The Commentariat -- June 9, 2016

Afternoon Update:

Julie Davis of the New York Times: "President Obama on Thursday formally endorsed Hillary Clinton and called her the most qualified candidate to seek the White House, imploring Democrats to come together to elect her after a bruising party primary." -- CW 

Everett Rosenfeld of CNBC reports that "President Barack Obama officially endorsed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for president on Thursday, saying he is 'fired up' for the presumptive Democratic candidate. In a prerecorded video released Thursday, Obama latched onto the Clinton campaign's slogan, letting his supporters know that 'I'm with her,' and pledging to campaign for the presumptive nominee. The president's endorsement comes eight years and two days after Clinton did the same for him." -- Akhilleus ...

The Bern cools down? Clare Foran in The Atlantic writes that  "Bernie Sanders isn’t ready to back down yet—but the end of his campaign is in sight. Speaking outside of the White House on Thursday after meeting with President Obama, Sanders confirmed he would compete in Washington, D.C.’s Democratic primary next week. But he signaled a willingness to work with Hillary Clinton to ensure that Democrats win the White House. 'I look forward to meeting with her in the near future to see how we can work together to defeat Donald Trump and create a government, which represents all of us and not just the one percent,' Sanders said." -- Akhilleus...

Sanity at Last. Tal Kopan of CNN: "A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that there is no Second Amendment protection for concealed weapons -- allowing states to prohibit or restrict the public from carrying concealed firearms. The en banc opinion by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could set up a new showdown on gun rights at the Supreme Court. At issue was California's law on concealed weapons, which requires citizens to prove they have 'good cause' to carry concealed firearms to get a license. Plaintiffs challenged guidelines in San Diego and Yolo counties that did not consider general self-defense to be enough to obtain a license"

...Akhilleus: Finally a court of law decides that Second Amendment rights are not absolute and unconditional. The loons will be out in force after this ruling. Foxbots are oiling their vocal cords for days and nights of incessant caterwauling. Don't overlook the fact that this ruling was delivered en banc. Had Scalia still been around that probably wouldn't have mattered much, since everyone needs a gun on their hip, but the current court makeup could make it less likely that this ruling would be overturned. NRA sociopaths must be swinging from the chandeliers. The ones made out of Colt .45s.

*************

Presidential Race

Alexander Burns, et al., of the New York Times: "Democratic and Republican leaders on Wednesday renewed their fitful efforts to impose greater order on a freewheeling presidential race and to bring to heel a pair of political renegades, Senator Bernie Sanders and Donald J. Trump, whose upstart campaigns have roiled the political establishment.... Mr. Obama is expected to meet with Mr. Sanders in Washington on Thursday and increase the pressure on the irascible Vermonter to defer to Mrs. Clinton.... Republicans face a thornier challenge in grappling with Mr. Trump, whose inflammatory comments and slapdash campaign style have alarmed party leaders throughout the race." -- CW 

CW: Gail Collins writes a very good column on how Hillary & Bernie might get together, reminding readers what diehards Hillary & some of her supporters were in 2008, even though she & Obama had few policy differences (he ended up supporting her healthcare plan instead of his own), which she & Bernie have different philosophies of government. I know many Reality Chex readers who have supported Hillary all along are furious that Bernie hasn't bowed out (and I too think he should). Collins' column may help you understand why he seems to be fighting till the last dog dies, or, as Andy Borowitz put it yesterday, till after Hillary is elected president. ...

... Brian Beutler: "... the longer [the Democratic party] remains divided between Clinton and Sanders supporters, the more marginalized and alienated Sanders’s supporters will grow, and the more attenuated Sanders’ influence — and the left’s — within Democratic politics will become. It would thus behoove him, for the sake of his own movement’s viability, to suspend his campaign quickly, with a smile, and begin the work of drawing his supporters into the Democratic fold well before the party’s convention next month." -- CW 

President Obama appeared on the "Tonight Show" last night. The full interview has not come up on the "Tonight Show"'s site yet (8:00 am ET), but it should be up within a few hours. Here's a portion of the interview:

Anne Gearan of the Washington Post: "In her first Post interview since launching her campaign 14 months ago, Clinton expressed cautious hope that rival Bernie Sanders, whose candidacy produced an unexpectedly hard-fought nominating contest, would soon rally behind her. And she left open the possibility that one of his chief demands — a change in the Democratic Party’s system of superdelegates — might be met.... She begins general-election campaigning in earnest next week, with visits to the battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania." The full transcript of the interview is here. CW: It's quite a good interview & a fairly quick read. If, like me, you're not a Hillary fan, you might like her better after reading the interview. ...

Amy Chozick of the New York Times: "She may not be the orator President Obama is, or the retail politician her husband was. But Mrs. Clinton’s steely fortitude in this campaign has plainly inspired older women, black voters and many others who see in her perseverance a kind of mirror to their own struggles. And Mrs. Clinton’s very durability — her tenacity, grit and capacity for enduring and overcoming adversity — could be exactly what is required to defeat Donald J. Trump." -- CW (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...

... Paul Waldman: "... it's only fitting that the last impediment to reaching the pinnacle of her ambition is Donald Trump, [Clinton's] opposite in so many ways. She's the target of so much sexism; he's a spectacular misogynist. She stayed with the world's most famous cheating husband; he discards one wife after another when they hit their 40s. She assiduously studies policy to be prepared for the job; he revels in his ignorance and inexperience. She's careful and calculated to a fault; he says whatever damn fool thing pops into his head. Five months from now, we'll know whether, at long last, Hillary Clinton has reached her ultimate destination. Few people ever worked as hard, for as long, and fought through as much, in order to get there." -- CW 

Michelle Conlin & Caren Bohan of Reuters: "U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has considered the idea of serving as Hillary Clinton's running mate but sees obstacles to that choice as she prepares to endorse ... [Clinton], several people familiar with Warren's thinking told Reuters. While her thinking could evolve, Warren has concerns about joining a Clinton ticket, including the question of whether running two women would give the Democrats the best shot at defeating Republican Donald Trump, one source said." -- CW

I know Secretary Clinton pretty well.... I think she will not pick somebody that she feels in her heart isn’t ready to be president or commander-in-chief and I think Elizabeth Warren is a wonderful, bright, passionate person, but with no experience in foreign affairs and not in any way, shape, or form ready to be commander-in-chief. -- Ed Rendell, Wednesday, reminding you he's still a hunka, hunka flaming asshole

Worth noting: in 2004, John Kerry considered Rendell, who has no "foreign affairs" experience, as a running mate. But then, Rendell is a man, so he's inherently talented & doesn't need experience. After Rendell said earlier this year that Trump would lose because "there are probably more ugly women in America than attractive women," Ian Millhiser asked, "Can we all agree that Ed Rendell should never open his mouth again ever please?" Yes, we all do agree. Except Rendell. -- Constant Weader

... Philip Rucker of the Washington Post: "Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who this spring has delivered some of the most effective and eviscerating criticism of Donald Trump, plans in a speech Thursday to uncork a new attack.... Warren will call Trump 'a loud, nasty, thin-skinned fraud' who used 'racism' to attack the federal judge overseeing a Trump University lawsuit, according to excerpts of her prepared remarks. The liberal senator also will seek to saddle Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) with Trump’s racially divisive rhetoric." -- CW 

Charles Pierce has thoughts on why Bernie must get on board the Hillary train sooner (or later). Read the post, which includes this somewhat unrelated graf:

As to primary night, well, I went to bed immediately after Brian Williams on MSNBC made the following statement: 'First, we'll go to Nicolle Wallace, and then we'll go to Steve Schmidt, and then to Ben Ginsberg, and finally to Chuck Todd.' In response to a historic speech by the first woman nominated by a major party for president, the liberal network on my electric teevee set gave me the two puppet-masters behind Sarah Palin's attempt to become vice president, one of the head ratfckers of the Florida heist in 2000 who also made a cameo appearance during the Swift Boat ratfck four years later, and a newsman who has made Both Siderism into a kind of fundamentalist creed.

Ha Ha. Maggie Severns & Josh Gerstein of Politico: Donald Trump "went on Sean Hannity to rant against the plaintiffs’ law firm [in the Trump U case ] for paying Hillary Clinton large sums of money for speeches.... But Trump’s lead lawyer ... Daniel Petrocelli has donated to Clinton over the years, and even contributed $2,700 to her campaign after Trump brought him on to the politically fraught case. The fact that Trump’s own lawyer ... has been an avid Clinton backer undermines his accusations of bias in the case, not only against the plaintiffs’ lawyers but also against U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel...." -- CW 

Carl Hulse of the New York Times: “'Politicians are so politically correct anymore, they can’t breathe,' Mr. Trump said in an interview Tuesday afternoon as fellow Republicans forcefully protested his ethnically charged criticism of a federal judge overseeing a lawsuit against the defunct Trump University. 'The people are tired of this political correctness when things are said that are totally fine,' he said during an interlude in a day of exceptional stress in the Trump campaign. 'It is out of control. It is gridlock with their mouths.'” CW: Yes, it's disgusting when people are so politically-correct that they won't routinely use racial slurs or vilify others on the basis of ethnicity or religion.

Jeff Shesol of the New Yorker on Donald Trump's election-night speech: "Authorship aside, the mere existence of a script, along with Trump’s success in speaking for more than fifteen minutes without uttering a single overtly racist statement, was enough for an NBC News reporter to describe the speech as  'Presidential.'... Both rhetorically and substantively, Trump flatlined [Tuesday] night. It is hard to see how this speech, or more speeches like it, will help Trump broaden his appeal.... Having turned down the volume and the heat — the elements that energize his core constituency — he revealed himself incapable, at least for the moment, of giving a credible political speech.... Trump ... has never looked less like he knows what he is doing, or where he is going, than he did [Tuesday] night." -- CW ...

... CW: If you think Shesol is wrong, consider this. Michael Bender & Jennifer Jacobs of Bloomberg: "... Donald Trump distanced himself from his own fundraising estimate of $1 billion, refusing to commit to collecting even half that amount, and saying his campaign didn't need much money to win the White House. Trump, who has held just two major fundraising events since agreeing three weeks ago to help the party raise cash, said he would rely instead more on his own star power as a former reality-TV personality to earn free media, and has no specific goals for how much money his campaign needs." ...

     ... CW, Ctd. The main way Trump can keep getting that free media attention is by doing what he's been doing: saying outrageous things. So he either does endless, boring fundraisers with endlessly boring wealthy Republicans or he blurts out bullshit. I wonder which he'll choose. AND of course there's a reason Drumpf is claiming he doesn't need the money:

... Alex Isenstadt of Politico: "In interviews, over a dozen major Republican Party donors and fundraisers who’ve signed on to help Trump raise money said they expected Trump to net only a fraction of his original $1 billion goal, perhaps netting less than a third of that." -- CW 

The Wayback Machine Takes Us to 2009, Part 1. Jesse Singal of New York: "A truly vintage example [of Donald Trump's lying] popped up in Tuesday’s BuzzFeed article detailing Trump’s attempts to raise money from, and forge potential business relationships with, Muammar ­Qaddafi.... In [2009, in] exchange for some cash — and, evidence strongly suggests, in an attempt to bring himself closer to Qaddafi, who had access to funds and business connections Trump openly coveted — Trump allowed his estate to be partially taken over by a throng of 20 members of Qaddafi’s entourage[, and they erected a tent on the premises].... Unfortunately for this rental agreement..., 'the town of Bedford issued a stop-work order, based on a local ordinance against building temporary structures without a permit.... Later, Trump took credit for shutting the site down, saying he had asked the Libyans to leave.'” CW: Everything he says is fake. (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)

The Wayback Machine Takes Us to 2009, Part 2. Ben Adler & Rebecca Leber of Grist: "As negotiators headed to Copenhagen in December 2009 to forge a global climate pact, concerned U.S. business leaders and liberal luminaries took out a full-page ad in the New York Times calling for aggressive climate action.... One of the signatories of that letter: Donald Trump. Also signed by Trump’s three adult children, the letter called for passage of U.S. climate legislation, investment in the clean energy economy, and leadership to inspire the rest of the world to join the fight against climate change." -- CW 

State of Denial, Part 1. Donald Who? Josh Marshall of TPM: "There does not seem to be any mention of Donald Trump on the official Republican Party website, gop.com. Hillary is there. Bernie is there. George H.W.Bush is there. Reagan is there. Reagan/Bush. Lincoln is there. No Trump anywhere." CW: As the TPM reader who discovered the teensy omission writes, "The fact that the Republican leadership, or rather 'leadership,' is supporting Trump has gotten a lot of attention; the funny part is that they think they can also pretend it isn’t happening." ...

... State of Denial, Part 2. Alex Griswold of Mediaite: "Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt argued Wednesday morning that the Republican Party should make an unprecedented effort to change the Republican National Convention rules to allow them to dump Donald Trump as their nominee." ...

... State of Denial, Part 3. Winger Leon Wolf of Red State: "Rumors are starting to float around that Scott Walker is open to accepting the nomination at the convention, if the wheels continue to come off the Trump train and the rules are changed to unbind the delegate." ...

... A Dose of Realism. Steve M.: "... meanwhile, Ted Cruz has the second-highest number of delegates, as well as an overgrown debate nerd's fondness for parliamentary infighting. Oh, and I suppose the threat of convention unrest from Roger Stone and others if Trump is denied the nomination is still on the table. So Trump's not going to dethroned. The GOP can't possibly get its act together." -- CW 

Senate Races

Mark Kirk is the only GOP senator who has retracted his endorsement of Trump, but his opponent, Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D) won't let Kirk get away with his newfound "principled stand" (via Paul Waldman):

Since Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is running for re-election & has a viable Democratic opponent, I guess we should spend a little more effort to remind ourselves what a dick Chuck is ...

Jason Noble of the Des Moines Register: "U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley on Wednesday likened ... Donald Trump’s controversial remarks on a federal judge to a statement frequently made by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor before she was appointed to the high court. Trump’s insistence that the judge in a case concerning Trump University could not be unbiased because of his Mexican heritage is no more troubling than Sotomayor’s statement that a 'wise Latina' could render a better legal conclusion than a white male..., Grassley said during a conference call with Iowa reporters. Grassley is ... chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees court appointments." CW: As Grassley knows, Sotomayor conceded during her 2009 Senate confirmation process that she had made "a poor choice of words" in trying to make her point that the life experience of a judge matters. ...

... Sarah Jerde of TPM: "... Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on Wednesday told NBC News that he didn't mean to 'equate' Donald Trump's attacks on a federal judge's 'Mexican heritage' with Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's comment about a 'wise Latina.' 'You just can't equate the two. And I wasn't meaning to equate the two,' Grassley said. 'And I think I've said several times that I wouldn't say what, uh, Trump said. I disagree with what he said.'" CW: So, Chuck, I guess you just made "a poor choice of words" when you said Trump's attacks on Judge Curiel "is no more troubling" than Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remarks. ...

... Des Moines Register Editors: "Sen. Charles Grassley says Donald Trump's assertion that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel is incapable of being impartial due to his ethnic heritage is of little concern, even though a President Trump would nominate judges to the federal bench.... Just a few weeks ago, Grassley expressed confidence that Trump would nominate the 'right type of people' to the U.S. Supreme Court. And this week, Grassley didn’t seem at all perturbed by Trump’s remarks about Judge Curiel.... When it comes to Donald Trump, there are invertebrates that have shown more spine than Sen. Charles Grassley." (You'll have to scroll down to find this editorial, which appears beneath the one I've linked below.)

Des Moines Register Editors: "... it is surprising to see the office of Sen. Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dismiss ... the alarming number of judicial ... vacancies as a 'manufactured crisis' undeserving of public attention.... Since the Republicans took control of the Senate in 2015, confirmations have slowed to a crawl, with only 18 judges confirmed. At the same time, the president’s ability to fill vacancies on the federal courts of appeal have hit a brick wall, with GOP leaders openly acknowledging their intent to block any Obama nominees to the appeals courts."

Other News & Views

Adam Goldman & Missy Ryan of the Washington Post: "The Obama administration believes that about 12 detainees released from the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have launched attacks against U.S. or allied forces in Afghanistan, killing about a half-dozen Americans...." -- CW 

David Herszenhorn & Michael Schmidt of the New York Times: "Speaker Paul D. Ryan on Thursday will roll out a national security agenda as part of his effort to shape the Republican Party platform.... The document is long on themes and short on specifics, serving as a potential template to counter some of the more contentious proposals made by Mr. Trump and as a rebuke to the Obama administration.... House Republicans, in a document to be unveiled Thursday morning at the Council on Foreign Relations, charge that the United States is far less safe than when President Obama took office in 2008, and that the nation’s stature has diminished.... At the same time, the to-do list put forward by the Republicans in many ways tracks policies and strategies that the Obama administration has had in place for most of the last eight years...." CW: So, whiny, finger-pointing plagiarism. Very impressive. ...

... Steve Benen does a number on Paul Ryan's "Better Way"/"More Poverty, Please" plan, which Ryan rolled out Tuesday. CW: Benen thinks Ryan was lucky that the rollout came at the height of Donald Trump's racist meltdown, but I have a feeling Ryan wanted to keep it a secret: obviously, the headlines in Wednesday's papers would be about the results of the Democratic primary races, long-envisioned to be the day Clinton would secure the number of pledged delegates to win the nomination. Ryan's "More Poverty, Please" nonsense would never be the top story.

Matthew Pennington of the AP: "Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi told Congress Wednesday that his nation and the U.S. have overcome 'the hesitations of history' and called for ever-stronger economic and defense ties between the two countries.... Modi's address followed years of being shunned in the U.S. because of religious violence in his home state. Underscoring the turnabout, it came a day after a White House meeting with President Barack Obama and preceded a lunch Modi will have in the Capitol with congressional leaders and a reception hosted by the House and Senate foreign affairs committees." -- CW (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)

Wherein the excellent representatives of Utah, Sen. Orrin Hatch & Rep. Jason Chaffetz shrug at armed insurrection. Charles Pierce: "We had the Bundys, and we had the Bird Sanctuary Dudes, and now, as The Washington Post reports, in Utah, we have people who are openly threatening the civil authorities with open revolt. It's over a place called Bears Ears, out of which the president wants to create a national monument under the Antiquities Act, which he has a perfect legal right to do.... But the real news is that the congressional delegation from Utah seems to be blithely unconcerned with the possibility of armed insurrection over the issue. Because, as you know, tyranny! [CW Translation: "Because ... Obama!"]

Charles Pierce: "Tom Cotton weaponized a dying woman's final days in order to 'inflict special pain' on the president. Tom Cotton is a petty, sadistic swine who has the basic conscience of a cholera outbreak. He should be shamed from office, and he should be shunned by decent people. God, I hope there's a hell, and that it's as advertised by Dante." -- CW (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)

Justice Thomas Is Blind. Linda Greenhouse: Justice Clarence Thomas's dissent in Foster v. Chatman, in which the Court ruled 7-1 to overturn a murder conviction of a black man by an all-white Georgia jury "was one of the most bizarre performances I have witnessed in decades spent observing the Supreme Court." Here's one mind-boggling argument: "“New evidence should not justify the relitigation of Batson claims.” (That is, claims that lawyers made peremptory challenges in jury selection on the basis of race.) CW: Right. Because who cares about evidence?

Matt Zapotosky of the Washington Post: Mohamad Khweis, an American who "joined and then quickly fled the Islamic State terrorist organization, after which Kurdish peshmerga forces captured him..., will be charged in federal district court in Alexandria with conspiring to provide material support to terrorists, according to U.S. officials familiar with the case.... While U.S. prosecutors have charged at least 85 people across the country with Islamic State-related crimes, Khweis — the first American to have been captured on the battlefield — presents an atypical case." Khweis was in the news a while ago for telling Kurdish TV that life as an ISIS fighter was "very, very hard." -- CW 

Stephanie Kirchgaessner of the Guardian: "A former CIA officer who was accused of taking part in an illegal counter-terrorism programme said she is facing imminent extradition to Italy from Portugal after a high court in Lisbon rejected a last-minute legal appeal. Sabrina de Sousa, a 60-year-old former CIA officer who was convicted in absentia in Italy in 2009, faces a four-year prison term for her alleged role in the kidnapping of a radical Egyptian cleric named Abu Omar, who was grabbed off the street in Milan by CIA officials in 2003 and sent to Egypt, where he was imprisoned, interrogated and allegedly tortured." -- CW (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)

Keith Alexander of the Washington Post: Roy L. Pearson Jr, "an administrative judge who in 2005 filed a $54 million lawsuit against a [Washington, D.C.,] dry-cleaning business over a pair of missing pants, becoming a national symbol for frivolous litigation, could face disciplinary action by the D.C. Court of Appeals for alleged misconduct in the case.... On June 3, a three-person hearing committee for the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility found Pearson committed two ethics violations of interfering with the administration of justice and presenting arguments not supported by facts or law.... A final decision could take months." -- CW 

Michelle Boorstein of the Washington Post: "Washington National Cathedral, one of the country’s most visible houses of worship, announced Wednesday that it would remove Confederate battle flags that are part of two large stained-glass windows honoring Confederate generals Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee. Cathedral leaders said they would leave up the rest of the windows — for now — and use them as a centerpiece for a national conversation about racism in the white church. The announcement comes a year after the cathedral’s then-dean, the Rev. Gary Hall, said the 8-by-4-foot windows have no place in the soaring church as the country faces intense racial tensions and violence, even though they were intended as a healing gesture when they were installed." -- CW 

Beyond the Beltway

William Rashbaum of the New York Times: "The powerful leader of the union that represents New York City correction officers, whose alliances with mayors and governors have afforded him broad influence, was arrested on federal fraud charges on Wednesday, according to court papers. The charges against the union leader, Norman Seabrook, and a second defendant, Murray Huberfeld, a hedge-fund financier, stem from the first major criminal case linked to one of several corruption investigations focused on the campaign fund-raising of Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat." -- CW (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)

Sam Levin & Julia Wong of the Guardian: Brock Turner, the former Stanford U. swimmer convicted of sexual assault & given a lenient sentence, in a statement to the judge, "placed blame on ‘alcohol’ and ‘party culture.’... The Guardian has published a portion of Turner’s statement that illustrates, as the victim described in her original statement, the ways in which Turner 'failed to exhibit sincere remorse or responsibility for his conduct'.” -- CW (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)

Way Beyond

William Booth of the Washington Post: "A top Israeli minister said he wants the government to take complete control of more than half of the West Bank and remove the Palestinian residents of the territory. While traveling with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a state visit to Russia on Tuesday, Agriculture Minister Uri Ariel told the Times of Israel that the world should forget about a Palestinian state." -- CW (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)

Simon Denyer of the Washington Post: "A U.S. spy plane has been buzzed by Chinese jets as it flew over the East China Sea, with one of the fighter planes approaching in an 'unsafe' manner, the U.S. military said, after the second similar incident in three weeks. China responded by accusing the United States of 'hyping' the incident but said the real problem was U.S. surveillance planes flying too close to its territory." -- CW (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)

Comments

[PD Pepe]

A reporter asks Hillary during their discussion of running mates, "Are we ready for two women?" WHAT! I yelled––we have BEEN ready for more years than that young whipper snapper of a reporter was born. In 1964 Margaret Chase Smith (R) was the first woman to run for President. She had been in the House and then Senate for 24 yrs. She was smart, funny, capable, certainly presidential material and had a large coterie of female backers. But many men laughed. She lost, Barry Goldwater won, but lost nationally big time, and the Republican Party fell into that deep hole of despair.

In 1972 Shirley Chisholm (D) ran for President––a black women who had grit, had smarts, was ready for prime time. When reporters canvassed the streets asking people (mostly men) what they thought about a female President we got:

"They aren't as level headed"
"They can't handle the job"
"They aren't ready"

And some just laughed.

It's also amazing to realize that this country among the community of nations is one of the few who have NEVER had a female head of state. This country that's supposed to be the greatest, the most innovative, most advanced has somehow never welcomed the "fair gender" to lead our nation. What is our problem do you think? (Of course look no further than Ed Rendell and you may have the answer.)

This time––nobody's laughing.

The story above re: Gitmo prisoner releases targeting Americans is troubling, intriguing, and I wonder where the truth of all this lies. Are those that want to keep Gitmo open pushing the stats farther than the facts? A veil of secrecy hangs over that issue and the article itself is mired in obscurity.

[Marvin Schwalb]

"So it's mind-boggling that 20 percent of Sanders primary voters say they will support Trump in the general election in a Washington Post poll." (In a NJ Star-Ledger editorial today).

It doesn't boggle my mind. A substantial number of Sanders supporters are just in it for the fun of the game. It just shows that you can be 21 years old and still behave like a petulant 4 year old.

(In the Star-Ledger cartoon one character says 'It can't be over bro. I got a tattoo..)

[Akhilleus]

Marvin,

Not all Bernie Bros are incipient supporters of the Orange Headed Lying Racist.

Gotta hand it to them, the Bernie fans in this video are definitely NOT considering a vote for the OHLR, and they'll fight anyone who says different. Even each other:

"Bernie bros are real and they are amped up. In easily the most hilarious video to come out of the 2016 presidential election, a group of Bernie Sanders supporters fight only to realize they’re on the same team.

Each group assuming the other is there to support Trump, go at it, throwing heavy punches and swift jabs all while yelling in each other’s faces. It isn’t until one guy starts shouting, “They’re with us!” that the sparring groups take a moment to reassess the situation. Two seconds later, they’re jumping up and down cheering for Bernie."

Yowza.

[Akhilleus]

NATP

That's right, kids. This is Not a Trump Post. Plenty of time for those later. But first, while the OHLR is busy deciding which Mt. Rushmore head will have to be dynamited to make room for his scowling, jowly, weird haired visage, Confederates are carrying on apace doing the things they do best, when they're not doing nothing at all, that is: fucking the poor and servicing the rich.

Poor Lyin' Ryan. It's so hard being a Very Special Person, in'it? Especially when you work soooooo hard pretending to be smart and have, like, ideas and stuff.

Steve Benen (linked above) does a good job of pointing out the outrageousness of Ryan's contentions for declining to help the poor while making the sure the rich get richer. You recall the attempt by the White House, a while back, to try to force wealthy investment advisors to work in their clients' interest rather than their own? Such a commie idea! Confederates are desperate to nuke it. Anyway (and how this works its way into a program for helping the poor, I have not the vaguest), Lyin' Ryan is trying to make the case that the "fiduciary rule", as it's called, will hurt the poors because it could cost them more to get investment advice.

Errrr....okay. I make less than 20K a year, almost all of which goes to rent and food, but with this new rule, I won't have the necessary extra 10K it will cost me to talk to a finance industry advisor about real estate investment trusts, mutual funds, and the purchase of collateralized debt obligations? Shit!

Great point, Ryan! Those poors would be fucked by a rule like that.

But before they get impaled by the investment community, Ryan, as always, wants first crack at screwing them himself. But you'd be hard pressed to know that by reading reports about this fraudulent "better way" plan. As Benen rightly points out: "...if the public fully understood what Ryan was recommending with regard to poverty, he’d probably have an entirely different controversy on his hands."

That's a big "if", right there, boyo.

And here's an example of why they might not understand.

The Home for Retired Neocon Liars and Ex-Decider Speech Writers, aka the Washington Post, dutifully reported on the Ryan "plan" to end--oh sorry, that should be ext-end--poverty.

Now that article itself isn't truly terrible, at least by WaPo's recent Jeff Bezos-Fred Ryan standards--not great, but not terrible--but a kindly headline writer and obliging photo editor made sure to spin the story to make it look like Poor Lyin' Ryan sure is tryin' hard to help the poors even though he is beset on all sides. The poor man!

First, the headline: "Paul Ryan tried and failed to get Republicans to agree on helping the poor"

(cue FAIL) buzzer sound effect.

No. He is definitely not trying to help the poor. Just the opposite. As Benen's piece proves, his interests are elsewhere. With the rich, as always. Oh, he's certainly interested in LOOKING like he's helping those poor poors. But actually doing it? Fuuuuuuuck that.

Second, the picture.

Hand on head, tired eyes, drawn face, looking soooo concerned, sooooo exhausted trying to help those awful pain-in-the-ass poors.

This shit stinks like a whorehouse at low tide. There has to be some secret fraternal order of media vermin whose job it is to make sure that Paul Ryan is never portrayed as anything other than a sainted genius.

Oh, and about that WaPo piece. I said it was not bad. But there are little pieces of it that still stink like, well, see above.

In discussing all the wonderful things those lucky-ducky poors already get for free from the guv'mint, there is this reference to the earned income tax credit: "...which [Ryan's] staff called 'one of the federal government's most effective anti-poverty programs' [and which] gives poor workers a wad of cash — $3,100, on average, for families with children..."

First, a "wad" of cash? No one is handed a "wad" of anything. What the EITC amounts to is about an extra $64 a week. And to make sure that both-siders are happy, the writer, referencing Ryan's "report", points out that many poors who receive this gigantic "wad" of cash, don't really deserve it, resulting in "improper payments": "Many conservative policymakers see those improper payments — which totaled almost $16 billion last year — as a prime example of governmental waste."

$16 billion sounds a like bundle, don't it? But let's put that into perspective. I don't know how many citizens those "improper payments" encompass, but given the way Confederates count, I'm gonna guess it's in the tens of millions.

On another page of the national budget ledger, waaaaay in the back, we find this amount paid to a single entity: "Walmart and the Walton family—which co-founded the company and still owns a majority share—collectively profit from nearly $7.8 billion per year in federal subsidies and tax breaks."

And that's just Walmart. How about the rest of the moochers?

"Here's a stark number for understanding how low-wage employers are relying on the kindness of taxpayers: $153 billion."

We're talking giant corporations who pay their employees slave wages and let the taxpayers pick up the rest, allowing these corporate giants to bilk the government so they can add to their bottom line. Now $153 billion really is a wad. And that's not counting the additional billions that go to the Kochs and Exxon and defense contractors. Not to mention that this money is not spread around among millions of recipients like the EITC. We're talking a relative handful of corporate cronies.

But you'll never hear Ryan referring to any of these wads as "improper payouts" and you'll never hear the Washington Post explain them as such either.

The article does point out that in lieu of actual well thought-out solutions for addressing poverty and the rising income inequality preferred by Confederates, Ryan's "plan" suggests handing it all over to the states to deal with. You know, that old Reagan Federalism bullshit that has never worked for anyone but Republicans. Okay, so lemme get this straight: the plan is to let Rick (We Poison the Poor) Snyder, Scott Walker, Rick Scott, Jan Brewer, Chris Christie, and Paul LePage figure out and implement effective ways to address poverty in their states?

Yeah, that's the ticket. I'm sure that'll work.

So Lyin' Ryan doesn't have to worry. Large swaths of the American public still see him as the concerned wonky smart guy. Not the lying, cheating, fraudulent, cheeseparing testicle cozy for the rich he really is.

Carry on, Confederates!

[Akhilleus]

So Scott Walker is "open" to saving the GOP if they agree to boot Trump and make him king? Such a loathsome little reptile. This asshole collected what, 17 votes during the Confederate Primaries? But now he's sniffing that he'll be the king if they ask him politely. But he'll be happy to go along with Trump as long as the OHLR agrees to renounce his latest bigoted proclamation about Judge Curiel. Okay, well, I think it'll be fine for Walker to be the Confederate nominee as long as he first renounces his entire sham of a career.

There must be a better word for "loathsome"....Pestiferous? Detestable? Base? Bogus? Barbaric? Nauseating?

It's a pick-em.

I feel for smart people in Wisconsin, I really do.

[Gloria]

I recommend this edition of BBC4 World Tonight with interviews on global challenges facing the next US President. I would have liked to hear more specific suggestions, but for a half hour interview of three experienced people there were lots of multi syllabic words and a resignation to complexity and nuance that are so often missing. One conclusion was that the next President will be facing many issues and situations that we cannot even begin to predict. A coherent strategy to deal with the vast array of problems will be essential, that political and diplomatic solutions will have to be forged in all cases, working both with allies and others, and will be the work of decades.

[Ophelia M.]

A Departure From La Merde du Jour . . .

Historical Photos of The Late Great(est) Muhammad Ali:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/gallery/2014/oct/30/muhammad-ali-25-best-photographs-cassius-clay-legendary-boxer