February 5, 2016

Let's talk about the new Quinnipiac poll.

It's an argument for the GOP to pick Rubio, no?



Click to enlarge.

By the way, watching last night's Democratic debate, I thought: So much anger! Everyone's annoyingly angry. This indirectly works as an argument against Trump and (to a lesser degree) Cruz. Everyone's yelling. Everyone's turning red and seething. I need relief from this aggression and stress. Rubio can win support by being the normal-seeming, non-angry person.

198 comments:

Tank said...

Meade: Better check AA's cell for text messages from Rubio, her new BF.

Looks like you're about done.

cubanbob said...

Any poll that shows Sanders winning the general election is bogus.

rhhardin said...

Trump isn't angry. It's all humor.

We're seeing the "That's not funny!" effect among women and pajama boys.

AprilApple said...

THE base hate Rubio. We could actually win this time, but why would be want to do that?

rhhardin said...

Tim Blair lists a gotcha question to some Australian politician: "What's an acceptable number of civilian deaths in a war?"

It's gotcha becuase the guys' answer will offend women.

Whatever it takes, being the guys' answer.

Avoiding the question or going mealy-mouthed is what happens. Trump says bomb the shit out of them.

You've got to like that counterattack on the media.

Gahrie said...

As fubar as things are today, people and candidates should be angry....

rhhardin said...

If you want a working political system, nationwide stuff has to follow male instincts. Neighborhood-sized stuff has to follow female instincts.

Don't mix them up.

Nonapod said...

I honestly have no idea. Rubio may in fact have the best chance against the Dems in November, but good luck convincing Trump (and Cruz) supporters of that. Rubio is the anointed "establishment candidate", and these days being called establishment is akin to being called a child rapist.

AprilApple said...

Hillary's anger is directed at anyone who dares to question her.

The others - their anger is directed at what Hillary Clinton stands for-- Crony corrupt government. Though, Bernie, the coward, won't actually say so when he needs to.

BDNYC said...

There's no way Sanders is competitive against Rubio. Laughable. People outside of Democrats must have no clue who Sanders is.

Now Hillary on the other hand is someone they know and have known for more than two decades.

I think if he is the nominee, Rubio would be smart to balance his ticket with someone like Kasich. The lunatic "base" will cry foul, probably because neither guy breathes fire or acts like a dumb redneck, but it would be the most conservative GOP ticket since Reagan-Bush or even Goldwater-Miller.

Can someone be a conservative and a moderate?

CWJ said...

Tank,

This is all going through the motions. Althouse has already stated that Rubio lost her.

AllenS said...

cubanbob said...
Any poll that shows Sanders winning the general election is bogus.

My thoughts exactly.

Tank said...

Oh, I missed that. Gotta check the crease in that guys pants.

David Begley said...

Trump is a mega loser.

Todd said...

rhhardin said... [hush]​[hide comment]
Tim Blair lists a gotcha question to some Australian politician: "What's an acceptable number of civilian deaths in a war?"

It's gotcha becuase the guys' answer will offend women.

Whatever it takes, being the guys' answer.

Avoiding the question or going mealy-mouthed is what happens. Trump says bomb the shit out of them.

You've got to like that counterattack on the media.

2/5/16, 9:37 AM


The counter question is "who's"? As in who's citizens? The right answer is "As few of ours as is possible".

Rick said...

So much anger! Everyone's annoyingly angry. This indirectly works as an argument against Trump and (to a lesser degree) Cruz.

Why doesn't this work as an argument for Trump since it negates the left's argument his temperament should be disqualifying?

buwaya puti said...

Stress is a necessary part of a revolution, or of real creation.
Desire for peace and calm is deceptive. It's a wish for a condition of fantasy. It leads to an inability to deal with problems in a timely manner. Worse, it leads to missing opportunities.
This country is suffering from the effects of too much peace and calm for too long. Too many conflicts have gone unresolved, too many problems palliated at best, and not fixed.

TCom said...

Considering the incredible corruption and BS Trump is fighting against, I would say he is downright joyful.

You really need to wake the Hell up and smell the roses, all of you. Niceness is not an absolute virtue. Niceness and tolerance can fell nations.

You should be thanking your lucky stars that a happy warrior like Trump is here. Everyone else will be more of the same. He might be too, but at least he has a shot at correcting course.

Who would you want as a general in WWII? Gruff, man of action Patton, or an Obama general? The question answers itself.

Wake up. We aren't in Kansas anymore, Toto.

robother said...

Ah yes, Rubio is just like that nice quiet young man, Rick Lazio. So well behaved, well-coifed, never the kind to raise his voice in a debate with Hillary. And how did that work out for the New York Republicans?

traditionalguy said...

Sanders and Trump agree on one carefully censored factoid: that the true unemployment rate is not the mythical 5%, but it is more like 30% for whites and 50 % for blacks.

And that nice smiling man we re-elected to destroy us for 8 years has just ordered the US border with Mexico to be totally non-policed and just open.

So I doubt that a return to hope in sweet loving lies is going to win for anyone 2016. And I believe those polls as much as I believe that the unemployment rate is really 5%.

Writ Small said...

According to Nate Silver, whose blog I visit a lot, these head-to-head match-ups are unreliable this far out, although Nate himself cited similar results weeks ago as one piece of data among many arguing Trump was un-electable in the general.

We went with the most-appealing-to-moderates, "strategic" choice in 2012, and the media redefined Romney in the closing months. I fear they could do the same to Rubio this time. Suddenly, Hillary's experience would be supremely important and Rubio's lack of it would be character-defining. Even though I personally prefer Rubio, we need to let the base have a go this cycle - with Cruz, that is. Trump would be a disaster.

Paddy O said...

"Who would you want as a general in WWII?"

Certainly not a real estate guru!

Dan Hossley said...

Nominating the candidate most likely to defeat Hillary isn't exactly a Republican priority right now.

Ann Althouse said...

I agree that the anger might be mere theatrics or not genuine. But in terms of style, it is offputting to some people, especially when 4 of the top 5 candidates are coming across as angry. It is an opportunity for the one who has a calmer style.

tim in vermont said...

I have zero doubt that Rubio could win the general if he gets there. I guess my nagging question is do I want him to win? Machiavelli, I think, said that given the power to nominate, the power to elect is trifling.

chuck said...

> This indirectly works as an argument against Trump

Given Sander's numbers, I'd say it works as an argument for secession. The best way to survive an atomic bomb is not be there when it goes off, same for a Sander's presidency.

BDNYC said...

Hillary is constantly screaming in that grating monotone when, as others have noted, it would be unacceptable for a young man like Rubio to raise his voice in her presence.

Female privilege. Heck, it's granny privilege.

That said, I think Rubio is too slick to make that mistake. The guy is very polished.

lgv said...

"It's an argument for the GOP to pick Rubio, no?"

Yes, if the numbers were static. I think anyone running against Hillary can gain ground before the election. It's also possible for the Republican candidate to fall flat on his face, especially Trump.

Original Mike said...

"The best way to survive an atomic bomb is not be there when it goes off, same for a Sander's presidency."

If it looks like Sanders has a shot of winning, I'm taking all the money and putting it in the mattress. Ditto Trump.

Bob Boyd said...

If you think Hillary was angry last night.....imagine her gracious demeanor after she saw this poll. Holy cow.
Staffers will probably be dealing with insurance adjusters most of the day.

Sebastian said...

"Rubio can win support by being the normal-seeming, non-angry person." This has been his strategy all along.

Now he just needs to convince enough "angry" "anti-establishment" etc. etc. types to vote in the general. Solution: Cruz as running mate.

Original Mike said...

My wife just got a mailing from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. You wanna see angry?

mccullough said...

Anger seems appropriate this election season. We are divided along many lines in this country and the country is not doing well.

We have not attracted the types of candidates who might help address the big problems. The country isn't ready yet to vote for someone who has to give them the bad news and that the solutions are long term, disruptive, and painful.

Marco Rubio (and Ter Cruz) would have been considered too inexperienced to be President 20 years ago and even 10 years ago since they are not only senators but first term senators. Bernie Sanders would have been considered too crazy, Donald Trump too bombastic, and Hillary too corrupt. It would have been considered unseemly that someone like Jeb should run after his father and brother were president, even more ludicrous than having a former First Lady run as president.

Rubio would likely beat Hillary and would trounce Sanders. But we might be better off as a country having Donald Trump or Ted Cruz run an angry campaign against the bullshit leadership in this country. Ted Cruz is running against the lazy corruption that is the Republican Party and Donald Trump is running against 25 years of terrible American policies and politicians.



Phil 3:14 said...

"So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window..."

rhhardin said...

AnGRRRR.

Nonapod said...

For all I know, if elected Trump may well end up being the best president ever. And I would vote for him in a heartbeat over Hillary or Sanders. But the thing about Trump for me personally (and for a lot of other people I suspect) is I just don't like him.

I don't buy this "happy warrior" nonsense. He's an annoying jackass, a complainer, a bully, and generally just a bore. Politically he's not a conservative, except perhaps when it comes to immigration and a few other things. He's changed his positions on various issues as a matter of convenience. Granted, none of these things alone would make him that much different than any other politician I suppose. But taken as a whole he just seems like a mercurial mess, a wildcard. And yes, I get that that is a large part of his appeal for his supporters. I just find him ridiculous.

And I know I'm not the only one that feels that way. Trump has an image problem. His appeal doesn't translate particularly well to the national electorate. Many voters may only see him as a clown or a nut no matter what he does or says. Trump supporters may not want to hear that, but them's the breaks.

rhhardin said...

Concert violinists take a tiny amount of a beta blocker to keep their hearts from racing. A side effect is that they become well-tempered. Their hearts don't speed up when they'd turn angry either, and the feedback tells them that they're not angry.

PB said...

It's an argument for the Democrats to pick Sanders, no?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The Sanders Trump matchup would be the ultimate socialist v. capitalist throw down in history. Therefore it cannot be allowed to happen.

mccullough said...

Trump v Sanders would be the most entertaining match up since Jefferson v Adams

Franklin said...

This is the Republicans' race to lose - they should nominate the most conservative candidate.

dwick said...

But when Rubio turns red and seethes, the Perfessor will assure us it's 'righteous indignation'...

cubanbob said...

After seven years of Obama and almost one more to go with things worsening this is not the year for the Democrats. The real questions is what do the Republicans need to do to blow it this year and what are the odds they will do so? I'm going to Vegas next week so if anyone can offer a hint on the odds that would be appreciated.

Nonapod, the ultimate image problem is a criminal referral by the FBI. Trump has his image problems but so far that isn't one of them. And that is the problem for the Democrats with Hillary as the presumptive nominee. The rest of the campaign will be endless attacks on the numerous Clinton scandals all which have a corruption stench. When will Hillary Clinton reprise Richard Nixon's "I'm not a crook" line and her paraphrase of "when the Secretary of States does it, it isn't a crime"?

Incidentally as for Colin Powell, yes indeed let the FBI investigate him. And if enough evidence is there, prosecute him. He would deserve it if only for letting Libby go to prison for his disclosures.



Bill Peschel said...

Polls like this are meaningless this far out. Most people haven't done any thinking about these candidates, and the only ones paying attention to campaign news are newsclowns, expertclowns and blogclowns and the commenterclowns who comment on them.

Bay Area Guy said...

I like mccullough's idea of a Trump v. Sanders race.

But Trump is fading, while Sanders arguably is surging.

The Good Professor is right about Rubio. If he just straddles the middle and stays focused, he will be the next Prez. That's not a bad thing. Indeed, compared to Hillary taking power, that is a very good thing.

cubanbob said...

Franklin said...
This is the Republicans' race to lose - they should nominate the most conservative candidate.

2/5/16, 10:49 AM"

Yes indeed. As Mrs. T said now is not the time to go wobbly. Not only should the Republicans choose the most conservative candidate that candidate would also need to help as much as possible all downstream Republican candidates both congressional and in state and local elections. The more those candidates owe him the more amenable they will be in promoting conservative positions.

chickelit said...

Polls are often wrong, Althouse. So no, it's not a "reason to discuss" anything except for the validity and the "meaning" of polls.

Get the science right, Althouse before spouting your personal wishlists.

chickelit said...

The reason(s) I'm not going for Rubio is/are: (1) Strong support for him from the sinecure rather than from bona fide working class. The sinecure has been willfully clueless about recent changes in American culture...they think "look at Rubio...isn't he a great example for an immigrant" w/o even thinking about the role of affirmative action. (2) An excusable (but not forgettable) forgetfulness of Rubio's role in amnesty which circles back to point (1).

Irene said...

When the camera did a closeup of Sanders last night, I noticed some shiny spots on Sanders's left shoulder and lapel. I said to Mr. Irene, "Is that glitter?!"

No! It was spit! Sanders was so angry, he was spittin' mad.

Levi Starks said...

It looks like a reason to pick Bernie.
And since I've decided that he's the candidate most feared by the ruling class (which of course includes law professors)
He's become my pick.
Even though I'm probably not in the class of people expected to support him, the idea of throwing a wrench into the gears of the system seems too appealing to pass up.
Maybe it's a death wish.... who knows?

buwaya said...

This is what politics should be like -
My absolute favorite bit of Mark Twain - the schoolmarms can keep "Huckleberry Finn"

"Journalism in Tennessee" - Mark Twain
http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/1562/-

uffda said...

I find it more interesting that the poll still finds Cruz tied with Clinton. The morning after Iowa the media and GOP establishment began an all out push of Rubio as The One. All that favorable PR accounts for the poll results and has no more lasting effect than one good debate performance. Cruz is tapping into the same vein of discontent and rising despite the opposition of the forces pumping Rubio. I'm optimistic that voters will see through the puffery and prefer the long-haul conservative Cruz.

Bricap said...

There is a slightly greater percentage of undecided voters with Sanders matching up against Cruz or Rubio than with Clinton matching up against either of them. The opposite holds true with Trump. And Sanders only gains a point or two of support, but support drops more for Rubio or Cruz. Is this indicative of anything, or is it all within the margin?

Not sure how meaningful polls are at this stage, anyway, assuming that polls still carry the weight they did not that long ago.

chickelit said...

Blogger CWJ said...This is all going through the motions. Althouse has already stated that Rubio lost her.

Cite?

chickelit said...

Althouse wrote: Everyone's turning red and seething. I need relief from this aggression and stress. Rubio can win support by being the normal-seeming, non-angry person.

So, you're willfully ignoring the etymology of Rubio's name, eh? Shame on you Althouse. Or perhaps you meant to do some irony post down the road?

James Pawlak said...

I do NOT belong to an organized political party, I am a Republican.

Original Mike said...

@chickelit: in the comments section of this post.

buwaya said...

Rubio means "blonde"
I don't see the relevance.

Robin Eatmon said...

I like Trump. Not sure if he has my vote but at great risk, he is going for it and I respect that. He has the business acumen I think our country could use at this time. Cruz and Rubio talk a good game but I am not convinced they have the gut wisdom that would make them good leaders. Rubio may be vulnerable...remember Christie's bubble boy comments? If Rubio falls out of favor with the GOP "string pullers" then who would be next as their pick as the status quo candidate...Jeb, Christie?

Bay Area Guy said...

Can you imagine if Sanders overtakes Hillary (much to our delight), but then, somehow, through hook or crook, actually wins the General Election?

That would be mind-altering.

Original Mike said...

@Bay Area Guy: As I said up post, if Sanders even gets close I'm pulling all my money out of the markets. I'm sure I won't be alone.

Ken B said...

Althouse has a senior moment
"By the way, watching last night's Democratic debate, I thought: So much anger! Everyone's annoyingly angry. … Everyone's turning red and seething. I need relief from this aggression and stress."
She doesn’t know why such anger. But it’s simple: they are both pandering to the left wing of the party and nothing sells on the left like anger, which they prefer to call "rage". Good caring people rage against injustice and evil, like disrespectful sushi. I snark, but I am serious. I can recall sitting around with leftists who spent a lot of effort stoking and worshiping their rage. Then going out for a donut. So that’s why the yelling.

Real American said...

politicians are angry because the country is angry. Obama has worked to divide this country like no other president before him. He's an absolute disgrace. The country is very divided and the Dems are constantly imposing their big government schemes on us, often times with support from the Republican Establishment who are too afraid to fight back. They make these deals with the Dems and we get NOTHING in return. They take their little earmarks and go back to their district or state, say "we tried. here's some welfare." People are fucking tired of the same old bullshit.

Now, Bernie and HiLIARy have no reason to be upset - other than they're spoiled brats. The left has gotten what it wants for the most part, except their gun confiscation. They get open borders, baby murder and state approval of perversion and immorality. They get all the spending they want and that's still not enough. (I suppose they have more to do because there are still pockets of freedom in this country that haven't yet been destroyed and they still need to go to work sometimes.) While Republicans have a right to be angry at their leaders for selling out, Dems are just entitled little children having a temper tantrum.

MikeR said...

'If Rubio falls out of favor with the GOP "string pullers" then who would be next as their pick as the status quo candidate...Jeb, Christie?' Huh? The only reason Rubio is moving into their favor is because Jeb and Christie failed so utterly to attract voters.

Heatshield said...

Hillary is horrible and I enjoy seeing the difficulty she is having with Sanders. But socialism is so dangerous that it needs to be decisively defeated at every opportunity. So I hope she crushes him quickly.

MikeR said...

"Considering the incredible corruption and BS Trump is fighting against..." Jeepers. His whole career smacks of incredible corruption. He hasn't been a happy warrior, he's been a happy crony capitalist. Now he found a nice carny pitch. Give me a break.

dbp said...

"It's an argument for the GOP to pick Rubio, no?"

Yes, and an argument for the Dems to pick Bernie.

Chuck said...

Robin;

Is there nothing that Trump says, that causes you the greatest of concern?

Yesterday Trump went on a tirade about Ted Cruz being responsible for the legal survival of ObamaCare, because Cruz supported John Roberts for Chief Justice, and as Chief Justice, Roberts was part of the 6-3 majority in NFIB v Sebelius, and part of the 5-4 majority in King v Burwell. (Trump didn't use the case names; I expect that if a reporter ambushed Trump and asked him the names and details of the two cases, Trump could not supply them.) So therefore, Trump claimed, we can blame Ted Cruz for ObamaCare.

I'm not kidding about this; Trump actually said it.

At the Althouse website, I hope I don't have to supply s civics class-level explanation as to why Trump is full of crap on this.

Is that a person in which you could place trust as president? Not for just this one idiocy, of course. But for a hundred of these idiocies.

Matthew Sablan said...

Being Not Angry didn't help John McCain or Mitt Romney, despite everyone saying they wanted Not Angry.

chickelit said...

@buwaya: Rubidium. Also, ruby.

Mike said...

Hillary! really impressed me with her answers about "Wall Street Money" in the Wednesday night forum. When Andy Cooper asked if she "really needed to get paid $675,000 for talking to Goldman Sachs" she immediately answered with three lies that contradicted each other:

1. "I don't know."
2. "That's what they offered."
3. "I didn't know I would be running for president."

Let's take them in order.

1. You don't know? You don't know if you needed to be paid that much? I'll clue you in you moronic old gasbag, NO you didn't need that. You weren't "dead broke" like you lied about in your shitty book tour and were already fabulously wealthy by any standard after your stint as Secretary of Shakedowns via State. But the hugest reason this is a lie is because there are known things, like your speaking fees. You do know WHY that amount was paid. It was because YOU DEMANDED $225,000 PER SPEECH when dissembling to Goldman and their sacks. You demanded that payment. And you know it and this just reason six million or so why you can't be trusted to answer any question honestly.

2. Again, as noted above, the fee is not "what they offered" as you assert here in direct conflict with your prior answer, which has not even reached the back row of that venue in NH before you contradicted it with this answer. You stinking liar! Either you don't know, as you asserted at first, or they offered, as you assert here, but both cannot be true. Too bad you didn't go with the lawyerly "I don't recall" as you often did in the 1990s, because at least you could reconcile numbers 1 and 2 above. But you're such a lousy candidate and intrepid liar that you couldn't resist shifting blame to your shakedown victim and claiming "that's what they offered." Of course both 1 and 2 are false. To repeat, THIS IS THE FEE YOU DEMANDED YOU LYING WITCH!

3. This is answer to the "why" posited by Mr. Cooper when he tried to clarify the wordcloud you left hanging in the room while the question remained unanswered. His attempt to steer you back to an actual debatable fact by laughingly saying (you missed this clue apparently even though CNN was helpful as usual to Democrats, as is their policy) "What? You didn't KNOW you would run for president?" you laid out a whopper.

You chose poorly. Everyone on earth knew you were running in 2016, including you, you lying sack of Chappaqua dung. THAT is why the Dem field is so sparsely populated: everyone knew you were running. THAT is why you and Dollar Bill Clinton had been so very successful in shaking down donors foreign and domestic during and after your tour as SecSuckState: everyone knew you were running. THAT is why your little fembot sycophants went around trying to badword and outl;aw terms like INEVITABLE: everyone knew you were running.

God help us if your grasping aspirations come true. But at least we know you won't really hurt Wall Street. On that we can all agree.

Original Mike said...

Check out the anger on Mike! (I approve.)

Mike said...

Sanders should have said it!

tim in vermont said...

I would rather have a Sanders presidency than Hillary, if only to demonstrate that the people are in charge, not the donors. I am a little 'd' democrat.

I would rather have Rubio picking justices, however. I am not sure that Cruz is a realistic option.

buwaya said...

re being paid for speeches -
I think we all know that this is just an acceptable method of bribing people, or of making political contributions that need not be counted as such.
"Everybody does it" is the best defensive argument I can think of; pretty much every politician at a certain level gets bribed in this way. Its hard to whack on Clinton for this because this does not distinguish her from (nearly) anyone except in terms of scale - doubtless she and her husband, and even her daughter, collect more in this way than anyone else. Still, this is a matter of scale not kind.
Even Sanders charges for speeches, though he has collected trivial sums this way.
Its interesting that this is still an acceptable way to bribe people. Some cover their tracks through cutouts like universities or foundation sponsors, where speech payments go through a more respectable-seeming third party.
The older method of donors paying for mass purchases of political books seems to have died out since the Jim Wright scandal.

Lyle Smith said...

Cruz is the least angry person running. Pay attention mistress.

MaxedOutMama said...

Have you looked at Rubio's economic proposals? He is more of a socialist than Sanders.

He shouldn't have any chance whatsoever. He is talking about a massive wage subsidy for business along with a greatly expanded child tax credit that would bankrupt the country.

Rubio is an absolute fool.

Bay Area Guy said...

Have you looked at Rubio's economic proposals? He is more of a socialist than Sanders.

Prone to overstatement?

Fabi said...

Remember the six US Senate races that were deemed toss-ups in the final poll before the 2014 election? Republicans wins all six seats by an average margin of almost six points. Why people still see these polls as unbiased is beyond me. No way that Sanders is leading any of the top Republican candidates.

Original Mike said...

"Its hard to whack on Clinton for this because this does not distinguish her from (nearly) anyone except in terms of scale -"

Scale matters. The WSJ today has Hillary (through her Super (PAC) receiving $17,000,000 in contributions from Wall Street. Sanders has received $55,000.

Fabi said...

*won*

Original Mike said...

"Have you looked at Rubio's economic proposals? He is more of a socialist than Sanders."

This is my beef with Rubio.

CWJ said...

chickelit,

cite? OK, I cite memory. It's what we used before google.

But to save you time, you might check Althouse's mid December Chuck Todd interrupting Rubio post and her commentary thereto.

Limited blogger said...

I want Trump, I'll take Cruz. Rubio? I said I won't vote for JEB! - that was back when he was the establishment track leader. Ok, I'll vote for Rubio if I have to.

buwaya said...

E.M.Forster "The Machine Stops"
http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/prajlich/forster.html
Seems to me the best and most prophetic work to describe the troubles and risks of this age.
Dislike of conflict - check
Dislike of reproduction - check
Dependency on a not properly understood technology - check
Decadence through complacency - check

Original Mike said...

I already gave him the cite, CWJ.

hombre said...

Sanders national numbers confirm Wm. Buckley's old adage about "sitting at the feet of" socialists applied to millennials and public education.

Morons indoctrinating airheads.

Tank said...

@Mike

Thanks, that was great.

I'm gonna go read it again.

mccullough said...

Hillary's problem is she's running as a Democrat. She's trying to rail about income inequality while taking $675,000 for pablum to Goldman Sachs assholes, the same assholes we bailed out a few years ago. (Hillary voted for TARP). So the people who have been getting richer while others stagnant are paying her (and the Clinton Foundation) a staggering amount of money.

The one person who can credibly call her on this stuff, which matters to the hard left that is the base of the Dem party, is Bernie Sanders. Her answer to the question of why she took the GS money is: "I'm greedy, self-interested, and I didn't think I'd face an opponent who would be able to actually call me out on it. Shitty luck, huh?"

Birkel said...

Rubio is Washington D.C. business as usual. He will empower the unelected bureaucrats who manage the Leviathan State.

Cruz is unelectable according to Washington D.C. insiders because he poses some modicum of threat to the self-aware bureaucracy. That Bureaucracy, in all its parasitic glory, has declared war on the host: American taxpayers.

All of you who have bought into the lies about Cruz will get exactly the government you deserve.

Chuck said...

When somebody says that Marco Rubio is more of a socialist than Bernie Sanders, who actually is a self-proclaimed socialist, it sort of begs to be shot down.

Marco Rubio enjoys a 98 lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union and has been heartily endorsed in the recent past by the Club for Growth.

People are free to engage in shit-headed trashtalk if they really feel the need. But just don't expect to be treated nicely.

This is the credo of the Trump '16 campaign, right? To speak bluntly and forcefully and directly, right? To call out bullshit for what it is? To be personally hard on those who attack your position? Well, it is shameless bullshit to say that Marco Rubio is anything other than a conservative:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429088/marco-rubio-conservative-record

http://www.heritageactionscorecard.com/members/member/R000595

http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/01/the-conservative-case-for-marco-rubio/

chickelit said...

Birkel wrote (in part): All of you who have bought into the lies about Trump will get exactly the government you deserve.

Goose/gander

buwaya said...

And, for what its worth, "The Machine Stops" is the inspiration for "THX1138", George Lucas first science fiction work, and possibly what led him to "Star Wars", at least in terms of genre.

chickelit said...

Chuck said...Marco Rubio enjoys a 98 lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union and has been heartily endorsed in the recent past by the Club for Growth.

That's exactly how I preface my remarks to coworkers when I discuss politics!

mccullough said...

How is Rubio business as usual. The guy is a one-term senator who isn't running for re-election. Cruz can lose, go back to the Senate, get re-elected to the Senate in two years and be the Bernie Sanders of the right for a long time.

Bay Area Guy said...

There really should be no bellyaching among sane Republicans at this point.

Cruz, Trump, Rubio -- are essentially tied, and have essentially vanquished the rest of the field. This is a good thing.

Nobody, at this point, can predict who among this 3 is going to win. Cruz would seem to have the advantage, particularly for the SEC vote (Super Tues, 3/1), when many of the Southern states vote. But, Cruz and Trump might split the right-wing vote, giving Rubio a chance to shoot the gap.

If you're really Conservative, vote Cruz. If you wanna send a message to the elites or the establishment, vote Trump. If you're more moderate, vote Rubio.

As long as we generally agree to support any of these guys in the General, we're all good.

So, have at it!

Myself, I'm leaning Rubio. He's a little more moderate than I am, and I actively dislike his Gang of 8 ploy on immigration. But, I think he's the best bet in the General (this could change) to beat HIllary like a drum. That's what I'm looking for.

Birkel said...

chickelit:
If you are trying to fake quote me, please be more careful than you were above. Some readers could easily think what you wrote was something I wrote. Thank you in advance.

As for Trump, please point to anything in his record that is unequivocally conservative? As such, you cannot use quotes that Trump has self-refuted. I will grant you border enforcement in advance. Vague notions of crushing ISIS do not count.

chickelit said...

Bay Area Guy said...If you're really Conservative, vote Cruz. If you wanna send a message to the elites or the establishment, vote Trump. If you're more moderate, vote Rubio.

That seems like an honest assessment.

chickelit said...

Birkel said...chickelit: If you are trying to fake quote me, please be more careful than you were above.

That's why I wrote "in part." Pay attention!

Birkel said...

mccullough,
If you believe Rubio has shown any signs that he would challenge the D.C. bureaucracy, I would be interested to read evidence of such. I consume news voraciously and have found no examples.

CWJ said...

Original Mike,

So I saw. Good work, and thank you. It just irritated me a bit since "cite?" is often shorthand for "I don't believe it," or at best, I failed to find it. But this was easily googled. Ironically, I would have reacted more favorably to someone correcting me had my memory proved faulty, than getting some general "cite?" challenge.

AReasonableMan said...

Nonapod said...
these days being called establishment is akin to being called a child rapist.


"Well, somebody's doing the raping. I mean somebody's doing it! Who's doing the raping? Who's doing the raping?"

.

Birkel said...

chickelit:

I did pay attention. I am asking you to be more obvious in your mis-quotations for those -- unlike me -- who do not pay attention. It is a request you can ignore deny. But it is not a time to crack wise when I have clearly not lacked attention, as you imply.

Birkel said...

ignore/deny

Original Mike said...

More Hillary: "What I want people to know is, I went to Wall Street before the crash. I was the one saying you're going to wreck the economy because of these shenanigans with mortgages."

I'm sure we'll see that when she releases the transcripts F Chuck asked her for.

Chuck said...


mccullough said...
How is Rubio business as usual. The guy is a one-term senator who isn't running for re-election. Cruz can lose, go back to the Senate, get re-elected to the Senate in two years and be the Bernie Sanders of the right for a long time.


Wow; well-said! Count this among The Things I Wish I Had Written.

And I'd very much like to see a Ted Cruz in the Senate for a very long time. Leading the Senate Judiciary Committee. Et cetera. Ditto Rand Paul, even after I had rooted for his primary opponent in Kentucky (who also would have been a good senator).

I think it is guaranteed that Rubio is on the ticket. #1 or #2. Because, as you say, he is not going back to the Senate. Rubio/Kasich; that's my guess and it might be my strong preference as well. Florida and Ohio.

chickelit said...

@CWJ/OM: I do appreciate the cite. I think it's outdated, though. Good luck holding Althouse to her own words, especially when there's plausible deniability.

Original Mike said...

@CWJ: it was easy. I had looked it up for myself just a couple of days ago.

buwaya said...

" Who's doing the raping?"
For the most part, with few exceptions, not people in "the establishment". Its not their primary mode of moral depravity.
Though Epstein and friends got off, oddly. In spite of this being an open-and-shut case.
Also, for that matter, John Corzine and his collaborators, though their style of misbehavior is more typical.

Jeff said...

Daily Caller reports that CBS's exit poll found that among Republican Iowa caucus-goers, the most important issues were (1)government spending, (2) terrorism, (3) economy/jobs, and (4) immigration. Government spending was viewed as most important by 32 percent, while immigration was thought most important by only 13 percent.

Read that again. In one of the whitest states in the Union, and among Republicans committed enough to actually go to a caucus (turnout was only about 30 percent of registered Iowa Republicans), only 13 percent think immigration is as important as 95 percent of the commenters on this blog think it is.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: If immigration was really that big of an issue, President Sam Brownback would have been inaugurated in 2009. The anti-immigrant stuff does not even win primaries, and it's poison in the general election.

SteveR said...

I know the "base" adores Cruz and associates Rubio with RINO tendencies but really this is just being played by the democrats. The Senate makes anyone look foolish, you vote for one thing to get another thing because of something else. And Harry Reid made it worse. Rubio tried to play and looks bad, Cruz didn't play and looks evil.

Kagen, Sotomayor you always know how they will vote. That's the future.

tim in vermont said...

If Cruz can somehow break through the noise, I will give him another look. He probably shouldn't be sending me emails that read like I signed up as a campaign volunteer though. "You did it!" as the headline when he won in Iowa? It's creepy because it assumes a relationship that does not exist. That is almost the dictionary definition of creepy.

I would rather he sent me arguments as to why he should be president, not digs at Trump or whatever.

tim in vermont said...

Read that again. In one of the whitest states in the Union,

Immigration is not about racism, it is about wages and competition for jobs. The "whitest states" almost by definition are insulated from these effects. It's like homelessness. It is not an issue in small rural states where people take care of the homeless.

Tank said...

Jeff said...

Daily Caller reports that CBS's exit poll found that among Republican Iowa caucus-goers, the most important issues were (1)government spending, (2) terrorism, (3) economy/jobs, and (4) immigration. Government spending was viewed as most important by 32 percent, while immigration was thought most important by only 13 percent.


Maybe we need to educate some people. It's the end of the country as we know it, and disaster for low income or no income of all diverse factions.

Original Mike said...

My problem with Rubio is his tax plan, but a little googling shows good remarks from the Club for Growth. Looks like I need to do a little more research.

garage mahal said...

A moderate is now someone against abortion without any exceptions. Even if life of the mother is at risk.

Original Mike said...

" chickelit said...@CWJ/OM: I do appreciate the cite. I think it's outdated, though. Good luck holding Althouse to her own words, especially when there's plausible deniability."

Or, maybe she's doing battlefield prep for going all in for Hillary!.

buwaya said...

"The "whitest states" almost by definition are insulated from these effects."

True. You could get a very different result among Republicans in California, Texas and Florida.
And I suppose Wisconsin is more like Iowa.

Birkel said...

Original Mike:

Tax plans are one side of the issue. And the United States is relatively overtaxed, compared to the R.O.W. That is certainly true.

But the bigger issue -- to my lights -- is the growth of expenses. Those expenses are growing in both discretionary and (so-called) non-discretionary spending. I see no instinct in Rubio to tackle that side of the equation.

And without that fight, offending the hell out of Schumer and other Senate "friends", I cannot see the Leviathan State restrained under a President Rubio.

tim in vermont said...

Or, maybe she's doing battlefield prep for going all in for Hillary!

I think that ship has sailed. I can imagine her voting for Hillary, but not without a clothespin on her nose.

tim in vermont said...

"Like this post if you remember clothespins!"

Sorry, had a little FB flashback there.

Original Mike said...

"I think that ship has sailed. I can imagine her voting for Hillary, but not without a clothespin on her nose."

Well, maybe not all-in, but a vote is still a vote. My vote for Trump will count, notwithstanding the clothespin on my nose.

buwaya said...

"But the bigger issue -- to my lights --"
In my case the real problem is lack of growth, stagnation. This is a bigger matter than fiscal problems. Fiscal problems could just be a symptom.
This is ongoing since the 90's. The "real" economy, living standards, disposable median income and technological progress were nearly stopped, greatly regressed 2007-2009, and have been utterly stopped if not regressing slowly since.
This is hard to express as a political issue though.

Original Mike said...

Thanks, Birkel. Cruz has addressed spending. He's listed five (I think) agencies he wants to abolish and I believe him. I don't know Rubio's spending plans.

Birkel said...

buwaya:

I believe growth will occur when the Leviathan's tentacles stop strangling entrepreneurship. But I cannot prove that is so.

Todd said...

Marty: [incredulous] Giant evil gods.
Dana: I wish I could have seen them.
Marty: I know. That would have been a fun weekend.

Birkel said...

buwaya:

To be clearer, I believe burearcratic overreach, a weaponized bureaucracy and federal spending issues are intertwined so closely that to argue about one is to argue about them all.

It is my opinion that the bureaucracy now sees itself as separate and apart from we, the citizens, and acts accordingly.

traditionalguy said...

Phrasing the contest as whether it is OK that Trump is An Angry Man is part of the meme of the lying Cruz campaign. The other Semantic memes employed against Trump are "unhinged" and "bad temperament" and "cannot be trusted with Nuclear Weapons."

At best those are B-Grade smears from the Nasty One who leads a crafty religious cult.

Trump's weakness is blunt verbal aggressiveness that has made some men and women mad at him because he got away with saying truth that they were scared to say.

When Trump speaks out, the Fence sitters get very uncomfortable because his words electrify the fence.

mccullough said...

Birkel,

Rubio is either going to be president or is leaving politics after serving one term. Someone who doesn't want to be in the Senate for 30 years is someone who is not a fan of DC. Rubio said the Senate is too slow, too rule bound, and too reliant on the seniority system. Doesn't sound like the words of a company man. Just because he doesn't insult his colleagues like Cruz doesn't mean he likes them or agrees with them. He wants to be president and wants out of the Senate. That's enough of a show of independence.

As for the bureaucrats, they are protected by civil service laws or collective bargaining agreements. The permanent government at the local, state, and federal level is a problem because they are not at will employees. It would be great to strip these out and overturn Supreme Court precedent saying you can't fire or not hire non policy making government employees based on political affiliation. No one is proposing this.

Birkel said...

mccullough,
Your first paragraph is wishcasting on the tabula rasa and I do not share your proposed daydreams.

Your second paragraph is defeatist and short-sighted. We may as well surrender now because the figurehead of President Rubio would be undercut by the Permanent State before he did anything, popular will be damned.

You may take your defeat lying down. I will choose otherwise.

buwaya said...

"As for the bureaucrats, they are protected by civil service laws or collective bargaining agreements. "

This is not a critical problem as such, its just a limit on how much expense can be cut.
There are many ways to work around this. If nothing else one can merely reduce the scope of their duties. The real problem isn't the government payroll, its the effect on the general economy of the processes they affect.
Its not a matter of laying them off, but of removing their power.

EMD said...

"THX1138"

Which was the story of a man in a dystopian future trying ot break free from the shackles of a fascist state.

George Lucas, its creator, will probably vote for the party that seeks to control your life more than the other party.

Ironic, no?

gerry said...

BERNIE THOUGHTS!

buwaya said...

"Ironic, no?"
A very great irony.
The aesthetic standard of elite opinion is revolutionary individualism.
Accepted and required by every "individual". And deviating from the norm accepted as individualistic is a great evil.

One of my favorite bits in all films ever is in "Life of Brian"
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't NEED to follow ME, You don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for your selves! You're ALL individuals!
The Crowd: Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd: Yes, we ARE all different!
Man in crowd: I'm not...
The Crowd: Sch!

Original Mike said...

"As for the bureaucrats, they are protected by civil service laws or collective bargaining agreements."

OK. Never let it be said I won't compromise. They can keep their jobs, they just won't have the authority to do anything in them. There are a lot of federal lands that need the trash picked up.

Sal said...

Bumper sticker seen this morning in Madison: "Bernie! because fuck this shit"

mccullough said...

Birkel,

You make no sense. No one is wishcasting. Rubio is not running for re-election and he said why. Spin it how you want, but it is a fact.

As for defeatist, I said what needed to be done to rein in the bureaucrats and noted that no one running for president has proposed this. The Flint Water problem is a perfect example of local, state, and federal workers not doing their job. The people who resigned -- the federal EPA director for the Midwest, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, and the head of the Flint Water Department -- were all political hires. But the day-to-day workers almost never get fired because it is very difficult to fire them because of the rules in place. I would love if any of the candidates said that in addition to firing political appointees we need to be who to fire immediately workers responsible, and in order to do that we need to change the laws.

I would like to hear your proposal to reign in the bureaucrats and which candidates you think are proposing to do that (and get push it through since talk is cheap).

Birkel said...

If bureaucrats were forced to sign a declaration that they have not violated the civil rights of American citizens and would lose the protections of immunity if they were found to have perjured themselves, or get early retirement...

I am betting strongly on the likely outcome.

Also, stop the revolving doors that encourage regulatory capture.

Hammer and tongs or declare your losses now...

mccullough said...

Buwaya,

Starting naming specific government departments, specific positions within those departments, and what power you are going to take away and how. The bureaucrats don't make policy, they enforce it or don't enforce it. Let's take the TSA department and the position of security screener. They have the power to pull people aside and screen them or look the other way (or in reality just don't look because they are daydreaming) instead of screening baggage. A recent audit found a ridiculously high percentage of screener did not detect weapons going through security. No one has been fired and if someone gets fired it will take a yea and resources to do it.

Birkel said...

mccullough,

You have taken facts and given them the weight you hope they have. But Rubio will be consulting in either Tallahassee or D.C. if he loses.

He is a cipher. And you will do well in your surrender to support him.

I wish you all the likely results.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mccullough said...

Birkel,

Now you need another 1,000 federal employees to investigate and prosecute those who violate the civil rights before they can be fired. We need to just fire them.

The revolving door is for politicians, their staff, and high level political appointees, not bureaucrats who are just day t day supervisors and workers.

Bay Area Guy said...

If Bernie wins the Presidency, he will cancel Christmas and the SuperBowl -- and then we will f@$&ing revolt!

--signed "The Masses"

n.n said...

The head should remain calm and appear pleasant. The violence should occur behind the scenes in privacy. A civilization... An advanced state of civilization abhors introspection that reveals inconsistency in its principles.

It's a selective dysfunction realized through progressive corruption, morality, confusion, and complacency.

How appropriate that the revolutionaries wear masks to obscure their features.

mccullough said...

Birkel,

Maybe Rubio will consult, probably for Goldman Sachs, like Ted Cruz wife.

Birkel said...

mccullough,

Even in your quest for Rubio, you reveal yourself. You think the answer to bureaucratic mistakes is a government response. But I suggest a market response: remove immunity and let the bureaucrats internalize their own costs when the lawsuits come.

Hey, IRS agent!?! You violated my rights. Now I will use you into bankruptcy and access your entire life in discovery.

Hey, EPA official!?! You were derelict in your duty and I will use you into bankruptcy and lay your failures bare.

The answer in education is competition and not a top-down bureaucracy.
The answer is to remove impediments on people.

I trust individuals operating in their own self interest in a relatively free market making voluntary transactions.

Birkel said...

mccullough,

When you offer an original thought, please let me be first to know.

Birkel said...

...sue you into bankruptcy...

Why change a three letter word that is correct into another three letter word that is correct? For Pete's sake.

tim in vermont said...

They made Socrates drink hemlock for pointing out uncomfortable truths, I am pretty sure. Ted Cruz take note.

Lydia said...

A moderate is now someone against abortion without any exceptions. Even if life of the mother is at risk.

You must have picked up on Chris Christie's using that line now in New Hampshire against Rubio.

The truth, though, is this:

Mr. Rubio is emphatically opposed to abortion in almost all cases. But contrary to Mr. Christie’s claim, he does support an exception for cases in which a mother’s life is in danger.

“I think there needs to be an exception for the life of the mother,” Mr. Rubio said in Iowa last week.

mccullough said...

Birkel,

Market response? What company do federal judges work for?

What happens to bogus lawsuits against government workers? Police officers are sued in federal court every day for violating civil rights and win over 90% of the cases. Is that an efficient market?

And if the government doesn't indemnify a sued worker then no lawyer is going to represent a wronged citizen because suing someone who makes $60,000 a year and has no assets is not a way to make a living. So you will have the federal courts inundated with pro se complaints, driving up the costs of our federal court system (which is paid almost exclusively through federal tax dollars).

buwaya said...

"The bureaucrats don't make policy, they enforce it or don't enforce it."

They also, at a slightly higher level, interpret it and make a law out of it.
Many (very many) laws are meaningless without detailed interpretation.
And the interpretation is up to groups of invisible persons in the bureaucracy.

Such as the EPA with the Clean Air Act and CO2.
Or what qualifies as a "wetland" to the Department of the Interior.
etc. nearly infinitum, to any normal human being.

mccullough said...

Birkel,

Resorting to personal criticisms is a sign of insecurity that your arguments are weak. You frequently hurl personal insults in the comments, which detract from arguments.

Birkel said...

No, mccullough, I determine that the people who choose to engage are incapable of an exchange of ideas.

Your responses so far indicate an inability to imagine a smaller bureaucracy. And for that we must all be punished.

mccullough said...

Buwaya,

Those decisions are approved by the policymakers. It's notice and comment rulemaking. Bureaucrats are the supervisors and workers at a department that remain the same no matter which party is in power. Of course, bureaucrats can give input but it's up to policymakers (political appointees and their staff) to approve.

tim in vermont said...

The bureaucrats don't make policy, they enforce it or don't enforce it

Have you been following the IRS scandal? All you have to do is interpret a policy per your political preferences and then selectively enforce it based on those same preferences.

Original Mike said...

"Why change a three letter word that is correct into another three letter word that is correct? For Pete's sake."

Because it can.

Birkel said...

Example:
Look at how the EPA failed and also we must indemnify federal workers against all lawsuits because many are bogus.

RESULT:
Sclerosis.

Original Mike said...

"The bureaucrats don't make policy, they enforce it or don't enforce it."

Not even close to true anymore.

Birkel said...

mccullough is under the mistaken belief that the APA binds the actions of federal bureaucrats. How quaint.

mccullough said...

Birkel,

Your proposal to strip immunity (which Glenn Reynolds advocates) from civil lawsuits from government workers protected by civil service laws or collective bargaining nips around the edges while adding more money to the budget of the federal judiciary. Prof. Reynolds doesn't discuss whether the government should indemnify its employees. If it does, then more lawsuits just adds to the costs of government budgets because they have to pay attorneys to defend lawsuits against government employees, who win over 90% of these suits already. If they don't indemnify, then they will all be pro se lawsuits, which will cause more congestion and add to the federal court budget.

Either way, you are adding to the size of the government.

Original Mike said...

"Starting naming specific government departments, specific positions within those departments, and what power you are going to take away and how."

https://www.tedcruz.org/five-for-freedom-summary/

Birkel said...

The Long March through the Institutions of Government is complete. Those who intended victory were never secretive in their intent. They wish to exercise power over us.

A President Rubio facing a Lefist State Department will be hamstrung in foreign affairs. GHW Bush faced less of a challenge than will the next Republican president.

The same will be true domestically with the many bureaucracies we can all name.

buwaya said...

"Those decisions are approved by the policymakers."
But who are "the policymakers" ?
I doubt that political appointees are doing much of that anymore.
It is a well integrated system where it is no longer clear that meaningful (that which has external effects) policy is made from the top down.

Birkel said...

mccullough,

The vision of the static world you have is wrong. That you cannot see why you are wrong is not my fault. I apologize that I will not do your thinking for you.

mccullough said...

Birkel,

Whether agencies exceed their rule making authority under the APA or their authority in enforcing the law is a separate issue.

Now we are back to the political appointees. Ether they are violating the law or directing others to do so.

That's not the same thing as a permanent government employee not doing his job or abusing his position (like a police officer making a false arrest).

Courts can strike down agency rules or actions as ultra vires, the president can demand resignations of political appointees, and Congress can investigate and hold hearings to embarrass political appointees (like Hillary and Benghazi).

But we're talking about the bureaucracy -- the permanent government employees.

Birkel said...

mccullough,

What color are the skies in the world you inhabit?

Comment Whiz said...

Immigration is the ONLY issue in this election. Rubio, Cruz, Bush, Christie, Kasich, Hillary, Bernie will all usher in a Third World America. We KNOW that. With Trump we have a chance he'll stem the rot.

Sammy Finkelman said...

"What? You didn't KNOW you would run for president?" you laid out a whopper.

That was her official position during the time period before she announced.

You won't find her on record as saying anything else. Saturday Night Live made fun of that pretence during that period.

So she went back to that old lie.

The only way she wouldn't have run would be something like if polls showed clearly she would lose. It would have been a reversal of a previous intention to run.

Of course she hadn't pulled the trigger. She announced a little bit early because of the e-mail scandal. Then she announced a second time in May.

mccullough said...

Birkel,

I provided specifics. This isn't a static view, it's reality. Right now, citizens can sue government workers for violating their constitutional right (or statutory rights) as long as the alleged action was violation of a clearly established right (or a good faith mistake). So beating up a citizen who did not resist arrest is a violation of a clearly established right. If the right violated was not clearly established, even if the court determines a constitutional right was violated, then the government worker is immune from suit and damages. So, if a police officer arrests John Smith, but it was a mistaken arrest based on a good faith mistake as to the wrong John Smith, then the officer has immunity.

Also, local, state, and federal governments indemnify their workers so that if they get sued the governs end will pay fr the lawyer and, if damages are awarded to the plaintiff pay the damages and also pay the attorney's fees of the plaintiffs lawyers under statute.

As I said, police officers are the most sued government employees and they win 90% of the cases brought against them.

So please provide your dynamic ananlysis of how removing immunity and bankrupting government workers (who will only be bankrupts if indemnity is removed and if indemnity is removed plaintiffs won't be able to hire attorneys unless they rich because attorneys are not going to sue defendants who can't pay a judgment) is going to improve the work of bureaucrats while not adding to the costs of government.

It's not enough for you to use vague criticisms like "static." Give us some specifics.

Sammy Finkelman said...

tyhe Clintons and Goldman and Sachs go way back. In 1992, Bill Clinton used Goldman and Sachs to vouch for his "economic plan" (which he had no intention of following0


Also, if you read Den of Thieves, in addition to Michael Milken Giuliani was pusuing Goldman and Sachs for insider trading. He had someone called freeman. freeman's lawyer was Robert B. Fiske Jr and he shilded Robert Rubin - in then in the end by having Freeman plead guilty to an imaginary crime involving Beatrice Foods, which he probably leaked.

Clinton later attempted to get all investigation of himself into the hands of a lawyer whom he could trust: Robert B Fiske Jr. Before this, of course he had pretended that Janet Reno hadn't been his choice for Attorney General all along and was his third choice and picked because she was a woman

This is too complicated to explain very quickly or at least very very quickly.

Original Mike said...

"Immigration is the ONLY issue in this election."

Not for me and not for greater than or equal to 87% of the Republican Iowa caucus-goers.

Big Mike said...

It's an argument for the GOP to pick Rubio, no?

NO!!!

Birkel said...

mccullough:

I propose changing the rules and your answer stems from the current rules. Then you respond that under the current rules a Parade of Horribles will ensue.

I am blessed with an abundance of pathos but I refuse to work for free. You do the heavy lifting.

Comment Whiz said...

"Not for me and not for greater than or equal to 87% of the Republican Iowa caucus-goers."

Okay. But note - when the Third World sewer tide washes over you, it will be too late to follow anything about it.

Original Mike said...

Okay.

mccullough said...

Birkel,

No one works for free. Is that a parade of horrible or a reasonable statement of human nature?

That's why your imminity stripping proposal won't work. No one works for free, especially plaintiffs lawyers or federal judges or defense attorneys hired by the government. Here endeth your lesson for the day. Back to the drawing board for you.

wildswan said...

Can we limit the bureaucracy? This is why I wish Scott walker was running - he is only one who truly limited an established bureaucracy - the educational beast running Wisconsin schools. But anyhow things he did, others could do

1. Abolish collective bargaining for public service unions while leaving civil service protections in place and guaranteeing wage increases equal to inflation.

Collective bargaining was forcing Wisconsin to buy expensive medical insurance for teachers through a teachers union owned insurance company
Collective bargaining was demanding pensions that would bankrupt Wisconsin.
Collective bargaining was preventing schools from using teachers effectively so that more teachers were needed thus increasing school expenses.
So merely getting rid of collective bargaining lifted the threat of bankruptcy from Wisconsin.

And also Scott Walker had a group suggest a list of state rules on education to be repealed and 400 regulations were repealed. Imagine if certain ridiculous rules on school lunches were also repealed - it could be another big saving.

In short by repealing collective bargaining for public servants and by repealing a list of regulations we could limit the bureaucrats power (and also they could be fired for incompetence, I forgot to mention that but it is true in Wisconsin. Notorious offenders are working down in Illinois now.)

So a Republican president could make a difference and remember Paul Ryan who supported Walker is Speaker of the House. And Walker could be a an advisor.

Anglelyne said...

Jeff: Read that again. In one of the whitest states in the Union, and among Republicans committed enough to actually go to a caucus (turnout was only about 30 percent of registered Iowa Republicans), only 13 percent think immigration is as important as 95 percent of the commenters on this blog think it is.

"In one of the whitest states in the union" predicts less concern with immigration, not more.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: If immigration was really that big of an issue, President Sam Brownback would have been inaugurated in 2009. The anti-immigrant stuff does not even win primaries, and it's poison in the general election.

Another reason to stay home, then. Electing a Republican for the sake of electing a Republican, particularly an utter tool of a nonentity like Rubio, is pointless. Uncontrolled immigration is putting paid to any chance of restoring and maintaining traditionally American conservative ideals like small government, and "conservatives" who think that this is an unimportant issue are living in la-la land.

Michael K said...

"I fear they could do the same to Rubio this time."

There is already a gay rumor floating around about him as an 18 year old. Of course, that might help him with Democrats.

Birkel said...

wildswan:
I agree about Scott Walker. Cruz is my fallback choice because none of the others are close on the one, most important issue.

mccullough,
I know you wish you had made a single point worth raising. You failed. I will not teach you what you wish so diligently not to know. You are going to get exactly what you want, I expect. And when you do, I hope you remember those of us who pointed and laughed at you along the way.

Original Mike said...

UNEXPECTEDLY: Clinton chief strategist Joel Benenson says "I don't think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches."

Qwinn said...

"Daily Caller reports that CBS's exit poll found that among Republican Iowa caucus-goers, the most important issues were (1)government spending, (2) terrorism, (3) economy/jobs, and (4) immigration."

What you are failing to recognize is that immigration has a serious direct impact on the first 3 issues. I bet for most of those who didn't set immigration as the primary issue, it would be their second issue precisely because of their impacts on the first. For example, if your biggest worry is terrorism, are you going to be more worried about government spending or about terrorists crossing the border?

Also, I think this is one of those cases where the poll results would have been more accurate if they had asked about "Illegal Immigration", rather than just the all encompassing "Immigration" straw man.

Qwinn said...

"A moderate is now someone against abortion without any exceptions. Even if life of the mother is at risk"

This has always been the mother of all straw men. NO ONE, ever, anywhere in the freaking universe, has held this position. Not even the Pope.

Mac McConnell said...

National polls at this point in time mean nothing. NH polls may mean something in the short term. I've seen similar polls where Cruz and Rubio beat Clinton by the same percentages and polls where one gets one percent higher than the other, visa versa.

I support Cruz, he'll do what he says he'll do, Rubio will sell us out like all the GOPe.

Original Mike said...

"I support Cruz, he'll do what he says he'll do, Rubio will sell us out like all the GOPe."

Cruz is my first choice. My concerns are,
1) his electability,
2). his creepy emails/mailings (which isn't really different than concern #1, is it?)

Terry said...

I blame corporations for the assent of socialism.
All they care about is money. They give money to colleges, candidates, and even public television shows that consistently disparage free market capitalism and the United States.
Socialism killed hundred of millions of people in the 20th century. Not in some abstract, subjectless way as in 'millions die from diseases that could be cured if Americans spent more money on disease control instead of Xboxes', but directly, with intent, as in 'No one in rebellious district X gets a ration card, and since we have declared that everything edible is state property, after three months find all the people who haven't starved to death and execute them for stealing state property.'

eric said...

Rubio has a the momentum right now. He should win NH by 5%. He is the frontrunner, he is wracking up all of the big shot endorsements, and he has the polls rising in his support.

At this point, Rubio should win the primary easily. Hands down.

Only then can we see some solid criticism of him and watch his polling fall. But that can't happen until after the primary, because its important to show during the primary that Rubio is the only electable Republican and therefore must have your support. Like Romney and McCain.

Do you want Hillary or Sanders? Then you must support Rubio.

Original Mike said...

The polls say Trump wins NH running away.

chickelit said...

Do you want Hillary or Sanders? Then you must support Rubio.

This is the RNC's proven strategy to lose.

I'm tempted to vote my conscience and then watch Hillary win to usher in the eventual revolution.

chickelit said...

Original Mike said...The polls say Trump wins NH running away.

I'm wary of polls. Aren't you wary of polls? It's not like polls are scientific data.

The pols say what the polls say.

Original Mike said...

Personally, I have no idea what will happen (though Trumps lead is large, seems like he's got a lot of head room ). I was just responding to eric's "Rubio should win the primary easily. Hands down." Don't know where he gets that other than pessimism.

Johnathan Birks said...

Do we really have to have a president? Is that like a rule of something? (Goes to google) Yeah, I guess it is a rule. There are long stretches when I forget we have a president, then there he is an I am filled with regret. Why does it take so long to choose one? It takes like three weeks to pick a NCAA basketball champion out of almost 70 schools and in the end everyone's satisfied.

There must be a better way than this.

Rusty said...

Birkel said...
buwaya:

I believe growth will occur when the Leviathan's tentacles stop strangling entrepreneurship. But I cannot prove that is so.

Make book on it, but not in my lifetime.

mtrobertslaw said...

Rubio? He's neither a Republican nor a Democratic. He's a Rubiocrat. Rubio will be anything and do anything he needs to in order to advance his reach for power.

He's the guy discovered in a lifeboat, dressed as a woman, after the Titanic went down.

Anglelyne said...

chickelit: This is the RNC's proven strategy to lose.

I thought eric was being ironic. No?

I'm tempted to vote my conscience and then watch Hillary win to usher in the eventual revolution.

The problem with American "conservatives" is they've let themselves slide from realism to fatalism without even noticing that's what they've done. They plume themselves on not being utopians but forget that even in "this fallen world" you've got to fight for what you want. Their enemies haven't forgotten. "Conservatives" have lulled themselves into the delusion that "the lesser of two evils" is some kind of strategy, not a sometimes-useful tactic.

Thinking that putting up lower and lower speed bumps in the way of the progressive juggernaut is the best you can get is the "strategy" of people with a really bad case of learned helplessness. Somebody like Trump isn't a fix or a savior, he's just somebody who's punched an opening in the wall - a small escape hole from a status quo that that shuts sanity and simple common sense out of mainstream discourse.

If the republican establishment was working for "us" in any meaningful sense, they would have run to that opening when it appeared, kicked down more of the wall, co-opted Trump, wrung out the useful stuff and left him by the side of the road. Instead, they've run away from the breach as hard and fast as they could. That ought to tell you something right there.

Jeff said...

In response to my "one of the whitest states of the Union" sentence, Anglelyne and others say, in effect, that places (like Iowa) that have relatively few immigrants are less concerned about immigration. It sounds reasonable, but I'm not at all sure it's true. My impression from watching CNN and Fox News last Monday night was that the two most anti-immigrant candidates, Trump and Cruz, did relatively well in rural areas, while Rubio did better in more urban areas. I suspect there are relatively more immigrants in more urban areas.

On the other hand, Ted Cruz himself was elected to the Senate from a state that has a large proportion of immigrants, so there is that. But so was John Cornyn.

Qwinn says that because immigration has important effects on the the three issues that were ranked as more important than it by caucus-goers, that it's actually more important than it seems. Maybe, but that's something you'll have to convince the voters of. When asked directly, the voters themselves don't make that connection.

To convince most people that immigration has a serious impact on terrorism, you'd have to show first that terrorism is a serious problem. Obviously, it's serious to those directly affected, but they are so far, thankfully, small in number. The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan were serious threats to our national security. Terrorism is not. But even if you don't share my opinion on that, you still have to make the case that there is some feasible change to the way we do immigration that would have a significant affect on terrorism.

That is very unlikely. Suppose you are a determined terrorist with a bomb. If you can't get across the southern border, you go around to the northern one. Or get a compatriot with a boat to bring you in via one of the coasts. Or fly it in via a drone. Or leave it somewhere off the coast and have someone come out to get it. There are countless ways to launch a terrorist attack, and most of them are easy and impossible to defend against. Only stupid terrorists get caught. The reason we don't experience very many terrorist attacks is not that our defenses are good, it's that there really aren't that many smart and determined terrorists out there.

Anglelyne said...

Jeff: In response to my "one of the whitest states of the Union" sentence, Anglelyne and others say, in effect, that places (like Iowa) that have relatively few immigrants are less concerned about immigration. It sounds reasonable, but I'm not at all sure it's true.

We could quibble about it, or we can dig up the stats. I lived in Iowa, and it's like any other place I've lived in the U.S. - people who benefit from immigration aren't concerned and want more, people who are negatively affected want less.

I suspect there are relatively more immigrants in more urban areas.

Areas of rural Iowa are heavily affected by illegal immigration. (Remember Postville? Not anomalous. See also, immigration and meatpacking.)

Qwinn says that because immigration has important effects on the the three issues that were ranked as more important than it by caucus-goers, that it's actually more important than it seems. Maybe, but that's something you'll have to convince the voters of. When asked directly, the voters themselves don't make that connection.

True. People generally don't notice the negative economic "externalities" of immigration until they directly and obviously affect their own wallets and quality of life. People whose wallets are fattened and quality of life improved by immigration generally prefer not to think about the downsides, social and economic, of uncontrolled immigration. (When it comes to "privatize profit, socialize cost", we're all very, very good at rationalizing our own righteousness.) People whose wallets and quality of life are indirectly negatively affected don't, as you say, usually make the connection, either because they really don't see it, or because they'd rather not attribute these effects to causes that would make them socially or morally uncomfortable.

To convince most people that immigration has a serious impact on terrorism, you'd have to show first that terrorism is a serious problem.

Correct. For example, you've thought about it, but you see it only in terms of the "terrorists sneaking across the border with a bomb" scenario, whereas we have now developed problems with the native-born children, or those who came very young with their parents, in recent immigrant communities (see Minneapolis, Boston). You're also fixated on the small numbers killed, ignoring the corrosive effects that adapting to (i.e., protecting ourselves from) disruptive "communities" has had on personal freedoms, social trust and cohesion, and other less tangible aspects of "quality of life".

But I do agree with you that convincing people it's a real problem is probably impossible in the current climate.