At #BenghaziCommittee #Hillary2016 Survives, Even As @RealDonaldTrump Thrives, @JeBBush Dies, Part II

Last week Hillary Clinton and Hillary2016 had the best week by far. Not so for Jeb Bush who had the worst week ever. Sad Jeb Bush: I’ve got a lot of other cool things I could be doing instead of negative presidential campaigning. He shoulda listened to his mother who told him not to run. Mama Bush once publicly declared “We’ve had enough Bushes.” She warned that if Jeb! ran “He’ll get all our enemies, half of our friends.” She should have added “That ain’t the way to have fun, son.”

“Craziest party” indeed. Poor Jeb! He thought he had the crown fixed up for him by the GOP establishment. But now, he might as well be called Jeb Bash, for all the beatings he’s fallen to. But are the whines a profitable luxury for him to indulge in at this point in his miserable, failing, campaign?

JeBush is so entitled that he entirely misses the point. Republican primary voters don’t want more “things done”. What the people voting in the primary JeBush is running in want is for the “things done” already to largely be undone. But JeBush does not get this rather obvious observation. Republican voters are yelling “Stop. Enough.” JeBush say ‘Faster Faster More More’.

And, and it’s an important “and” JeBush says what he says without energy or urgency. Trump sees the low energy JeBush and retweets this devastating Vine:

Donald J. Trump and his on target acid comments is not the most devastating problem for JeBush. Who or what is the biggest problem for JeBush right now? The biggest problem for JeBush is the very SuperPac JeBush created.

Remember, after JeBush announced last December he had six months of active cooperation with his Right To Rise SuperPac and he raised over $100 million for the organization. Run by Mike Murphy who knows how to promote himself but not how to win for national candidates, the JeBush SuperPac produced this ad to supercharge the JeBush campaign:

This ad attempts to image build JeBush into a big thinking energetic leader with big ideas and resolve to carry them out. What it does is the opposite of what was intended.

Instead of JeBush as a leader with resolve we see a bored audience and a permanently hunched over JeBush eerily doing a hoot owl impression. “Who? Who? Who?” will do such and such asks JeBush. The only thing missing is a little mouse running across the floor and JeBush swooping down from his perch with his hunched over shoulders and his owlish eyebrows to devour the little thing.

Trite “inspirational” images are interspersed in the ad because a little flag waving iconic images are supposed to do what JeBush cannot inspire in the viewer. The image we are left to savor from this ad, the after-memory, is JeBush’s skinny ass. The ad does not end with the inspirational Statue of Liberty nor JeBush’s face filling the screen as the “Jeb!” graphic brands the ad. Instead the ad ends with JeBush giving us his back and that skinny little ass. More than a million SuperPac dollars will pay to air that ad. With friends like “Right to Rise” who, who, who, needs enemies?

This is not the first ad from Right to Rise that hurts JeBush more than helps. It’s little wonder that the more these ads run, the more JeBush’s poll position plummets.

And plummet they have. Followed by the death watch:

Less than four months before primary voting begins, Bush has sunk into
second-tier status in the GOP nominating bout. He’s stuck in a single-digit polling slump, idling between fourth and fifth place in the
15-candidate field, even after his allies have blitzed the television airwaves with more than $5 million in advertising. His much heralded fundraising prowess has also been neutralized, as he’s raised essentially as much money as Sen. Ted Cruz this last quarter and saved less than the
rogue upstart Ben Carson. [snip]

Adds an unaligned lobbyist familiar with Bush’s gubernatorial runs: “Jeb learns but it takes him time. He internalized the lessons from losing to [Lawton] Chiles and was a much better candidate his second time out. He’s patient and disciplined and smart but could not ad-lib a fart. He will think of how to win this race sometime in 2017 and be ready to rumble in 2020.”

Bush’s last card to play – electability – seems to have withered away, too. Tested against Clinton in a battery of hypothetical general election matchups in the state of Pennsylvania earlier this month, Trump, Carson and Rubio beat her. Bush lost.

Then, at the start of this week, a gut-punching set of numbers landed in the inboxes of Bush’s team: The highly respected NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that more GOP primary voters say they can’t see themselves supporting Bush (44 percent) than Trump (36 percent) – a staggering reversal from June.

Even among Bush’s admirers, there’s a gathering sense he can’t win this race anymore – that in order for him to become the nominee, his rivals have to lose it. [snip]

The inevitability of Bush as the nominee has been supplanted by the inevitability held by Bush’s team that Trump and Carson will slowly burn out, simply due to the normal laws of politics.

But as Stipanovich says, “There is a gathering body of evidence that that time may not come. We keep waiting. If the party goes crazy or continues to be crazy, it will not nominate Jeb.”

That ain’t the way to have fun, son.

Rabid anti-Trump writers want JeBush to drop out:

Trump Shouldn’t Drop Out. Jeb Should.

Establishment Republicans want Donald Trump to drop out of the race; they want Jeb Bush to stay in it to win it. Precisely the opposite needs to happen as soon as humanly possible.

Jeb Bush’s badly flailing campaign has now foundered on the rocks of the Donald Trump candidacy – and Jeb is feeling the pain. [snip]

Trump, meanwhile, has led the Republican field for nearly four months. As Rush Limbaugh said this morning, if Bush had Trump’s numbers, the establishment would already have declared the race over.

Trump’s comments about Bush are an acid test for the establishment Republicans who want another Bush presidency: if Jeb can’t stop the Trump juggernaut, how will he stop Hillary’s far more powerful juggernaut? If he can’t rebut Trump on Iraq and the war on terror, how can he hope to do so against Clinton, backed by the full power of the mainstream media? The same holds true for the entire Republican field: if they can’t defeat Trump’s economic populist nonsense in a Republican primary, how can they hope to defeat the same proposals from the left? Trump should not be the Republican candidate because he’s simply not conservative – but he’s providing a stiff test for anyone who would grab the brass ring. [snip]

Jeb and the rest of the establishment cling to the slim hope that Trump will somehow implode. He won’t. Neither will Carson. If they want to stop the Trump machine, they’ll need to drop the latest Bush in favor of somebody new.

New pawns to “stop Trump” are not the answer. The right question: Bush and the establishment can’t stop Trump but they think they can take on the general election? That’s why the “death watch”:

Last week I posted on the the devastating Florida poll that showed Jeb Bush as fourth place and in single digits in his home state. I also posted on how his fundraising profile is dangerously skewed towards large donors who have already maxed out their campaign contribution. This all followed a decision by the Bush campaign to cut staff, cut staff salaries, and generally pare back expenses. The next sign of flopsweat setting in was the come-to-Jesus conclave held in Houston this weekend featuring two former presidents and all the big Bush bundlers. The outcome of that meeting seems to point even more strongly to Jeb Bush withdrawing from the race.

And always Trump, stomping on JeBush and being impolite with truth bombs:

Trump hits Bush over fundraising woes, “mommy and daddy” help

JeBush is not having fun. Majorities of “insiders” see Trump winning the nomination. Trump is trumping. As we wrote Trump is walking away with the Clinton Coalition. Ron Brownstein at National Journal explains:

Both na­tion­al and state polls show Trump open­ing a sub­stan­tial lead among Re­pub­lic­an voters without a col­lege edu­ca­tion al­most every­where. And in al­most all cases, Trump is win­ning more sup­port from non­col­lege Re­pub­lic­ans than any can­did­ate is at­tract­ing from Re­pub­lic­an voters with at least a four-year edu­ca­tion. “It’s a chal­lenge to Re­pub­lic­ans that nobody has con­sol­id­ated the col­lege-gradu­ate vote against Trump,” says Glen Bol­ger, a long­time GOP poll­ster skep­tic­al of the front-run­ner.

In oth­er words, Trump is ce­ment­ing a strong blue-col­lar base, while the white-col­lar voters re­l­at­ively more res­ist­ant to him have yet to uni­fy around any single al­tern­at­ive. That dis­par­ity is crit­ic­al be­cause in both the 2008 and 2012 GOP nom­in­a­tion fights, voters with and without a four-year col­lege de­gree each cast al­most ex­actly half of the total primary votes, ac­cord­ing to cu­mu­lat­ive ana­lyses of exit poll res­ults by ABC poll­ster Gary Langer. With the two wings evenly matched in size, Trump’s great­er suc­cess at con­sol­id­at­ing his “brack­et” ex­plains much of his ad­vant­age in the polls.

White working class support is one way to explain Trump’s rise. As we’ve also written, Trump does destroy the Republican Party as the GOP establishment understands it because once Obama grabbed the Democratic Party many of those voters fled and the increase of new voters has changed the GOP. Changes have consequences. Trump is the New Republican Party:

There’s a bet­ter way to di­vide the GOP can­did­ates in­to two groups: Don­ald Trump and every­one else. Trump’s sup­port is pre­dom­in­antly from voters who aren’t Re­pub­lic­an rank-and-file voters. His sup­port­ers have an ideo­lo­gic­ally dis­tinct pro­file, ac­cord­ing to Pew’s ana­lys­is: more mod­er­ate, more sec­u­lar, more blue-col­lar. They’re also less re­li­able caucus and primary voters. These voters are not new to the Re­pub­lic­an Party. They used to be called Re­agan Demo­crats; they voted for Pat Buchanan in the 1992 and 1996 Re­pub­lic­an primar­ies, and they com­prised much of Mitt Rom­ney’s op­pos­i­tion in the 2012 nom­in­a­tion battle. They’re grow­ing as a share of the GOP elect­or­ate: Bob Dole and George W. Bush won about 60 per­cent of the over­all GOP primary vote; Rom­ney only won 52 per­cent in 2012.

There’s good reas­on why Trump has run on a non­tra­di­tion­al Re­pub­lic­an plat­form, one that’s skep­tic­al of mil­it­ary in­ter­ven­tion, hos­tile to il­leg­al im­mig­ra­tion, and op­posed to free trade deals. Last week, he even at­tacked former Pres­id­ent George W. Bush for not an­ti­cip­at­ing the 9/11 at­tacks. Trump has been ad­voc­at­ing hik­ing taxes on wealthy cor­por­a­tions and in­di­vidu­als. His past sup­port of abor­tion rights, and ad­mis­sion that he hasn’t sought for­give­ness from God, don’t en­dear him to evan­gel­ic­als. But these po­s­i­tions match the ideo­lo­gic­al pro­file of his sup­port­ers. Trump is no dummy; he’s run­ning a cam­paign geared to­wards voters that many Re­pub­lic­an can­did­ates, with their em­phases on tax cuts, free trade, and im­mig­ra­tion re­form, have per­en­ni­ally ig­nored.

New polls from Iowa have Trump in second place to Ben Carson. That might be attributable to the influence of evangelicals in Iowa, or the result of millions of dollars in attack ads against Trump. Or it could simply be the result that Ben Carson’s campaign is entirely an Iowa concoction. We’ll see how Carson does on Wednesday’s debate to heightened scrutiny. Trump wins everywhere (other than for now in Iowa) and Trump campaigns to large rallies in many states. Unless the Iowa results are replicated in national polls and polls in other states Trump is and will remain tops. After Wednesday we might see the exit of turkeys such as Rand Paul, Chris Christie, George Pataki, Bobby Jindal, and maybe even JeBush.

That’s why sandwiched between attacks on his hair, a Vanity Fair article suggests Trump might be top of tops all the way to the top:

Here’s Why Donald Trump Really Could Be Elected President

Forget what the party elites and pundits have been saying—Trump has a pretty clear path to not just the Republican nomination, but also the White House. [snip]

To be clear, at the moment Trump is the absolute and clear front-runner for the Republican nomination. Trump has been the front-runner longer and by a more significant margin than any of the many flameouts he is often compared to from past campaigns. Comments made by Trump, which would have tanked any other politician’s campaign, seem to bounce off him, and even make him more compelling to certain voters.

Assuming Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, some inside the Beltway believe there is a possibility that she might win states like Indiana, North Carolina, Missouri, and Montana, which Obama won or only narrowly lost in 2008. But with Trump in the race, all of those states—which are more red than they were in ’08—are likely out for Democrats. Swing states like Colorado and Virginia are clear toss-ups. There are few states that Romney or McCain won where Trump, as the Republican nominee, wouldn’t be in the running, and an analysis of other key states shows that Trump’s in far better position than his detractors would like to admit. If Trump were to win every state that Romney won, Trump would stand today at 206 electoral votes, with 55 electoral votes up for grabs in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire. Similarly, Trump does not necessarily lose in a single toss-up state versus Hillary Clinton and, in fact, is seemingly competitive in many.

Virginia is trending blue, but could be a toss-up, particularly given the tale of Dave Brat, whose success in 2014 could be read as a harbinger of Trump. Colorado will have high Republican turnout, given that it is home to what’s likely to be one of the country’s most contested Senate races—which could make it more competitive than it should be, considering Trump’s comments about Latinos. Depending on how well Trump shows in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, they too could be in play. In two of the remaining states, Wisconsin and Nevada, any Democratic nominee will have an upper hand—particularly Clinton. But Trump will be able to effectively contest, particularly in a place like Wisconsin, with working-class white voters who elected Scott Walker three times in four years. Finally, Pennsylvania, which has been leaning ever-more blue and will likely go blue this year, will nonetheless require Clinton to spend some resources and time there—taking away from her efforts in other swing states.

Which all means that the election comes down to Florida and Ohio, two states where Trump has significant advantages. In Florida (29 electoral votes), he is a part-time resident and is polling better than the state’s former governor and sitting U.S. senator. He’s also currently neck and neck with Clinton in polls of the state’s likely voters. The state’s important Hispanic population is more skewed toward people of Cuban rather than Mexican ancestry—some of whom may not be as turned off by Trump’s anti-Mexican immigration comments as Hispanics in other states. The Florida voting population includes a high percentage of evangelicals (a group with whom Trump seems to have had baffling success). [snip]

In Ohio (18 electoral votes), it’s a similar story. Unions, which have long helped Democrats succeed in Ohio, are growing weaker nationwide. Trump has obvious appeal to Reagan Democrats with his “make America great again” message. As in Florida, polls indicate that he’s almost tied with Clinton in Ohio. Trump’s additional appeal here is his brand of aspirational wealth. While there is debate over his actual net worth, for millions of everyday Americans across the country, Donald Trump is synonymous with wealth and success. As was brilliantly shown in a focus group of New Hampshire voters, Trump’s resonance with today’s version of the American Dream is hugely aspirational for people who are unemployed and financially hurting. And it stands in contrast to other candidates releasing economic white papers.

The article cites the potential of Trump to advance due to his financial resources ready to be deployed at any moment. When Mitt Romney won the Republican nomination in 2012 he was essentially penniless for months and sustained damaging attacks. That won’t happen to Trump. But it is the second “secret weapon” that unites all the theories of Trump’s success:

The second secret weapon Trump has at his disposal is an underrated potential to turn out massive numbers of new voters. Trump truly is “yuuge.” He has an audience that follows him from network to network, and he’s seemingly gotten more people to tune into debates than ever. Almost every time he appears on a TV show, the program experiences a massive ratings jump. He gave Jimmy Fallon one of his highest-rated episodes since his debut. While very few real celebrities (sorry, Clay Aiken) have run for office, those who have possess a compelling track record: Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse Ventura, Al Franken, Sonny Bono. Trump would, in fact, be one of the best-known celebrities ever to run for public office (as of July, Trump’s name ID was 92 percent, roughly the same as Clinton’s).

Across the country, and in Florida and Ohio in particular, Trump is well positioned to turn out new voters. He’s been adept at using social media to engage new supporters. But while social media can turn people on, it alone cannot turn people out. To actually bring potential Trump voters to the polls will require a sophisticated digital and data operation and a massive registration campaign. Candidates like Clinton and Bush are building those efforts now—and have been for months. At least as of his most recent F.E.C. report, Trump has not started building this team, and the talent who would be needed to work on such a project may no longer be available.

But as Trump would remind us, he knows the best people, he has so much money, and he has the best negotiating tactics in the world. While I’m not predicting Donald Trump will win the presidency, it’s time for us all to realize that President Trump is not only not implausible—it’s very possible.

“President Trump”, contrary to Big Media derision is possible. But you knew that. “President JeBush” is at best, not likely. “President Hillary?”

Hillary Clinton and Hillary2016 had a great week last week. But to have that great week and the great Big Media plaudits today, the general election was put in great peril. The peril grows as last week recedes:

Clinton: ‘I will go as far as I can, even beyond Obama’ to welcome illegal immigrants

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, pledging to go “beyond President Obama” in embracing illegal immigrants, said that she will use executive powers as president to go around Congress to end deportations.

At Saturday’s Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner, she also called illegals “law abiding.”

During a period of her 25 minute address when she was listing her political promises, she turned to immigration to say that she would go farther than Obama to protect the 12 million illegal immigrants in America, especially families.

I am going to back and support what President Obama has done to protect Dreamers and their families, to use executive action to prevent deportation,” Clinton said to cheers in the audience of about 6,000.

“If we can not get comprehensive immigration reform as we need, and as we should, with a real path to citizenship that will actually grow our economy then I will go as far as I can, even beyond President Obama, to make sure law abiding, decent, hard working people in this country are not ripped away from their families,” she added.

An Obama third term or rather a worse Obama third term is not the CHANGE the country wants. We thought we were all in agreement on that.

Maybe not.

Maybe we were dreaming.

A primary applause line today that will be paid for in November 2016, or worse, hurt the country if it is carried out, is not CHANGE for the better. America wants CHANGE, for the better – not false HOPE that takes us from bad to worst.


91 thoughts on “At #BenghaziCommittee #Hillary2016 Survives, Even As @RealDonaldTrump Thrives, @JeBBush Dies, Part II

  1. Time to once again post a comment we posted back in August but which is gaining attention only now:

    TRUMP I: How come no one is talking about this?:

    Ford Throws UAW (and Trump) a Bone, Shifts Work from Mexico to Ohio

    With barely a month to go in its contract talks, Ford Motor Co. has thrown a meaty bone to the United Autoworkers Union. And it may also take Ford out of the presidential debate, where it recently became a target of Republican front-runner Donald Trump.

    Negotiations got off to a slightly testy start last month following news that the second-largest domestic automaker would likely move production of several key small car lines from Michigan to Mexico. But this week, Ford began production of heavy-duty versions of its F-Series pickups, which previously were built in Mexico, at a plant in Ohio: a move that will “secure” more than 1,000 union jobs.

    “Our investment in Ohio Assembly Plant reinforces our commitment to building vehicles in America,” said Joe Hinrichs, Ford’s president of the Americas. “Working with our partners in the UAW, we found a way to make the costs competitive enough to bring production of a whole new generation of work trucks to Ohio.”

  2. Yes, yes, yes…I have been trying to say this as bluntly as I can. ..
    Hillary has abandoned us…it feels GREAATTT to be heard, Trump is UHUGGGGG.
    Finally, someone once again is speaking for me, for you, for America.
    I am absolutely appalled at Hillary selling America to illegals…I’m so angry she abandoned every position she had for America, for the middle class.

    Trump 2016.

  3. CHANGE:

    The sudden collapse of nonprofit health plans supported by tens of millions of dollars in Obamacare loans is igniting a new political wildfire over the health law — and it’s playing out in a tight gubernatorial race in Kentucky.

    The recent demise of Kentucky Health Cooperative, a nonprofit startup seeded with federal loan dollars under the Affordable Care Act, is part of a bigger, national trend. More than a third of the 23 nonprofit health plans created under Obamacare with $2.4 billion in federal loan dollars have collapsed, and most experts predict more failures on the horizon. Late last week, South Carolina’s co-op became the ninth to fail, following similar crashes in Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska and New York.

    But Kentucky is in the spotlight because the co-op went bust earlier this month amid a high-stakes political contest and it is quickly becoming a wildcard issue. The Kentucky plan dominated exchange enrollment during the first two years of operations, capturing roughly 60 percent of customers in a red state hailed as a symbol of Obamacare’s potential. Those Kentuckians will now have to scramble to find new coverage during the looming open-enrollment period, beginning Nov. 1, just as voters head to the polls to pick a new governor.

    This financial debacle is a direct result of Obamacare,” said Republican challenger Matt Bevin, who seized on the failure earlier this month as a validation of his concerns about the landmark health care law and laid blame for it on his Democratic opponent, Attorney General Jack Conway.

    “Even though it is a disaster for Kentucky taxpayers, Jack Conway still says he would have been proud to vote for Obamacare,” Bevin said in a statement.

  4. Hillary is making it so easy for Trump to have a turkey shoot should they both be the official nominees of their parties. It’s almost as if Hillary WANTS him to win over her.

  5. For of all sad words of tongue and pen

    The saddest are these: it might have been.

    I could have had class!

    I could have done “cool” things.!!

    I could have been somebody!!!


    Oh, the pity of it all, etc.

  6. Hillary’s position on illegal immigration is a deal breaker for me. Does not work with offering to be the champion of every day people. She must mean the every day people of other countries.

    Today is her birthday and I signed her card.

  7. Admin is right. Trump is the new Republican Party. The New Republican Party has a much larger band width within the electorate. The old Republican Party is an anachronism, bent on pursing this rush to globalization. Unfortunately, Hillary’s comments indicate that she is pursuing the same objective, which leaves the working class–the unemployed, the working poor, with a sense of revulsion that no crass appeal to gender identity can overcome. The ship of state is listing badly. Seawater is pouring over the gunnels. The pumps are burning up. And, Hillary thinks the answer is more seawater? The answer is stop the flooding, right the ship and restart the engine. That means do not welcome illegals, discourage them so they leave. It means get big government off the backs of small business so they can create jobs. And it means getting tough with our trading partners, and currency manipulators. That is what Trump is proposing. It is the only way to maintain watertight integrity.

  8. “Instead of JeBush as a leader with resolve we see a bored audience and a permanently hunched over JeBush eerily doing a hoot owl impression. “Who? Who? Who?” ”

    OH my gosh that is funny !

  9. JEB has a forward neck posture that is very unhealthy. You would think he could afford some physical therapy. He used to be kind of a porker, but thinned down for the run. Now he does look kind of skinny.

    He will probably pork up again after he drops out.

  10. I have been saying this for months. Now Mike Walsh has taken up the cudgel:

    This story in today’s Washington Post ought to give even the most ardent Rubio supporters pause:

    Marco Rubio is a U.S. senator. And he just can’t stand it anymore. “I don’t know that ‘hate’ is the right word,” Rubio said in an interview. “I’m frustrated.”

    This year, as Rubio runs for president, he has cast the Senate — the very place that cemented him as a national politician — as a place he’s given up on, after less than one term. It’s too slow. Too rule-bound. So Rubio, 44, has decided not to run for his seat again. It’s the White House or bust.

    “That’s why I’m missing votes. Because I am leaving the Senate. I am not running for reelection,” Rubio said in the last Republican debate, after Donald Trump had mocked him for his unusual number of absences during Senate votes.

    If I were a Rubio fan, which I’m not, this would worry me. A lot. For Rubio resembles nobody in our current political life as much as Barack Obama, another freshman senator who took almost no interest in the Senate and instead spent much of his one and only term planning a run for the presidency; so did Hillary Clinton, although she got sidetracked into the State Department when she lost to Obama in 2008.

    But in many ways, Rubio is even more audacious than Obama. Obama was the hand-picked choice of the Chicago Machine, a non-entity back bencher in the corrupt state legislature suddenly elevated into a safe seat in the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body. Proving once again that any tomato can is electorally viable in Illinois.

    Rubio, though, won a hard-fought Senate seat in Florida and for a time was a Tea Party/conservative Golden Boy. But he quickly showed his true colors as an amnesty backer with his participation in the infamous Gang of Eight scheme. And when that came a cropper, he pouted, retreated and then suddenly decided that what America really needs is him in the White House:

    Five years ago, Rubio arrived with a potential that thrilled Republicans. He was young, ambitious, charismatic, fluent in English and Spanish, and beloved by the establishment and the tea party.

    But Rubio had arrived at one of the least ambitious moments in Senate history and saw many of his ideas fizzle. Democrats killed his debt-cutting plans. Republicans killed his immigration reform. The two parties actually came together to kill his AGREE Act, a small-bore, hands-across-the-aisle bill that Rubio had designed just to get a win on something.

    Now, he’s done. “He hates it,” a longtime friend from Florida said, speaking anonymously to say what Rubio would not. Which makes for an odd campaign message.

    Rubio must convince voters that his decision to leave the Senate — giving up the power he already has — is actually a mark of character, a sign that he is too dedicated to public service to stay. Rubio is not a quitter, the argument goes. In fact, that’s precisely why he’s quitting this place. “He wouldn’t be doing what he’s doing now if he were a quitter,” said Norman Braman, a Florida auto dealer and one of Rubio’s longtime donors. Impatience had been a hallmark of Rubio’s career, for good and ill…

    Marco Rubio
    Not lean, but a hungry look

    So it’s all the Senate’s fault, for not acknowledging the Boy Wonder quickly or enthusiastically enough. But there’s a phrase for this condition: a messiah complex, and haven’t we had enough of that lately? Besides, he’s already not doing the job he was elected to do, missing more than his fair share of votes and committee meetings. And where have we seen that before?

    He skipped 10 percent of them in 2014 — making him one of the most absent senators, with the 88th-best attendance record, according to statistics kept by He began missing committee work, even on the subject he most identified with. In 2014, Rubio missed 34 of 68 committee hearings and meetings in the Foreign Relations committee, according to his office’s tally.

    This is not to say that Rubio doesn’t possess some formidable political skills, or that part of his campaign program isn’t attractive. But we really do need to be wary of yet another young man in a hurry, especially as his quick rise (to be sure, not quite as quick nor as occluded as Obama’s) means we really don’t have much of a sense, on the national level, what a Rubio presidency would portend. Other than that it would be “historic.”

    Then again, so would a Ted Cruz presidency. Or a Hillary Clinton presidency. Or a Ben Carson or Carly Fiorina presidency.But so what? The media long ago cheapened the meaning of the word to signify something or someone that conforms to their policy preferences; for them, the antonym of “historic” is “aberrational.”

    Asked about his absences recently by Matt Lauer on NBC’s “Today” Show, Rubio said: “My ambitions aren’t for me. My ambitions are for the country, and Florida.” If he is elected to the White House, he added, “we can begin to fix some of these issues that I’ve been so frustrated we’ve been unable to address during my time in the Senate.”

    Color me skeptical. If Rubio really wanted to serve the country, he wouldn’t go about it this way: double-crossing his former Florida mentor, Jeb Bush; making the GOP voters who put him in the Senate look like fools; and jeopardizing the Republicans’ control of the Congress to further his own ambition. His frustrations with the glacial pace of the Senate may be understandable, but they don’t bode well for how he would handle the infinitely greater duties of the Oval Office.

    UPDATE: Jeb! Bush agrees with me:

    Jeb Bush’s campaign team is striking at presidential rival Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) in its harshest terms yet, telling wealthy donors, “Marco is a GOP Obama.” The provocative charge is part of a 45-slide PowerPoint presentation that is being shown to donors assembled at a Houston hotel for a two-day Bush campaign retreat.

    The section about Rubio — presented on Monday morning by Bush’s campaign manager, Danny Diaz — suggests that Bush’s team views his fellow Floridian as its most serious rival in the establishment lane for the Republican nomination. On a slide titled “Experience Matters,” Diaz states: “We need to offer a contrast to the current President. Hillary will pitch competence and experience. Marco is a GOP Obama.”


    The slide continues: “Rubio and President Obama have strikingly similar profiles: first-term senators, lawyers and university lecturers, served in part-time state legislatures for eight years, had few legislative accomplishments, and haven’t shown much interest in the process of advancing legislation and getting results.”

    I suspect Rubio will rue the day he got crossways with the Bush family.

    Aprops of that, this song by Harry James and Helen Forest. This was before he married Betty Grable and Helen was so crest fallen that she went out on a window ledge to end it all. Fortunately, she did not jump. The song is I’ve Heard That Song Before, and it applies in spades to Marco the red, the Obama redux.

  11. Well it figures.

    An Stanford Professor, formerly with the Obama Administration, which does not mean he is competent, but does suggest that he was a bundler, takes full measure of Putin’s accomplishments in the Ukraine, and impressive at they are, condescends to say Putin is no strategic genius, as a segway into some rehash of the old wrong side of history malarky that the Messiah has been peddling ever since Putin bent him over and gave him one where the sun don’t shine. Streiff at red state suggests the proper frame of reference in responding to this drivel.
    There is an old joke that goes like this:

    Two guys are out hiking when bear suddenly comes out and growls. One guy starts to run but his partner calmly sits down on a log, pulls a pair of sneakers from his backpack and starts lacing them up. The first guy says, “What are you doing? You can’t outrun a bear!”
    The other guy says, “I don’t have to outrun the bear—I just have to outrun you!”

    That is the state of play as it exists today. Putin doesn’t have to be a strategic genius to beat Obama, he just has to be smarter than Obama. That bar, as we’ve seen, is pretty damned low and for all his failings Putin is doing quite well.

  12. This Professor has a severe case of denial, which is designed to cover up his own personal failure in dealing with the Russian Federation. When people fail at something, they tend to rewrite history. And this jamoke is a case in point. And of course his vapid analysis appears at NYT, therefore it has no credibility.

  13. Lu4PUMA
    October 26, 2015 at 6:57 pm
    JEB has a forward neck posture that is very unhealthy
    He is an invertebrate, therefore this is a natural position for him to assume.

  14. Admin says:

    An Obama third term or rather a worse Obama third term is not the CHANGE the country wants. We thought we were all in agreement on that.

    Maybe we were dreaming.

    A primary applause line today that will be paid for in November 2016, or worse, hurt the country if it is carried out, is not CHANGE for the better. America wants CHANGE, for the better – not false HOPE that takes us from bad to worst.


    You will get no arguement from me…spot on…

    Hillary has lost her way and is going in the WRONG direction…

    …if she talks that way in the general election, her Clinton Coalition will have morphed into die hard Trumpsters and deserted her…

  15. Trump may not make it!!!!!!!! They are slowly but surely running massive attacks on him with he help of big media. It seems to be working.

  16. Too funny! OMG!

    “Donald Trump Defends Burqas But Can’t Help Being Sexist About It”
    (Huffinton Post)

    Donald Trump, a man of the people, totally understands why a woman would wear a burqa. It’s because then she doesn’t have to bother with makeup! Duh!

    At a town hall event in New Hampshire on Monday, Trump spoke about how he would approach foreign policy if elected president in 2016. According to The Boston Globe, Trump said that he would not get involved with any national mandates requiring that women wear burqas, because “They want to… What the hell are we getting involved for?”

    Trump went on to say that women probably find it “easier” to wear burqas, because “you don’t have to put on make-up.”

    “I tell you, if I was a woman,” Trump said while waving his hand over his face to simulate wearing a burqa. “[I’d be like] ‘I’m ready, darling, let’s go.'”

  17. IMO not knowing how many states there are in the United States is far worse like Obama and his 57 states.

  18. jb: what do they do with insane poeple in Sweden?

    They send them to Norway and make school teachers out of them

    What do they do with school teachers in Norway?

    They send them to Iowa, and before they put them away in mental hospitals

    They vote in presidential elections, as part of the therapy

    For reasons that are more historical than logical Iowa is first.

    Their track record of getting it right is not an enviable one.

    They have lots of pigs, ducks and geese.

    But the horse scare easily.

  19. I do not want to hear a damned thing from that fucking David Yepsen, the self proclaimed sage of Iowa politics who works for their dumb newspaper. He is another Charlie Cook, or Tapper–highly overrated.

  20. “They have lots of pigs, ducks and geese. But the horse scares easily.”

    Are you saying that the Iowa Caucus voters don’t have common horse sense? Didn’t Santorum win a few years ago in the Iowa Primary Caucus and then was it Huckabee in 2012? Also who could forget the 2008 Iowa Dem. Caucus for Obama and all that went on?

    Tell me again why Iowa is always first in the primary voting and why the one who is first does not rotate among all the states?

  21. Life/

    Its a tragedy to those who feel.

    And a comedy to those who think.

    Or something like that.

    To those who think it is a joke.

    To those who feel it is scary stuff.

    He wants Sharia law-

    Or far worse, he could destroy the cosmetic industry

    But we all have villains.

    And you will never guess who mine is–besides big media–they are satan.

    I say kill them all and let god sort them out.

    But the lesser villain—obama.

    Why is he so fucked up?

    Trust me its an orange and green problem:

  22. MSM has declared him “toast” so many times, he must be a regular crispy critter by now. 🙂 And yet, he keeps on kicking butt.

  23. Ben Carson has seized the national lead from Donald Trump in a new poll, in a development sure to force the billionaire businessman to modify his well-polished campaign stump boast that he’s “leading every poll.”

    Released ahead of Wednesday’s third Republican presidential primary debate, the CBS News/New York Times Poll showed Carson leading nationally with 26 percent, to Trump’s 22 percent.

    The survey follows a string of Iowa polls that showed the retired neurosurgeon pulling ahead in the first-in-the-nation caucus state. Trump, who had led the field nationally and in key states since the summer, has tried to downplay the results but on Tuesday acknowledged Carson is gaining momentum.

    “Ben Carson is now doing well,” Trump said in an interview Tuesday morning on MSNBC.

    At the same time, Trump has made clear he plans to challenge Carson at Wednesday’s primary debate as the two battle for the top spot.


  24. Years ago, the feminist lobby used to talk about gender roles in society being a “social construct” around which a set of taboos and incentives were carefully constructed. Like all such generalizations there was a certain amount of truth to it, but at some point other factors should be considered, if the generalization is to survive pressure testing in the real world. And perhaps that is why bra burning is no longer the thing it once was.

    To take that logic a step further, the same can be said for the big media narrative, which is reflective of elite opinion. It is a social construct carefully constructed with a set of taboos and incentives to channel public behavior in a direction which preserves the wealth and power of our beloved elites.

    This can be seen in their obsession with race, and their commitment to government policies which have been proven not to work, but do produce many job opportunities for Harvard trained experts. It is, in many ways, a collateral attack on the middle class, and an incitement for the underclass, who senses the inequities in this society, to bleed the middle class dry, and leave the elites alone. The elites, it seems, are all for equality, just as long as it does not hurt their pocket book. Their indifference to the plight of the rest of us can be seen wherever you look, if you choose to do so.

    To be clear, it is not my position that the kingdom of god will be at hand when the last king is overthrown, or when Momar Gadaffi, an ally in our war against terrorism, is dragged through the streets of Libya, pursuant to the demented policies of the big media beloved messiah. My position is simply this. From everything I can tell, the elites of this generation are exactly what Trump accuses them of being: corrupt and incompetent. The evidence of this is everywhere, and the narrative they have constructed to protect their power and perks is at this point rather obvious.

    Their goal is to get us to assimilate that narrative into our brain, and go out into the world repeating it like a pack of trained apes. To question their narrative is to attack them personally, and they recoil and then retaliate with every weapon at their disposal. That is what I am seeing now. But this may be a sign of desperation because eventually you do reach a point where boiling the frog no longer works, and the system as a whole collapses. If these were smart people, more aware of their surroundings then they would trim their sails, and let both parties evolve to where they are more closely aligned with reality. But that is unlikely.

  25. A perfect example of this is CBS News. This was the network of Edward R Murrow (from my state), Eric Severaid (my hero as a youngster), and Walter Cronkite (the most trusted man in America, who never wore his politica opinions on his sleeve. These men learned the business from the ground up reporting from Europe in the dark days of world war II. Other networks as well produced news men of such timber, General Sarnoff founder of NBC being another example. Slowly over time that class of reporting has deteriorated, and has come to reflect only what preserves the power and perks of the elite class. As recently as the time of Katie Couric, CBS was able to muster some sense of what journalism is supposed to be, and Katie was willing to give world class investigators–like Sharyl Attkisson, a forum for telling the public what it needs to know. But under Pelly that window has closed. Sharyl could not get her stuff published, and neither could other reporters at her network. The same is true of the other networks now, and Lisa Meyers made the same observation. WHAT IS HAPPENING IN BIG MEDIA TODAY IS ALL EDITORIAL DECISIONS ARE MADE BY A CABAL IN NEW YORK, and read HuffPo and similar blogs for their stories. Fresh stories produced by on the ground journalists are rejected, and reporters are now asked to go in and regergitate what has previously appeared on HuffPo, which is, as you can well imagine, very frustrating. It has been reported to me that this elite group of well heeled families socialize together, constitute a de facto monopoly and prevent a marketplace of ideas, where the truth has a chance to be heard. The black out of all information critical of Obama, is symptomatic of this disease. You need only read the foreign press to realize what is happening–the stories that this cabal does not want you to know, because if you did, you would see how artficial their narrative is, and you might reject it root and branch, as I did to what CBS breathlessly reported on Ford, to repudiate Trump, who calls them what they are, and thereby threatens their power.

  26. Carson cannot beat Hillary.

    He cannot, and besides, the elites will not allow it.

    We have had our black president.

    Now we must have our woman president.

    She has the experience he does not.

    But don’t dare ask about Benghazi.

    She has taken full responsibility.

    While telling us others are to blame.

    And she will go as far left of Obama

    As Wall Street will let her.

    Just you wait Henry Higgins.

    For every oppressed woman in the world

    You too Carly, etc.

    Your hour of redemption is at hand.

  27. Carson is not firm enough. He’s got too much of a “go along to get along” in order to be the type of POTUS we need. He’s a deeply intelligent man and a nice guy, but he doesn’t come off as decisive.

  28. Don’t worry wbbs, Hillary is much more than just a human with ovaries and women are smart enough to know it.

  29. Trump starts to go after the doctor and explains his attack theory…


    Trump talking about his attacks on Carson’s religion and abortion stance)

    “I would certainly give an apology if I said something bad about it. But I didn’t. All I said was I don’t know about it,” he said.

    Regardless, Trump indicated that he has no plans to stop attacking his closest rival in the polls.

    “That’s my whole life. If somebody is an opponent, I want to win. Ben Carson is now doing well, and I think Ben Carson has a lot of problems with his record, if you look at his record, including going back in [the] past and, you know, those problems are going to start to come out. It’s an amazing — it’s almost like, when you’re in first place, it’s like a cleansing action. Some of it is very unfair cleansing. But it really is like a cleansing action. A lot of things will come out now, and we’ll see how he holds up to the scrutiny,” Trump said during the telephone interview on Tuesday. “I’ve been there for I guess 100 and some odd days and we’ll see how it all, you know, how Ben holds up to the scrutiny. But Ben has a lot of things in his past that we’ll see. I mean, we’ll see how he holds up.”

    Read more:

  30. Do we think this is beginning to look over……

    Bernie Sanders’s closest Senate ally just endorsed Hillary Clinton

    Hillary Clinton has been absolutely crushing Bernie Sanders when it comes to endorsements from elected Democrats. She has 34 of the US Senate’s 44 Democrats, 10 of the 18 Democratic governors, and 120 of the US House’s 188 Democrats.

    But Clinton’s most surprising endorsement is the 34th and most recent senator to get on board: Sherrod Brown of Ohio.

    “From opposing unfair trade deals to fighting for a fair financial system, Hillary Clinton has shown she puts working families first,” Brown said in a statement announcing the endorsement on Tuesday. “She knows as president that her first job will be creating jobs for the middle class. I am proud to endorse her today because I know she will keep Ohio moving forward.”
    Bernie Sanders is losing the invisible primary really, really badly

    On one level, this isn’t terribly surprising. While Brown didn’t endorse Clinton (or anyone) in the 2008 primary, the race isn’t nearly as close this time around, and as a solidly liberal senator from the swingiest of swing states, an endorsement sets him up well as a VP prospect.

    But the move is also an indication of just how tough Sanders is finding it to get even ideologically sympathetic elected officials on his side.

    Bernie and Sherrod Brown agree on almost literally everything. They’re both vocally pro-union, anti-free trade populists. And they’re personally close. They were in the House together for 14 years (where they were both members of the Progressive Caucus), and both got elected to the Senate in 2006, so they’ve had more than two decades’ worth of opportunities to collaborate on just about every economic policy issue you can imagine.
    “”What’s very clear is that Sherrod Brown knows which side of the struggle he is on””

    This very month, they introduced a bill together to make union organizing easier. Just a month ago, they introduced legislation together repealing Obamacare’s “Cadillac tax,” a move pushed by their supporters in labor unions whose members have to pay the tax; they also introduced an amendment trying to strip the tax when Obamacare when being debated in 2009. They jointly led the unsuccessful effort this past spring to kill fast-track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

    “I’ve known him for many years,” Sanders told Chris Hayes for a profile of Brown back in 2005. “What’s very clear is that Sherrod Brown knows which side of the struggle he is on.”

    If any senator were going to endorse Sanders, it would be Sherrod Brown. And yet here he is, endorsing Clinton.

  31. Bernie Sanders’s closest Senate ally just endorsed Hillary Clinton

    Hillary Clinton has been absolutely crushing Bernie Sanders when it comes to endorsements from elected Democrats. She has 34 of the US Senate’s 44 Democrats, 10 of the 18 Democratic governors, and 120 of the US House’s 188 Democrats.

    But Clinton’s most surprising endorsement is the 34th and most recent senator to get on board: Sherrod Brown of Ohio.

    “From opposing unfair trade deals to fighting for a fair financial system, Hillary Clinton has shown she puts working families first,” Brown said in a statement announcing the endorsement on Tuesday. “She knows as president that her first job will be creating jobs for the middle class. I am proud to endorse her today because I know she will keep Ohio moving forward.”
    Bernie Sanders is losing the invisible primary really, really badly

    On one level, this isn’t terribly surprising. While Brown didn’t endorse Clinton (or anyone) in the 2008 primary, the race isn’t nearly as close this time around, and as a solidly liberal senator from the swingiest of swing states, an endorsement sets him up well as a VP prospect.

    But the move is also an indication of just how tough Sanders is finding it to get even ideologically sympathetic elected officials on his side.

    Bernie and Sherrod Brown agree on almost literally everything. They’re both vocally pro-union, anti-free trade populists. And they’re personally close. They were in the House together for 14 years (where they were both members of the Progressive Caucus), and both got elected to the Senate in 2006, so they’ve had more than two decades’ worth of opportunities to collaborate on just about every economic policy issue you can imagine.
    “”What’s very clear is that Sherrod Brown knows which side of the struggle he is on””

    This very month, they introduced a bill together to make union organizing easier. Just a month ago, they introduced legislation together repealing Obamacare’s “Cadillac tax,” a move pushed by their supporters in labor unions whose members have to pay the tax; they also introduced an amendment trying to strip the tax when Obamacare when being debated in 2009. They jointly led the unsuccessful effort this past spring to kill fast-track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

    “I’ve known him for many years,” Sanders told Chris Hayes for a profile of Brown back in 2005. “What’s very clear is that Sherrod Brown knows which side of the struggle he is on.”

    If any senator were going to endorse Sanders, it would be Sherrod Brown. And yet here he is, endorsing Clinton.


    This is beginning to look like the end of Sanders today.

  32. This is from the last part of the link Foxy just posted at 2:58 pm…..

    “We have been told more than once that the meeting between Mr. Trump and the RNC Chair, Reince Priebus was for Trump to get absolute agreement from Mr. Priebus that should he win the nomination, the Trump campaign would have access to GOP campaign funding. Priebus agreed. This would in turn allow Donald Trump, should he win the nomination, to then use money from the very same Establishment group that wanted nothing more than to see him defeated, and possibly from there, win the White House. If Trump were to actually pull it off, it would rank among the greatest f*ck you’s in political history.”

  33. Lots of polls out today and with them lots of misinformation. Many of these polls have large plus/minus margins of error attached to them so watch out. For instance the Monmouth Dem poll has a 4.9 MOE, the NYTimes GOP poll has a MOE of 6%! A 6% MOE is close to junk status (that’s 6% for each candidate so the poll might be off by as much as 12%) so watch out. Also the polls out today contradict each other. The Times national poll has Carson ahead of Trump but several other polls that came out today place Trump way, way ahead in the 35% range. The Hillary polls are also to be taken with a grain of salt because they come in a very good cycle of news for Hillary and Bernie Sanders’ idiotic surrender in the first debate which won’t be repeated in the second debate which will have more time for Sanders/O’Malley to tackle Hillary, if that’s what they want to do. As always the most important polls are the state polls so eye those above the national polls. The Huff n’ Puff poll averages can be viewed here:

    RealClearPolitics average here:

    A comprehensive list of all new polls can be found here:

  34. Ted Cruz has a new theory of the campaign:

    Cruz has drafted behind Trump for months, hoping to sweep up his supporters when what many have seen as an inevitable fall comes. But increasingly the Cruz campaign is preparing for Trump to remain a force through the primaries.

    Carson, on the other hand, the Cruz campaign thinks will fade as scrutiny intensifies. Plus, Cruz intends to box out the retired neurosurgeon by winning over the movement conservatives who are desperate to unite behind a single candidate early in 2016, after back-to-back cycles nominating a more moderate Republican, who, they believe, failed to get out the Christian vote.

    So Cruz will now pump up his efforts with evangelicals in Iowa to try to go around Trump by beating Carson. JeBush will try to go around Trump by beating up Rubio. Rubio will get around Trump by outrunning JeBush as the tiger continues to chase them both. Who wins in all these scenarios?

  35. Trump brought up the fact that Carson is a 7th Day Adventist, and I guess hoping that the far right might not be as accepting of his religion as middle of the road ‘Christians’.

    This is explained above in Foxy’s post at 2:58 pm.

  36. We all agree Carson is not electable. However, these polls take away the Trump narrative and ultimately cause the morons in the GOP to move to a more traditional candidate like Jeb . I believe this is all being orchestrated behind the scenes by the big $$$ guys who despise Trump.

  37. bstonesfan
    October 27, 2015 at 4:16 pm
    Rubio will be their second banana when jebediah fades into oblivion.

    Therefore, the time to start harpooning him is . . . yesterday.

    He must be portrayed to the base as the Obama of the Republican estalbishment, and globalist.

    That will go down like a mouth full of grass burrs.

  38. If you are a Hillary supporter, this is the kind of stuff you should force yourself to read, because your opponent, particularly a thoughtful one like this guy will tell you things about your own candidate that her own people will not, and then you end up surprised when they spring it on you. This guy is a top Republican strategist—no fucking Mike Murphy or Ed Gillepee, and I have got to say that I respect someone of substance who tells you little or nothing about himself in Wiki. Under personal life all it says is he lives in New Jersey. I suspect he does have a personal life, most of us do, but as far as he is concerned it is none of your business. The logic of his argument, and your presumed ability to recognize its value, is all the bolstering of credibility he needs. The only criticism I have for his analysis, and it is not really a criticism at all but an addendum, is you can win the argument and still lose the election depending on how well you execute your ground game, and how adept the other side is at cheating, through such artifices and devices as we saw in the caucus states, and 40 million illegals strategically positioned in battle ground states. In Indiana for example, our internals showed Hillary winning by 10 points and she did win but only by two points.

    Oct. 26, 2015 6:49 p.m. ET

    So now Hillary Clinton is invincible.

    Such is the new received wisdom. It replaces the old received wisdom that she was a fatally flawed candidate sowing despair among Democratic Party bigwigs.

    The new wisdom comes after a good two weeks that began with Mrs. Clinton trouncing her rivals in the televised Democratic debate and ended with her besting her Republican inquisitors on the House Benghazi Committee. In between, Joe Biden announced he would not be making good on his dying son’s request to keep the White House from the Clintons after all.

    For all this, the idea that Hillary is unstoppable is nuts. Not least because her victories are less about defeating opponents than making sure the serious ones are removed before the contest has begun.

    John Doe Goes to Washington

    Start with the money. Back in the spring we learned that Mrs. Clinton and her outside supporters were aiming to raise $2.5 billion for her campaign even as she decried the role of money in politics. To put that $2.5 billion in perspective, it’s more than Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spent combined in 2012.

    Certainly this money will be an advantage in next year’s race. But it has already done what it was really designed to do: scare off serious challengers for the Democratic nomination.

    No surprise, then, that her actual rivals would come down to a socialist from Vermont (Sen. Bernie Sanders), a failed former mayor of Baltimore and governor of Maryland (Martin O’Malley), an ex-Republican, ex-governor and ex-senator from Rhode Island passionate about the metric system (Lincoln Chafee) and a former Democratic senator (Virginia’s Jim Webb) who only now seems to realize that the voters he was counting on are no longer in the Democratic Party.

    No serious rival meant no serious debate. Thus Mrs. Clinton’s chief opponent, Mr. Sanders, not only refused to play the strongest card against Mrs. Clinton—her ethics—he exonerated her on behalf of the party before a nationally televised audience. Now he is reaping his reward, as Mrs. Clinton denounces him as a “sexist” for the way he attacked her on her anti-gun policy in the debate.

    How different all this is from the Democratic primaries of 2008. Then, as now, Mrs. Clinton had planned a coronation. Then, as now, she had most of the advantages thought decisive: money, big-name endorsements, etc. Yet Barack Obama beat her anyway.

    Mrs. Clinton’s record is a reminder that she is neither as fatally flawed as she was presented a couple of months ago nor as unbeatable as she may now appear. The truth is closer to what Mr. Obama, then the junior senator from Illinois, faced in 2008: an imposing candidate with at least three key weaknesses the GOP would do well to exploit.

    First, and unlike in 2008, Hillary 2.0 has moved sharply left, to the point where she is now the candidate of a third Obama term. This will work well in Democratic primaries but will be a harder sell in the general campaign, where she will be tagged with every Obama failure, from the rise of Islamic State to the record number of Americans out of work.

    Consider her assault on Bernie Sanders. In 2008, Mr. Obama deftly avoided playing the race card even as he benefited from it. By contrast, Mrs. Clinton has now made gender her signature credential. But it may not play the way she clearly expects: In April, the conservative political action committee American Crossroads released a survey reporting that eight out of 10 voters in battleground states say that Mrs. Clinton’s pitch to become the first woman president “makes no difference” to their support or opposition.

    Second, Republicans don’t have to prove that Hillary Clinton is not to be trusted. Polls confirm the American people already know that. The challenge for a GOP nominee is to connect this fact—that Mrs. Clinton’s default mode is to deceive—with what this would mean if she became president.

    Finally, as the former Obama adviser David Axelrod pointed out in his memoirs, Mrs. Clinton has two huge flaws: She’s polarizing and is a candidate of the past. In 2008 the Obama campaign attacked her in ads noting her coziness with Wall Street and accusing her of the “same old politics of phony charges and false attacks.”

    Alas, rather than coldly analyzing and exploiting her weaknesses, as Messrs. Obama and Axelrod did in 2008, too many Republicans have been hoping for some fateful intervention such as a federal indictment. It’s wishful thinking: If there is one thing we know about the Clintons, it’s that where others might give up, they just keep moving.

    Better to keep in mind that Mrs. Clinton has had only two victories at the ballot box, both in blue-state New York against GOP lightweights: former House member Rick Lazio in 2000 and former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer in 2006.

    The only time Hillary Clinton ever faced a serious candidate—Barack Obama—she lost.

  39. Shadowfax
    October 27, 2015 at 6:50 pm
    I worked in Loma Linda Medical Center at Loma Linda, CA, which is ground zero for them. Very religious group who are supposed to be vegetarians/vegans who don’t drink caffeinated beverages and observe the Sabbath on Saturdays. Didn’t really care much for them nor their beliefs (they believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible with regards to creationism). My wife was their token Catholic in her med school class (apparently they have to show that they accept other faiths in order to qualify for federal educational subsidies). Employees had to drive all the way to neighboring Redlands and Colton just to get Starbucks and a real, juicy burger since the cafeteria served vegetarian crap.

  40. The only way Hillary’s unequivocal endorsement of illegal immigration makes sense is if her campaign has connived a strategy to have them vote in key battleground states, to tip the scales in her favor.

    Don’t think so?

    Well then try it the other way and see if it makes sense:

    Hillary’s campaign does not intend to use them in key battleground states, and simply wants more people who object to the kind of massive illegal immigration which the foreign press is reporting in Europe to vote for her opponent.

    Now, which of those explanations makes sense to you?

    If you are still in doubt, just wait.

    When Guterrez, the self professed Abraham Lincoln of Illegal Immigration, and La Raza, and the little monkey from Univison all come out and endorse Hillary, perhaps you will see the light.

  41. Jones your right, theses polls are bs..bought and paid for by the money handlers who want to take away Trumps bravado and thusly his forerunner status.

    I wouldn’t be surprised to see Bush passing him bye lol

  42. So Cruz will now pump up his efforts with evangelicals in Iowa to try to go around Trump by beating Carson. JeBush will try to go around Trump by beating up Rubio. Rubio will get around Trump by outrunning JeBush as the tiger continues to chase them both. Who wins in all these scenarios?
    Round 1: Cruz takes out Carson; Bad bad Leroy Brown Jeb and Obama redux Rubio flail away at each other with hay makers that do not land, left jabs that do not connect, whereupon Jeff gets huffy and says I do not have to do this, there are a lot of cool things I could be doing, etc. while Rubio talks hope and change; Trump steps back from the fray, points at the pugilists and says, ya see, crime doesn’t pay, and the biting line that brings down the house: why can’t we all just get along? whereupon his poll numbers with AAs spike, and the black lives matter crew stop killing policemen for a nano second. The winner you ask? The one man who emerges unscathed.

  43. Tony Stark
    October 27, 2015 at 7:41 pm

    Pardon me, but 😉

    My ex BF converted to this and needless to say, I couldn’t handle it. Strange when I went to wikipedia and checked out the basics of this religion, they said these folks don’t vote, don’t have anything to do with the military and don’t have anything to do with politics…and yet, Carson is running for Prez.

    [Here’s a quote: Strong warnings against becoming involved in “political issues” or activities: “Let political ques­tions alone. . . . Every teacher, minister, or leader in our ranks who is stirred with a desire to ventilate his opinions on political questions, should be con­verted by a belief in the truth, or give up his work.” —Ibid., pp. 392, 393. “God calls upon the teachers in our schools not to become interested in the study of political questions.”—Fundamentals of Educa­tion, p. 484. (Written 1899.) ]


    Hope I haven’t offended any Pinksters.

  44. The only way Hillary’s unequivocal endorsement of illegal immigration makes sense is if her campaign has connived a strategy to have them vote in key battleground states, to tip the scales in her favor.

    I think this may be part of it (maybe the deal was “be Obama III and we’ll tell you all the ways we cheated you, and then you can do it, too).

    But also, a LOT of legals have many illegal family members here – could even be their parents and older siblings. THEY want amnesty so their family can stay (family before country).

  45. Re HRC and her unequivocal embrace of the illegals:
    I see many indications that this administration is going full speed ahead with naturalization processes for the current crop supposed to be in citizenship limbo regarding US citizenship. However:

    Sunday morning 5:26 AM I tapped into what appeared to be a panel telling illegals specifically how to get to the point of filing IRS 1040’s to collect tax credits for this and previous years.

    For direct ways to get them voting fast, there are flash cards in Spanish for boning up on citizenship test. There has been a modification of the oath they take, Telemundo47 and NBC New York have been joined at the pocketbook for a long time. Phone banks English/Spanish on for 2 days during a Domestic Violence day/month. School programs to help them assimilate are being highlighted on TV.

    These are things I have been ignoring out of self-protection so I have no links to share. Indication that they’re real can be seen here:

    To the point, HRC is in a good position to know the extent of these fast track policies, and if they are well underway? Well that would be a very good reason to stick with the illegals.

    I digress to mention news which has me LMAO. It involves the funeral of a black NYPD officer killed by black, but due to some circumstances the case has become high profile. Anyway,

    10/27/15. NYPost. [My thumbnail edition.]
    Slain NYPD Officer Randolph Holder’s fiancée was stunned to hear that the Rev. Al Sharpton was asked to speak at his funeral — because the policeman detested the anti-cop preacher, she told The Post on Monday.
    “He didn’t like [Sharpton]. He wasn’t a fan. So I don’t know why [Sharpton] is speaking,’’ Mary Muhammad said.
    Sharpton claims that he met with Holder’s father and that the dad asked him to speak at Wednesday’s service.
    But law-enforcement sources said Holder’s dad, Randolph Sr., called the NYPD on Monday morning — after news of Sharpton’s supposed invite broke — to tell them he invited the preacher only to attend the funeral, not to address mourners.
    The plan to have Sharpton address mourners at Holder’s funeral outraged the NYPD’s rank-and-file because of the activist minister’s history of leading protest rallies against alleged police racism and brutality.
    “The service needs to be a remembrance of Officer Holder and the sacrifices he made to make this a safer city,” one cop said.
    Sharpton dodged questions from The Post on Monday afternoon, saying, “An invitation was extended. And I’m not addressing it ’til Wednesday.
    The elder Holder, who was a cop in his native Guyana, refused to comment about Sharpton to a Post reporter.

    IRONIC. The name Holder.

    In another stunner,
    10/26/2015 #NYPD Commissioner slams Tarantino for calling cops murderers
    On Saturday, the “Pulp Fiction” director spoke in front of hundreds of demonstrators at Washington Square Park snip
    “It’s no surprise that someone who makes a living glorifying crime and violence is a cop-hater, too,” PBA president Patrick Lynch said.

  46. Shadowfax
    October 28, 2015 at 12:25 am
    Little piece of trivia: one of the U.S. Marines who helped raise the flag at Iwo Jima in that famous photo was a Seventh Day Adventist according to the book Flags of Our Fathers, which Clint Eastwood turned into a movie. Yes, many of them are officially pacifists, but not all of them follow the tenets of the faith strictly. Some of them do drink alcohol too, depending on how hard core they are.

  47. wbboei – it sounds like Hillary has used the gender card a few times already, but in terms of voters – most of us women (and I think a lot of men, like you) were so happy and excited that we might have a female president (finally, a member of the majority being president!). But we voted for her because we believed she was well qualified and agreed with what we agreed with. Her gender was a wonderful icing on the cake.

    Perhaps a lot of people actually started paying attention to the candidates because a woman drew them into participation (that was me, I just voted for whomever was the dem, I didn’t particularly care which dem nominee got to the general, I just knew it HAD to be a dem, because republicans were evil – until Hillary, then I started paying attention to politics).

    There may be some low-fos who specifically voted for her gender. But I seem to recall, that women pretty much split between Hillary and Obamafraud. NOTHING like the 97% of blacks voting for Obama….

  48. Tony Stark
    October 28, 2015 at 1:35 am
    October 28, 2015 at 12:25 am
    Little piece of trivia: one of the U.S. Marines who helped raise the flag at Iwo Jima in that famous photo was a Seventh Day Adventist
    And another was Ira Hayes.

    270 went up the hill, 20 lived, that’s over 90% attrition.

    A charnal house, that battle.

  49. I read the above NYT article on Carson and his religion. It didn’t seem to say more than a few specifics of his religion, which I think are pretty commonly known. What blew me away though, was why in the world did they keep referring to him as “Mr.” Carson? They know his name is “Dr.” Carson.

  50. lorac
    October 28, 2015 at 1:59 am

    in 2008, Hillary was the one we needed.

    A client got in his cups at lunch the other day, and started telling me I was nuts to go around the country campaigning for Hillary. I explained to him that in 2008 it was perfectly logical, given her experience, track record of success in the senate, opposition to greatest enemy of the American People–big media, the support she received from the military, her refusal to play the gender card, her commitment to the middle class, her realistic approach to foreign policy, her commitment to bring into government highly qualified business people as opposed to political cronies, etc.

    He asked me whether that is the candidate you see today. My response was let’s order lunch. No sense drinking on an empty stomach.

  51. The main problem with being a politician is you have to be all things to all people, and you cannot ever be yourself. I think that is what Professor Hanson meant when he said not just some, ALL politicians are fakers. But there are degrees of fakery, and McConnell/Boehner are off the charts. We get into the question in negotiation–vague commitments and general commitments can be pulled back, but when you make a positional commitment, e.g. I will defund Obamacare come hell or high water, and secretly conspire with the other party to preserve it, and then tell the people we did everything we could, etc., now we are no longer in the grey area. This is a goddamned lie. And when people vote for you on that basis, it is more than a breach of contract. It is fraud.


    1) representation

    2) falsity

    3) knowledge of falsity

    4) reliance

    5) damage

  52. This article is pretty much on target. However the history is a little warped and this warped history is where Hillary2016 goes wrong. It’s an argument we have read here so we will provide some background.

    Al Gore abandoned Bill Clinton and lost – the lesson is to NOT abandon presidents who have done well with the laws they passed and signed which led to very high approval ratings. Obama does not have high ratings and zero popular accomplishments that passed into law. So the “Gore make a mistake by abandoning the president” argument does not make sense for Hillary to listen to. What makes sense is for Hillary to attack failure Obama because otherwise she will not win the general.

    There are plenty of other examples along this line. Obviously, Trump is attacking George W. Bush and doing pretty well by it even though Trump is attacking the last Republican president. John McCain did not attack unpopular Bush when he should have and instead supported Bush and that did not work out so well. Romney followed the same course and got killed. Hubert Humphrey did not attack LBJ sufficiently or with enough vigor when he ran for president and if he would have it is possible he could have pulled it out in that close election. That year Bobby Kennedy ran very well attacking LBJ policies – until he was shot.

    Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis were hapless candidates but they might have been helped if they distinguished themselves from the previous Democratic President, Jimmy Carter. They didn’t because the Dem Party had become a kook party which required a Bill Clinton to set it back on course away from Kookdom. Ronald Reagan made sure to distinguish himself from Gerald Ford and won. George H.W. Bush did not run away from Reagan which was smart because Reagan like Bill Clinton was popular and accomplished much the country liked.

    Bill Clinton of course ran against all the previous loser Democrats and even the party itself and Bill Clinton won because the country saw he was a CHANGE candidate. Bill Clinton proved he was different that the previous losers and his Sista Soljah moment was the best example of that CHANGE. If Hillary does not run like Bill Clinton did in 1992 Hillary will lose.

    After eight years of misery (and this can be seen in the never changing right track/wrong track polls in which very strong majorities of Americans say we are on the wrong track) Americans want change. If Hillary is not the change candidate she will lose the general election.

    On to the article:

    Many Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief over Joe Biden’s announcement that he is “out of time” and will not be challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.

    Social media have been peppered with magnanimous postings by liberals praising Biden as “a class act” and “a true statesman.”

    The odd part is that those Democrats who are celebrating Biden’s decision seem to think they’re done with drama, dissension and division.

    Not a chance. Biden is out, but the friction is still there. That’s because the big tension within the party was never between Biden and Clinton. It’s between Clinton and President Obama.

    The 2008 rivals fought a long, hard and dirty campaign with each side accusing the other of dishonesty, slander and worse.

    At one point, Clinton charged that Obama lied about her record when his campaign sent out a mailing that intended to drive down her union support by claiming that she supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Now, the tables have turned, with the administration backing another controversial trade deal – the Trans-Pacific Partnership – and Clinton having declared her opposition.

    As Clinton runs for president, she is also sprinting away from major elements of Obama’s record. It’s happening on deportations, where Clinton recently told Telemundo that, while Obama removed record numbers of immigrants, she won’t be “breaking up families” or trying to “make immigrants the scapegoat for everything that people are concerned about in the country.” And it’s happening with foreign policy, where she continues to argue that the administration’s failure to back the Syrian rebels created the opening for the emergence of the Islamic State.

    Next up, look for Clinton to criticize Obama’s approach to education reform. It’s no wonder that Biden used his announcement in the Rose Garden to send Clinton some not-so-subtle messages about where Democrats “stand as a party” – and what they should stand for.

    Like this: “I believe that President Obama has led this nation from crisis to recovery, and we’re now on the cusp of resurgence. … Democrats should not only defend this record and protect this record, they should run on the record.”

    And this: “I believe the huge sums of unlimited and often secret money pouring into our politics is a fundamental threat to our democracy. … Because the middle class will never have a fighting chance in this country as long as just several hundred families, the wealthiest families, control the process.”

    And this: “I believe we have to end the divisive partisan politics that is ripping this country apart. … It’s mean-spirited. It’s petty. … I don’t think we should look at Republicans as our enemies. They are our opposition; they’re not our enemies.”

    To recap, Biden has little tolerance for Democrats who go out of their way to point out disagreements with Obama, raise obscene amounts of money, are mean-spirited and petty, and treat the opposition as enemies.

    Oh my. Who does that sound like? It’s clear in listening to Biden that he thinks that Clinton is not the solution but more like the problem.

    It’s tricky for someone running for president to figure out how much deference to pay to an incumbent administration of the same party. It’s a dilemma that was once faced by a sitting vice president who wanted the top job and, concerned about negative pushback against scandals and failures, made what many political observers consider the fatal mistake of trying to distance himself from a two-term administration to which he had contributed much and of which he was a major part.

    The year was 2000. The candidate was Al Gore. And the administration was that of President Bill Clinton. Ask Democrats who they have more respect and affection for now – Al Gore or Bill Clinton. The former president wins.

    Now, as she delicately tries to define her relationship to the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton finds herself in much the same position that Gore did back then. Democrats should hope she makes better choices.

    Hillary should make better choices. But not to run further kook than Obama. The examples this illegal immigration activist/journalist cites of Hillary moving away from Obama are really moving further than Obama.

  53. wbboei
    October 28, 2015 at 2:20 am
    Iwo Jima was also the only island battle where US casualties outweighed Japanese losses. Ever watch that HBO series The Pacific? The US Army in Western Europe had it easy compared to the nightmare the US Marines faced island hopping in the Pacific.

  54. Tony Stark
    October 28, 2015 at 10:20 am
    October 28, 2015 at 2:20 am
    Iwo Jima was also the only island battle where US casualties outweighed Japanese losses. Ever watch that HBO series The Pacific? The US Army in Western Europe had it easy compared to the nightmare the US Marines faced island hopping in the Pacific.
    You are so right, my friend. Europe was rough, the beaches on D-Day, Hurtken Forrest, and worse of all, The Battle of the Bulge. But the Pacific was the most primitive, the most brutal type of war, under the very worst of conditions. If malaria, land crabs, piles of dead bodies, dug in fanatics, flamethrowers with “Jap Nemesis” painted on the side, dismembering corpses, psychological warfare, dragging your dead back to the line so the enemy could not claim credit, sniper bullets and bonzai charges are not your thing, then you would not like it. The best book on that the war in the Pacific from an enlisted man’s perspective: “With the Old Breed on Pelaui and Okinawa. The writer, then a sergeant, went to become a chemistry professor, and kept daily notes, so note of the details were not forgotten. A generation later Japanese and America service men went back to that terrible venue where they spent a portion of their youth. The floodtide of memories was so overwhelming they broke down in tears, and said we must never allow our countries to put their young people through an ordeal such as this. But that means our political class must learn from the past, and they are such sorry motherfuckers that like Talleyrand said of the Bourbons, and despite their Harvard training, they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

  55. Synopsis of With The Old Breed:

    Sledge’s memoir gives a perspective on the Pacific Theater of World War II. His memoir is a front-line account of infantry combat in the Pacific War. It brings the reader into the island hopping, the jungle heat and rain, the “banzai attack” or full frontal assault used by his enemies. Sledge wrote starkly of the brutality displayed by American and Japanese soldiers during the battles, and of the hatred that both sides harbored for each other. In Sledge’s words, “This was a brutish, primitive hatred, as characteristic of the horror of war in the Pacific as the palm trees and the islands.”

    Sledge describes one instance in which he and a comrade came across the mutilated bodies of three Marines, including one Marine whose genitals had been cut off and stuffed into the corpse’s mouth. He also describes the behavior of some Marines towards dead Japanese, including the removal of gold teeth from Japanese corpses (and, in one case, a severely wounded but still living Japanese soldier), as well as other disturbing trophy-taking.

    Sledge describes in detail the sheer physical struggle of living in a combat zone and the debilitating effects of constant fear, fatigue, and filth. “Fear and filth went hand-in-hand,” he wrote. “It has always puzzled me that this important factor in our daily lives has received so little attention from historians and is often omitted from otherwise excellent personal memoirs by infantrymen.” Marines had trouble staying dry, finding time to eat their rations, practicing basic field sanitation (it was impossible to dig latrines or catholes in the coral rock on Peleliu), and simply moving around on the pulverized coral of Peleliu and in the mud of Okinawa.

  56. One of the other remarkable things about that war is that it was fought and won by draftees and reserve officers. The academies were prominent of course, less so today, but you found in that war, just as you do in any, that the prerequisite to leadership is not a west point diploma. A clear example of this was Confederate Cavalry General Nathan Bedford Forrest aka The Wizard of the Saddle, or that Devil Forrest as Sherman called him. He entered the war as a private, rose to the rank of lieutenant general, and pioneered tactics that were taught at the war colleges for the next hundred years. He fought on the western frontier, and was not used in the decisive battles in Virginia. But after the war, Lee and Jefferson Davis both agreed their biggest mistake was not using him more strategically, because that could have prolonged and thereby won the war because of the political opposition to it which was menastasing in the north. With all that said, one my wonder whether the service academies are not more like Harvard, i.e. not the training ground of leaders which they purport to be, but more like a fraternity of mutual support for each other. In some cases, the answer has to be yes.

  57. wbboei
    October 28, 2015 at 10:45 am
    Sledge was one of the three real characters whose stories were told in HBO’s The Pacific, both before the war and its aftermath. The ninth episode, which depicted the battle in Okinawa, was the best of the series.

  58. Clinton leads by 49% in Texas……..

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is far ahead of her challengers among likely Democrat Primary voters. Clinton garners 58.73% support with “Undecided” at 28.27%, ahead of both Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley who have 9.72% and 3.27% respectively.

    Clinton’s strength in the numbers is even more pronounced in the DFW area leading the pack at 62.58% and “Undecided” voters make up 31.03% of respondents.

Comments are closed.