folks and those who can afford it shouldn't assume she doesn't need it. 


Huffington Post is Becoming anti Hillary Clinton Headquarters

There is hostility there. They didn't even mention Kevin McCarthy's gaffe yesterday as well they might have considering that Bernie has been helped by Emailgate.

Yet Huff Po doesn't think that's news fit to print that the next Speaker has admitted-boasted-that the Benghazi Committee is the Committee to Not Elect Hillary Clinton. To them this isn't news.

Now today they are gloating about how much money Bernie is supposedly raising.

"Bernie Sanders Is Catching Up To The Clinton Fundraising Juggernaut. While Clinton's working hard for her cash, Sanders' is flowing in."

"Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign raised more than that of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) during the third quarter of 2015. But not by much. And with Sanders building a massive pool of grassroots donors, it seems entirely possible that he could end up surpassing her in quarters to come."

"All told, Clinton, the former secretary of state, raised $28 million between July and September of this year, a haul that her campaign called the “largest off-year third quarter for a non-incumbent.” That figure falls short of the $47.5 million she raised in the preceding three months, though it still puts her on track to reach her campaign's goal of $100 million goal for the year."

"Sanders was right behind her. According to a campaign aide, the senator is on track to raise over $25 million during the third quarter. Early reports put that figure at $24 million, but the aide explained that the campaign was experiencing its best fundraising day of the cycle on Wednesday, helping to stuff its coffers even more."

"The haul was far larger than the one Sanders had in the previous quarter, when he raised $15.2 million. And perhaps even more impressive for the senator is the way he's grown his treasure chest. The campaign has received 1.3 million donations from 650,000 donors, which, the Sanders aide noted, is “something another insurgent candidate didn't achieve until after [the] Iowa caucuses back in 2008” -- the candidate being then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)."

"Sanders, in short, isn’t having to work for the money he’s raising. Much of it is pouring in online. Clinton, by contrast, has labored hard for her cash. Though her campaign said that 93 percent of the third-quarter donations were in amounts of $100 or less, she also attended nearly 60 fundraisers this quarter. Sanders, meanwhile, held only seven fundraisers in the same period."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sanders-clinton-fundraising_560c8709e4b076812700cb3e
I see that most of the Beltway press is screaming headlines about Bernie today. I guess they're distressed that McCarthy has giving her an opening and they're trying to smack her back down again. 
I will say this: the big story is less that Bernie is taking in so much money than Hillary took in considerably less this last last quarter. 
So are Democrats wetting the bed and not supporting her out of fear over emailgate?
A lot of Bernie Maniacs in the comments were declaring they're going to give more. 
So I just went and donated another $50 donation to Hillary. I had donated a few hundred in the past but this spurred me on. 
I hadn't felt like I could do too much more right now-figuring that she has lots of supporters that will help her. 
I think we Hillary supporters should see this as a wakeup call. 
So I would urge Hillary supporters to reconsider if they think she doesn't need the money. She needs it to shut up the Beltway press for one thing. 
We've heard so much about Bernie getting money out of politics.I guess he hasn't done that yet-turns out he's bringing more in himself. 
I have no problem with that but he can then lose the self righteousness. 
So Hillary supporters we have to fight back against this supposed Bernie financial juggernaut. 

After McCarthy's Revelations Should Hillary Testify Before Benghazi Committee?

Rachel Maddow made the interesting argument that maybe she doesn't have to do so at all anymore after McCarthy spilled the beans like he did.

The answer though is I'm not sure. There are different levels of questions.

1. No question there is no logical basis for the committee whatsoever. There have been eight previous investigations and and an independent one and as Hillary says, we have learnt everything we need and can learn about what happened.

The BC should never have been formed. As it  was, it should have been disbanded a year ago, a month ago, a day ago.

But thanks to the cluelessness of the apparent next Speaker of the GOP House, the Dems now have a much stronger argument to disband it immediately.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/democrats-call-for-immediate-end-of.html

Democrats actually on the Committee have called for its termination many times as Adam Schiff the ranking member did in this NY Times piece on September 4.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/opinion/disband-the-benghazi-committee.html

They now have a much stronger hand to make this case that the media won't be so ready to dismiss as just partisan wrangling.

2. However, assuming it doesn't shutdown ASAP as it should, should Democrats now vacate the Committee?

An interesting question but the answer is not obvious to me.

When it started a record 520 days ago the Democrats had an internal debate as to whether they should have Dems on the Committee. They ultimately decided yes. Schiff was on Chris Hayes last night and said himself that while he had initially opposed Democrats on BC, he had come to change his mind.

I think it might be a good thing they have been on BC. Had they not who would have held the GOP accountable for its excesses?

As the Dems have been on it they have been able to document the fact that the BC has just been absurdly lacking in transparency considering government transparency was the whole ostensible reason for it in the first place.

Indeed, Gowdy has not been willing to release testimony in full but just little choice tidbits leaked to the NY Times and Politico.

The Democrats have demanded that Gowdy make all testimony public-to no avail. Again, this is a Committee whose basis is government transparency.

3. Even if it is good the Dems were on BC could it be time for them to get off of it now that McCarthy has exposed it so blatantly?

Maybe. Maybe not.

The question is Hillary Clinton. Does she still testify on October 22? If so then I'm assuming the Dems will not want to let Gowdy interrogate her alone.

As for Hillary herself can she now blow it off? Possibly, though I'm not sure about that.

But here is what's so interesting. She has been requesting a chance to testify for a long while. It's been Gowdy who has been dragging his feet.

This is rather strange-she wants to testify much more than he wants her to?

For months what stopped the testimony is she wanted her testimony public, he wanted it behind closed doors. Again-this is about government transparency?

If Hillary were in anyway a guilty person would she be demanding to testify publicly?

If Gowdy were confident she in anyway was guilty wouldn't he be demanding that she did?

So he must think that just like when she testified last year, it will make him rather than her look bad. She has the goods.


Kevin McCarhty May Well be the Gift That Keeps on Giving

I like to say that Trey Gowdy is the real campaign manager for Jeb-or Rubio-as McCarthy has now helpfully confirmed for us.

However, more and more it's looking like McCarthy may be the MVP for the Dems. He has given the Dems a real boon to fight back against the Emailgate smear of Hillary. After all it gives them cause to now demand the end of the Benghazi Committee-if the Committee is shut down then obviously  Trey Gowdy won't be able to rifle through her emails anymore.

At the very least it gives her and her supporters a real opening to fight back. I did see that some Beltway hacks still want to argue that this changes nothing on Emailgate but this forgets for starters that EG is the creature of Benghazi. If Benghazi is shutdown then they can't investigate EG.

And even if Benghazi continues but is increasingly discredited, this increasingly discredits each new breathless revelation Gowdy leaks to the press.

Indeed, it's looking like McCarthy may be a real boon for Democrats beyond this one huge gaffe of his.

A day before his gaffe, Dana Milbank documented the presumed next Speaker's penchant for mangled syntax and struggle with the English language that brings to mind George W. Bush or even Dan Quayle.

It's sort of ironic that his new job is Speaker but he doesn't speak very well-even when he's reading a statement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/for-rep-mccarthy-the-likely-new-house-speaker-words-still-fail-him/2015/09/28/67082056-661d-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html

Don't get me wrong while when he talks about foreign policy he seems to develop a lead tongue, he was perfecctlyl intelligible on what he said about Benghazi.

But you have to wonder if this guy may actually be in over his head as Speaker. This is not expected to lose him his job.

The sad truth is that this job is his by default as no one else wants it.

In a larger sense this is the product of the GOP's hostility to governing as such. It opposes leadership-even leaders in its own party.

In the GOP today-you see this in the primary too with how poorly the establishment candidates are doing-there is contempt for electing or elevating anyone who is an actual politician.

The base loves Trtump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina precisely because they have no experience on office.

And McCarthy's resume is similarly very light.

Has passed two bill in his career. Only eight years in office. The GOP as the party allergic to governing loves to have people run government with no experience running the government. This would make him the most inexperienced Speaker since 1891.

But you wonder how far you can take this anti politician bias. Or more to the point how far can you go and this be in your own interest?

McCarthy comes in a kind of blank slate, a totally untested quantity. The first reviews suggest this could be just the start of the trouble.

So as a Democrat I'm as big a fan of him as Speaker as Trump as the GOP frontrunner. I'm guessing Democrats keep an eye on him-this I suspect may be just the first big gaffe or mistake.

Indeed, he has a history already like when he messed up a roll call vote for Boehner.

I tend to think that Sean Trende is right but am rather surprised how fast he's proven right when he said the GOP may regret losing Boehner.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/29/why_the_gop_may_regret_losing_boehner.html

Trende actually argued that with Boehner leaving the House may even be in play for the Democrats in 2016. I figured that was just hyperbole-and I still am not going to be that optimistic.

But it's already clear this guy is not even one tenth the speaker Boehner was-which is not necessarily even saying much in favor of Boehner, just that he was a real Speaker with the background for the job.

The real worry for GOPers is this may just be the start of his gaffes. McCarthy may well not be up to the job. But there is no one to replace him as no one else would want the job.

Here is conservative talk show host firebrand Mark Levine calling McCarthy 'Eric Cantor with 10 less IQ points.'

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/254978-mark-levin-mccarthy-is-eric-cantor-with-10-less-iq-points

I don't know. It may be a lot more than 10.

P.S. At the end of the day I read McCarthy as the logical conclusion or next step at least-it always gets worse when you are talking about the GOPl so you never say they've hit bottom-in the evolution of the modern GOP-which I date as the post New Deal GOP.

Ever since the ND the GOP has been about nothing but opposition to the New Deal. When they have won elections it's always been by attacking Democrats rather than offering their own meaningful vision for the country.

I mean go back to Nixon. He always felt that he had a built in disadvantage in 1960 as he had a record was Vice President in the Eisehnhower Administration to defend.

He had rolled into Washington in 1946 in a Republican wave that accused the Democrats of being soft on Communism if not Communists themselves.

Remember that before that GOP wave the Dems had controlled the entire government for 14 years straight starting with FDR in 1932.

This has been the proclivity of the modern Republican party-they oppose the Democrats' ideas but don't really have their own. That's why governing never interests them too much.

Mao talked about permanent revolution. The GOP is in permanent opposition. 

But to win elections, to build a majority coalition takes actual governing.

Ergo the GOP will never have a majority coalition,