Beltway Press Keeps Carrying Water for Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Theories

I'm currently reading her Hard Choices and as competent, intelligent as yes 'likeable' she comes across in her own words its obvious why the GOP would rather run against her on manufactured scandals-why is it never mentioned in the media the source of all these FOIA cases in court about her emails is Citizens United, Judicial Watch, and other Right wing legal groups?

So they attack her on issue free stuff about emails or whether or not Joe Biden is going to run

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-gop-knows-it-cant-beat-hillary-on.html

The media for its own pathological reasons wants to help the GOP to give us another Bush.

At least today Hillary called out Chuck Todd on his own incessant scandal mongering. Like in her interview with Andrea Mitchell, Todd wanted to talk emails, emails, emails.

A seemingly frustrated Hillary Clinton strove on Sunday to link the latest flap over her personal email server with the string of scandals and attacks Republicans raised against her in the 1990s.

“During the ’90s, I was subjected to the same kind of barrage,” she said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” noting that voters elected her a senator in New York despite the attacks.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-emails-conspiracy-theory-214114#ixzz3mwq320o1
Of course, Hillary hating Politico has to describe her as 'frustrated' but I'm actually glad she called Chuck Todd on this.

And emailgate is right out of the Whitewater playbook which is obvious.

After a series of questions about her emails from NBC host Chuck Todd, including a new charge that a recently released email exchange with former CIA Director retired Gen. David Petraeus occurred earlier than she acknowledged using her personal account, an exasperated-sounding Clinton asked Todd whether his next question would be about “another conspiracy theory.”

She rejected the notion that her decision to use a personal email server as secretary of state was meant to evade public records searches, noting that congressional investigators unearthed many of her emails before she released them because they were obtainable through public systems. She acknowledged, however, the “drip, drip, drip” of accusations leveled at her, but couldn’t guarantee when they would stop.

“There’s only so much I can control,” she said, characterizing her responses as entailing “more transparency and more information than anybody I’m aware of that’s ever served in the government.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-emails-conspiracy-theory-214114#ixzz3mwql6E1v

You certainly have to say she's been transparent and you could argue to a fault.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/ok-heres-what-hillary-should-have-said.html

She's been a heck of a lot more transparent than Jeb who actually broke Florida law in not releasing his private emails while Governor of Florida for 7 years-until he decided to run-and she has been a lot more transparent than the other Secretary of States who also were asked to hand in their relevant private emails-Colin Powell. Condeleeza Rice, and Madeline Albright.

But I'm all for her calling out that stuffed phony Todd right to this smug, Beltway face.

Bill Clinton was on Fareed Zakaria today and also talked about the phony email controversy-the Citizen's United controversy.

"In an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria to be aired Sunday, Clinton said of the former first lady and Secretary of State, “The other party doesn’t want to run against her. And if they do, they’d like her as mangled up as possible.”

"He likened the controversy over Hillary’s Clinton’s State Department emails to the Whitewater scandal that dogged his own campaign in 1992, in an anecdote about how George H.W. Bush officials contacted him saying, “The press has to have someone every election. We’re going to give them you. You better not run.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/bill-clinton-hillary-republicans-campaign-woes-214109#ixzz3mwsdyGg6

Bill Clinton also extended fault to other groups, but was hesitant to give specifics. “There are lots of people who wanted there to be a race for different reasons,” he said.

He did, however, attribute some blame to the press, stating that before the race, Hillary Clinton “was the most admired person in public life. Why? Because she was being covered by people who reported on what she was doing.”

“What happened?” he added. “The presidential campaign happened. And the nature of the coverage shifted from issue-based to political.”

"He emphasized his wife’s successes and focus on policy issues, saying, “She’s already put out more positions on more issues and said how she would pay for it than, I think, than all the other [Republicans] combined.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/bill-clinton-hillary-republicans-campaign-woes-214109#ixzz3mwsxZJ8F
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Despite his very clear flaws as a human being and husband as a philanderer, he was not just a great President but  is a very good and caring husband as well.

Erica Jong during Lewinskygate pointed out that Clinton was still a much better man than his Republican accusers-who thanks to Larry Flynt we learned that not one of them was anything near being 'free of sin' themselves.

And ironically the Right wing claim that they don't really love each other they are just both together for convenience gets it totally wrong.

What makes the Clintons' marriage actually in a sense very romantic and moving is that unlike so many marriages that begins and then ends with sexual infatuation  their shared ideals actually has given them a much deeper bond.

I maintain that the Clintons are a great American love story. That 2012 Convention night when he spoke for President Obama was a real moment of what Camille Paglia calls the 'family romance'-even though for whatever reason Paglia insists on being an inveterate Clinton basher.

But that's Paglia for you: she is usually wrong on the particulars but right in the bigger picture.

https://books.google.com/books?id=rgzm-8C3nF0C&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=camille+paglia+family+romance&source=bl&ots=J0Qc4HG4O-&sig=Aj7a22SnMPz0y1uq-p7yz-rvwXQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBGoVChMI3d3jiLeXyAIVwo8-Ch16YQl9

To be sure family romance goes back to Freud but she makes good use of it.

Why is the Tea Party Celebrating Boehner's Demise?

I mean, ok, he's gone but what's next? Don't you get the idea that their scapegoating him as the reason Obamacare hasn't been repealed is based on a fallacy?

Paul Waldman:

"Caitlin MacNeil rounds up some of the conservatives celebrating Boehner’s resignation. Frankly, I don’t really get this. What do they think, that now that he’s out of the way the next speaker is going to some tea partier who’ll reallystand up to Obama? Give me a break."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/25/happy-hour-roundup-699/#'

That's just it: what changes? In a way the GOPers seem to have a corollary of the Green Lantern Theory of Presidential Power-where the President is held responsible for anything that goes wrong anywhere in the world-It's raining today. It's President Obama's fault as he's the President.

The GOP seems to think that if Boehner had 'really stood up toe Obama' then ACA and Planned Parenthood would be gone with no Iran deal.

They miss that they can't do these things without the Presidency.

So who's next-a tough Tea Partier who will compel Obama to do what they want through a mind meld?

"Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) -- the presumed frontrunner for his successor -- has a warmer relationship with Tea Party lawmakers, having embraced their pet causes like shutting down the Export-Import Bank. But the dynamics driving their frustration will remain the same after Boehner’s departure. No matter how badly conservatives want to repeal Obamacare,defund Planned Parenthood or block the Iran deal, the reality of a Democratic filibuster in the Senate and presidential veto in the White House will only get them so far."

"We are going to have Obama as President, we are going to have Pelosi and Reid as minority leaders, and we have McConnell who continues to fail to lift the filibuster, so we’re not going to get our agenda done as it comes out of the House," Rep. Bill Flores (R TX) told reporters Friday. "And you're going to have a new Speaker, who is going to have to wonder if he or she is the next person to lose their head."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/boehner-replacement-gop-turmoil

That's another agenda item that might pickup steam-doing the nuclear option in the Senate. Of course that still won't change anything though it would force the President to use his veto pen more often.

Of course, the Dems have a decent chance to pick up the Senate in 2017 and their majority would be much higher functioning and could really take advantage of the end of the filibuster for getting things to Hillary Clinton's desk.

In considering Boehner personally, it's true as has been widely reported: never has a guy seemed happier to lose his job. He was literally singing what a beautiful day.

He looked extremely happy. It's true that on a purely personal level he can be a tough guy to hate-and you do get that while he/s wrong on many issues if it were left to him he would prefer to see some actual dealmaking rather than endless show votes. 

His party is rotten but personally he can be a very nice guy.

It's also clear that he was inspired by Pope Francis' speech in front of the House. If he truly wants to go out the right way then he should do what Beutler says here:

"Brian Beutler argues that John Boehner’s departure won’t do much to rescue the GOP from the very forces that did him in, though there is one thing Boehner could do for the good of his party and the country:

"Boehner probably can’t end the vicious cycle that hobbled his speakership. But he could plausibly clear the deck for his successor for long enough that the big issues Republicans want to fight over can play out in the election, rather than in the throes of governance. He could place legislation on the floor that funds the government for a year, extends the debt limit through 2016, and replenishes the highway trust fund, and allow Democrats to supply most of the votes required to restore calm. If Boehner were determined to make the next speakership less volatile than his own, and to end his own speakership on a note of responsible stewardship, he almost certainly could. What remains to be seen is whether he has one last fight left in him.:

"That might require one final act of leadership, however."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/25/happy-hour-roundup-699/#

It'd likely be criticized relentlessly by the Tea Party-but this is the reason he's leaving; everything he does garnishes relentless criticism. But he'd actually be helping his party take this off the table for the election cycle.

Overall, nothing much is going to change. Except the bounce in the step of one man returns.

The Fallacious Logic of a Bernie Supporter

I had this exchange with  Bernie supporter, James Roselle on Facebook.

"Jeb is so far out there, he has no real chance.... he is just a laughable idiot... Hillary on the other hand IS power hungry, she gets paid by our worst enemy, Wall Street and she has half of my own party fooled into thinking she cares about the middle class... she is the one who actually has a chance of winning...."

https://www.facebook.com/groups/support.Democrats/1004450919607808/?comment_id=1004732512912982&notif_t=group_comment_reply

What I think is scary is that he is this overconfident that the Democrats will win with any nominee. I agree Jeb is a laughable idiot but then so was his brother...

What he fails to get is not everyone in the country thinks like Bernie fans. A lot of people don't keep up with the issues so well.

The GOP is going to try to destroy Hillary through personal attacks much like James; own where he claims she's power mad-you can't tell me her being a woman is what scares him so much about her.

If you have read me for a while you know how much I love President Obama but in 2008 I was for Hillary-it wasn't hard for me to make the switch as they were both so clearly qualified to be President.

But one thing that bothered me is that Obama fans on the Internet-and even a few I know personally, attacked her on blatantly sexist lines-lines that you could never get away with on a racial basis.

I mean racist attacks on the President have always been disguised but the sexist attacks on her have been blatant. Hecklers would great her with Clean my shirt, Hillary! and a few Obama supporters blatantly said to me that women may not have the emotional makeup to be President.

Yet they went wild over any similar suggestion about African Americans. There was a clear double standard.

And James now is continuing in that line.

UPDATE: Just in case you think I am misconstruing James, here is his new comment:

"It didn't have to be sold to me.. it was those damn bumper stickers in the 90's... "I didn't vote for her, I voted for him...." she was making decisions as First Lady... and every step since was a power play to position her to run for President... it is obvious and you are blind if you don't see it...."

So much of the anti Hillary sentiment is based in pure sexism.

So two takeaways.

1. This Bernie fan turns out to be a misogynist. How many of them is this true of?

2. The idea that the Democrats will win no matter who they put up is dangerously overconfident. The political scientists tell us that we are just a small slowdown in the economy to Jeb-or Rubio-being the favorite in the election.

As the GOP already has Congress and most statehouses we are not so far away from true one party Republican government.

Bernie fans are wrong in thinking that this is just about a beauty pageant for the most progressive person in the world. We need to win in 2017 desperately and the quicker we can galvanize behind Hillary the better.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/paul-waldman-needs-to-explain-why-six.html

Paul Waldman Needs to Explain Why Six Debates Isn't Enough

He said a few things in last night's column that got me going. He did say lot of things I liked and agreed with too. But this drives me nuts.

"And here’s the video of Donald Trump getting booed at the Values Voter Summit for calling Marco Rubio a “clown.” It’s good to see Republican voters are calling for a loftier debate as they continue to give more support to Donald Trump than to any other candidate."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/25/happy-hour-roundup-699/#
This is the Republican party-when have they last had a lofty debate? I left this comment for him:

"I have no idea why you keep expecting a lofty debate in the Republican party. By definition the party doesn't have lofty debates. You have bought into the Beltway narrative that this is just because of Trump."

"Waldman then brings up the issue of having more Democratic debates. I don't get as brilliant and true a progressive as the Bernie Maniacs say he is why one debate won't be enough for him to go on to a landslide in the primary. Yet we're to believe that six debates still isn't enough. Have I missed something?"

"The push for more Democratic debates (which this blog has urged) is spreading: Here’s Ryan Cooper picking up the mantle, arguing that more debates would be good for the Democratic Party and for Hillary Clinton."

There are all kinds of fallacies at work here. One is that debates are nearly so important to knowing what a candidate would do as President.
But to argue that this is for the party and Hillary is nonsense. It's good for Bernie as challengers always want as many debates as possible, it's not good for the party which should just take advantage of the luxury of settling on their nominee early for once.

I don't think more debates would hurt Hillary but I don't see the need for them and don't think the DNC should knuckle under. Bernie fans are so in love why does it take more than six to figure out his superiority?

I left Waldman this comment regarding the debate obsession:

"As for your demand for more Democratic debates you have bought into the Bernie Maniac talking points. It's par for the course that the challenger wants more debates and the incumbent or favorite wants less."

"Why you buy that what's good for Bernie is good for Hillary much less the Democratic party is beyond me."

"As for the worry that this is a coronation there are advantages to this as well. Why not for once let the GOP knock itself silly with its Trumpist clown car? "

"If having the party settled early on a candidate is a threat to our very democracy, please explain why this is not a problem when the President runs for a second term?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/25/happy-hour-roundup-699/#

Kim Davis Becomes a Republican

You have sometimes heard Mike Huckabee and others refer to her as a 'Kentucky Democart'-as fact had some sort of significance.

Now she tells us she is a Democrat no more-the party left her years ago she declares.

"Rowan County, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis said she and her family have left the Democratic Party because "the Democratic Party left us a long time ago," according to a Friday report from Reuters."

"My husband and I had talked about it for quite a while and we came to the conclusion that the Democratic Party left us a long time ago, so why were we hanging on?" Davis told Reuters while she was in Washington, D.C. to speak at the Values Voter Summit.

"Davis was jailed for five days when she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in her county and didn't comply with a federal judge's order to do so."

"Evangelical and hardline Republican presidential candidates Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee rallied around Davis."

"In her latest filing, Davis and her legal team blamed Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat, when he sent a letter to all Kentucky clerks instructing them to issue marriage licenses regardless of gender after the Supreme Court effectively legalized gay marriage."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kim-davis-becoming-republican

Normally the Democrats don't want to lose anyone but you'd guess this might be an exception.

In a way though she shows the normal trajectory of how the South has slowly over 50 years gone Repulican

What's notable about Ms. Davis is it took her this long. It's sort of surprising she only realized that the Democrats aren't opposed to gay marritage like she has now.

But this is how most Democrats became Republican during the Southern Strategy: not on issues so much as prejudices.

It's not that Ms. Davis woke up and decided ending Social Security or Jeb's tax cuts for the rich are the ticket.

No, she just doesn't like some of the recent social changes and the GOP is the party that resists such changes.

In other words for Trumpist reasons not because of anything said by the Club for Growth-that has been attacking Trump for not being a real conservative.

Dysfunctional GOP Eats its Leader John Boehner

Remember when he said he needs this job like a whole in the head? Now he doesn't have this job anymore.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/01/07/boehner-speaker-critics-defectors/1813747/

Hearing the news that Boehner is stepping down the Tea Party roared its approval. So the inmates have now taken over the asylum.

"Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) got a standing ovation when he broke the news House Speaker John Boehner's resignation to the packed ballroom at the 2015 Values Voter Summit in Washington.

"Just a few moments ago, Speaker Boehner announced he is resigning," Rubio started, and before he could finish the sentence, the ballroom erupted.

"I'm not here to today bash anyone, but the time has come to turn the page and allow new leadership in this country," Rubio said. "This extends to the White House and the Presidency as well."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/marco-rubio-john-boehner-values-voter-summit-comments

For some reason according to CNBC, Boehner's announced resignation also caused short term bond yields to rise.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/25/short-term-yields-spike-on-boehner-resignation.html

It seems the market might be reading this as an increased risk the government shuts down.

Yet the in political news reporting seems to read this as more likely we won't have a government shutdown.

Which makes sense: now that he's quitting at the end of October they can't threaten to fire him. It's as if funding the government will be his last act.

"The Ohio representative struggled from almost the moment he took the speaker’s gavel in 2011 to manage the challenges of divided government and to hold together his fractious and increasingly conservative Republican members."

"Most recently, Mr. Boehner, 65, was trying to craft a solution to keep the government open through the rest of the year, but was under pressure from a growing base of conservatives who told him that they would not vote for a bill that did not defund Planned Parenthood."

"Mr. Boehner’s stunning announcement lessens the chance of a government shutdown next week as Republican leaders in Congress will push for a short-term funding measure to keep the government operating and the speaker will no longer be deterred by those who threatened his job."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/us/john-boehner-to-resign-from-congress.html?_r=0

Boehner did say he was inspired by Pope Francis yesterday so maybe this led him to do the right thing-fund the government even if it means his job. There were plenty of times I've almost felt sorry for him. While he's wrong on most things he clearly was too reality based for his Tea Party House. 

It turns out that he had wanted out of this job for years but Eric Cantor's unexpected loss made him hold on after 2014.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/john-boehner-profile-113874

Boehner's most likelyl replacement: Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California.

"Boehner's decision, relayed in a closed Republican meeting Friday morning, will indeed set off one of the most intense leadership scrambles in modern Congressional GOP politics. Second in line is McCarthy, who is widely expected to serve as the next speaker. But there is serious unrest in the House Republican ranks, as a small clutch of conservatives have continuously clashed with establishment Republicans. It takes 218 votes on the House floor to win the speakership, and many GOP insiders believe that McCarthy is the only person who could cobble together a coalition to win."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/speaker-john-boehner-retiring-from-congress-at-the-end-of-october-214056#ixzz3mlgUQczI
Hmmm. So who would take over as Majority Leader? Next in line would be Steve Scalise-yes that friend of David Duke.

Ultimately I think this is about the absolute dysfunction of today's GOP. Forget a bipartisan deal with the Democrats: the fissures are too deep within the party itself.

The Tea Party can't agree with the Establishment, the Senate can't agree with the House.

"At her weekly news conference, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the resignation "seismic" and "a stark indication of the disarray of the House Republicans.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/speaker-john-boehner-retiring-from-congress-at-the-end-of-october-214056#ixzz3mlhRwVrx
Update: It seems to me that maybe the short term bond market is confused: they may think Boehner is stepping down immediately rather than at the end of Octboer.

Politico's Very Selective Concern for the Truth

They have a piece today with five reasons why you have to fact-check everything Trump says.

Trump’s stock-in-trade is telling it like it is, but his propensity for telling it like it isn’t has engendered deep distrust -- 29 percent of GOP primary voters say they would never vote for him.

“There’s really no candidate who has ever been on the same level with Trump in terms of making questionable assertions, except for [2012 GOP candidate and former Minnesota Rep.] Michele Bachmann,” says Louis Jacobson, deputy editor of PolitFact, the Pulitzer-winning fact-checking site.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/donald-trump-fact-check-off-message-214051#superComments

Really? Evidently Politico has wasted no time fact checking Carly Fiorina then. And that's just it. The media has decided that Trump has mocked them long enough. They want to show him that their rules of gravity apply to him too. 

The media has no problem with candidates who lie as long as it's with their tacit approval. The let George W. Bush lie his way all the way to the Presidency in 2000 while they held Gore 'accountable' for saying he invented the Internet-even though he didn't say he invented it, just sponsored it; and for the sin of visiting a Buddhist temple. 

I also thinks there are more important errors of fact and less important. Most of the facts Politico allegedly busts Trump on are not important anyway. They say he lies about how successful the Art of the Deal was-it was successful but not the most of all time. 

Sure, but who really takes talk like that seriously? It's kind of the charm of his hyperbole. It's like advertising. I doubt his fans take this literally. Politico also wags its fingers about his false claim of being Swedish. 

But really who cares whether he is or not Swedish. Again, I've never taken Trump as someone you take literally in a lot of this. But it really isn't material to America's future whether he's Swedish or not. 

It says he exaggerates about $10 billion dollars which I can believe but again this is his showmanship, his hyperbole. And it doesn't really matter anyway. You can argue why it matters so much to him but: that's what makes him The Donald. He is vain. 

Finally Politico goes on to declare he did push for gambling in Florida. But isn't this just a pointless game of gotcha? What matters more to me is that unlike Jeb he doesn't believe in radical tax cuts for the rich or using a government shutdown for shutting down Planned Parenthood 

All these jibes at Trump have the characteristic of not actually making any difference to the lives of average Americans either way. 

Yet, when it's not about Trump who is threatening the GOP powers that be, Politico's obsessive fidelity to the truth is much less much less apparent. They lie on a daily basis with their headlines and their posts about Hillary Clinton. 

Usually these are lies of omission where they leave out important facts that would cut off their attack on her at the knees. 

They have a new headline today that reads Poll: Sanders surges past Clinton in New Hampshire

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/sanders-surge-new-hampshire-214043#ixzz3mlQUwsop

This is a misleading headline-and therefore not truthful-as it says he 'surges' whereas this surge is over a month old. Yet it tries to convey the impression that he's making further inroads against her when he has led in NH for a while.

The truth is not simply about every factual claim being true but also that you frame it in an honest way. Like the preference of the polls to all show Biden-who isn't running-deliberately makes it look like her support is lower than it is.

Politico also has another piece blaring about "Hillary approved special status for aide Huma Abedin."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/clinton-abedin-state-job-approved-214038#ixzz3mlRV7eZU

But when you read this you see that this whole storyline is being pushed by Judicial Watch and the GOP Senate is trying to run a partisan witch hunt about Abedin-no doubt her Muslim faith is part of why they are so fixated with her. 

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/politicos-ugly-anti-muslim-attack-on.html

Politico doesn't mind lies by those it deems politically correct. It wants to use a fact checker for Trump but what about anything that comes from Tredy Gowdy's office, considering that he investigation into Hillary's emails couldn't be more partisan or rife through with conflicts of interest. 

Yet with every new angle he or the GOP Senate Judiciary Committee proposes Politico couldn't be more credulous. 

After 24 years of lies about the Clintons you'd think that Politico, the NY Times and the rest of the Beltway press might demand a fact checker for the scandal mongerers. But this never happens. 

And these lies are much more destructive than Trump exaggerating how successful his admittedly successful book was or how many billions he really has or claiming to be Swedish even though he's not.