February 21, 2016

Will the Sunday shows be watchable today?

I DVR them all — or 5 of them, anyway — and usually sit down with a plan to — more or less — watch them all. But this morning, I'm dreading the drawn out post-mortem on Jeb Bush and the predictable predictions of Hillary and Trump's path to the nomination and fussing over whether there's any way Rubio can make it and how whether it's connected to anything that really could happen it's still so meaningful that Bernie's doing so well.

UPDATE 1: Chuck Todd ended "Meet the Press" with the exclamation that all primaries should happen on Saturdays. He loved the close proximity of the Sunday show to the primary. But the word I jotted in my notes to search for in the transcript was "jail." It was a snippet of Hillary Clinton's victory speech last night: "Wall Street can never be allowed to threaten main street again. No bank can be too big to fail, no executive too powerful to jail." I wondered: So, then, is no politician too powerful to jail? I'm thinking about her legal troubles. On the show, the snippet was put before Bernie Sanders.
TODD: It's pretty clear she has ratcheted up her rhetoric on Wall Street because of your candidacy. Do you see that as a victory of sorts? That you've got her trying to parrot your message?
Bernie joked about "copyright issues," and Meade and I got to talking about how Bernie Sanders doesn't even want to win. He just needs to inject his ideas into her head.

UPDATE 2: The word I jotted down for "Face the Nation" was "scary." Susan Page, the Washington bureau chief for USA Today, said they'd done a poll asking for people's "dominant reaction" to various candidates:
And the dominant reaction of Americans to Hillary Clinton's nomination was, "scary," and... the dominant reaction to Donald Trump's nomination was "scary." So just imagine a general election....
Meade and I got to talking about how America likes scary shows — horror movies and such. We get want we want.

UPDATE 3: The first show I watched was "Fox News Sunday," so I wrote down the most things here. A lot of the same people were on all the shows and I got a little tired of them saying the same things. I thought it was interesting how — even as the questions changed — I kept getting the same talking points. Anyway, Donald Trump was on first, and Chris Wallace asked him if, as he becomes the frontrunner, he needs to "tone it down" and "act more presidential." Trump began with a softer tone: "Well, probably I do." But then he added a boast with what we here at Meadhouse experienced as a hilarious qualification. He said: "I mean, I can act as presidential as anybody that's ever been president other than the great Abraham Lincoln.  I thought he was hard to beat."

And then there was this excellent exchange:
WALLACE:  To use a business term, are you involved in a hostile takeover of the Republican Party? 

TRUMP:  No.  I’m not at all.  I get along with the Republicans.  There's nothing hostile about it.  I was a Republican establishment figure.   And then the day I decided to run, I became an outsider -- and more so than I even thought.  People that were totally establishment that loved me, you know, I was a big contributor.  I gave $350,000 just before to the Republican Governors Association.  That was a major --

WALLACE:  But what's your view of the GOP establishment now, sir? 

TRUMP:  I think it's a mess.  I think it's a mess.  I think they'd better get their act together because they're going to keep losing elections.  With the kind of thinking that we have, with the Karl Roves and Steven Hayes and these characters that can't get themselves arrested, if you want to keep people like that, if you want to keep listening to people like that, you're never going to win.  You're never going win.  They're from a different age.  They're from a different world. 
That was great. Later, there was a panel, and Karl Rove was on it. Chris Wallace opened the discussion with: "Karl, I just want to make sure you know that Donald Trump sends his best this morning." Now, that's funny. Rove, for the record, responded: "I give him my best back."

Marco Rubio was also on the show. He was trying (I think) to give us an idea of how, if he gets the nomination, the image of diversity might work in the general election. He called attention to the picture on the stage last night, with him alongside Nikki Haley and Tim Scott:
I was endorsed by the daughter of Indian-American immigrants who’s the governor of South Carolina, along standing, alongside an African-American Republican U.S. senator, both of whom were there to support a Cuban-American U.S. senator.  It's pretty amazing that the Republican Party is indeed the party of diversity.  It is the only party where you have so many people, so many different backgrounds on a national stage.  I’m very proud of that.  We're going to continue to showcase it.  That's who we are. 
UPDATE 4: I didn't get to my recording of "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," so there's just one more, "State of the Nation" with Jake Tapper. First, I noticed this silent sideswipe at John Kasich. Tapper asked Trump if, after the South Carolina win, he's "unstoppable." Trump went with the softer, conciliatory, presidential tone (which I'm reading as meaning that he does think he won't be stopped):
TRUMP: Well, certainly, you can be stopped. I mean, I'm dealing with very talented people. They're politicians. They're senators. And I guess -- do we have any governors left? I don't know. Let's see. I don't think so. But we have a lot of talented people. And we will see what happens. But, certainly, nobody is unstoppable. 
So... he just couldn't even think of Governor Kasich!

Trump used the "outsider" theme we also saw in the "Fox News" interview. (I put it in boldface, above.) Tapper had asked him if he thinks some Republicans still don't take him seriously. His answer:
TRUMP: Well, I'm an outsider, and -- which I'm proud to be. But don't forget, I was a member of the establishment totally. I was a big campaign contributor. I gave lots of money to everybody. I mean, I would give money to everybody. And I was a very big donor to the Republicans. I used to be a donor to everybody, frankly, because, as a businessman, that was a good thing to do. But, yes, the day I decided to run, which was June 16, I became an outsider. And all of the establishment sort of said, well, wait a minute, what happened to him? He's not supposed to be doing that. That's not in the cards. And I don't want money. I'm self-funding my campaign, so I don't need donor money and lobbyist money and special interest money. And that bothers them, because the special interests want to control their candidates, and I can't be controlled. 
I also liked the interview with Bernie Sanders, when Tapper asked him about something his brother, Larry Sanders, said: that Bill Clinton was a "dreadful president, in general, for poor people." Sanders distanced himself:
Look, I read that interview. My brother lives in England. He is not part of our campaign. I disagree with what he said. He speaks for himself, not for me or my campaign.
He sounded — as he usually does — angry, so Tapper seemed to feel the call to help him out with a prompt: "Fair enough. I disagree with my brother on a lot of things, too, although I love him dearly as I'm sure you do yours." Sanders got the clue and said: "Me, too. I love my brother." Then he started another sentence with "He's" and then seemed to think better of it and just said "yes" and stopped. We were laughing at Meadhouse.

110 comments:

Titus said...

I just flipped the stations and Hilary is wearing the same outfit she had on last night.

Those collars are hideous.

tits.

Original Mike said...

"Those collars are hideous."

My wife made the same comment last night.

Ann Althouse said...

Yeah, it looks like something that should only be worn at night. It's satin-y. Costume-y.

Seems like something a dictator in a sci-fi movie would wear.

virgil xenophon said...

You're right, AA, ABSOLUTELY unwatchable--all of 'em. GAAAK!!! The thought of enduring eight months more of post-mortems like last night and today is enough to make one wish to leave the daily business of this world and become a Trappist Monk..

wildswan said...

These primaries are interesting but also it's like watching an avalanche in slow motion, very slow motion. It's big and exciting but it's taking weeks to see it. And the point of view of most news "opinion makers" has been absorbed. The commenters here are less predictable.

Except Karl Rove's piece today saying that Trump is getting weaker - that was good comedy. Also I liked Hillary winning all the casino workers for a majority of 500 in Nevada and also winning the card draw - guess a casino worker cut the deck on that too. That makes her lucky seven times in row. Didn't someone say that in war it's better to be lucky than good? Maybe that was a fortune cookie.

gspencer said...

Well, at least we won't have to hear all those enthusiastic chants of the Bush supporters anymore,

WE'RE NO. 5!

WE'RE NO. 5!

Original Mike said...

Well, one thing you won't see is Hillary Clinton on Fox News Sunday. Neither she nor her campaign will even answer their inquiries. What a pussy.

Oso Negro said...

Don't watch. Today it will be all about the inevitability of Trump and Hillary. With the high negatives of both of those candidates, it will be interesting to see who normal and decent Americans choose to vote against.

Bill R said...

Re: Seems like something a dictator in a sci-fi movie would wear.

That's funny.

And thank you for watching these shows so I don't have to.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, I'll echo Bill R. Thank you for watching so we don't have to.

AprilApple said...

Hillary slathering, slicking, pimping and the usual corrupt-o-crat media adoration.

David Begley said...

Trump: South Caolina us an amazing place full of amazing people.

All you need to know.

tim in vermont said...

I wish Cruz's on-line followers would listen to Cruz on how to talk about his Republican rivals. Cruz said any one of them would be better than Sanders or Hillary. But his on-line thugs are going on about "golden weasels" etc, etc. Of course it could be Moby stuff by Hillary operatives, but I don't think so.

cronus titan said...

One thing we learned in the last few months is that none of the people on these Sunday talk shows have any idea of what they are talking about. They have been predicting Trump's demise since he announced, Bush was inevitable until he wasn't, Hillary was inevitable, then she was finished and now apparently inevitable again. One can go on and on. It is entertaining in the the same sense that my small children cannot think 5 minutes into the future. Bless their hearts, they only talk to each other who live inside the Beltway and find Trump and Sanders incomprehensible.

That, and any Republican candidate who goes on these shows is a fool. The Sunday shows are a revolving door for Democratic Party political operatives, and every GOP candidate who appears knows that they are there for those hosts to make them look bad or to set them up as part of a grander Democratic strategy. It is their right to use their positions to advance candidates of their choice and to injure candidates they oppose but why Republicans play along with this nonsense is a mystery.

Laslo Spatula said...

Yesterday I was on University Ave, having a smoke outside the bar that I frequently frequent.

Hipsters, Ave Rats, Gaggles of Japanese Students and the gray-haired Granola People all pass by.

Then.

A young guy -- early twenties -- not quite a hipster, but some definite overlap -- passes by, wearing a trump "Make America Great Again" T-Shirt.

Maybe irony. But no one goes ironic by wearing a Cruz or Rubio shirt here in Seattle.

Make of it what you will.


I am Laslo.

tim maguire said...

These shows are obsolete before they're even broadcast. With the combination of Trump underperforming (again) and Bush dropping out, Rubio is in the driver's seat. Cruz's only hope is Trump dropping out so Cruz can finally get all those evangelicals he thought he had anyway. Trump's only hope is Sanders dropping out and a large chunk of Sanders' supporters registering Republican to vote for Trump. That's it, that's Trump's only path to victory--Sanders' supporters becoming Republicans.

AReasonableMan said...

tim maguire said...
With the combination of Trump underperforming (again)


In SC:

RCP final average = 31.8
Trump final result = 32.5

Reality is a bitch.

AReasonableMan said...

tim maguire said...
With the combination of Trump underperforming (again)


In New Hampshire:

RCP final average = 31.2
Trump final result = 35.3

Reality, total bitch.

PB said...

I certainly don't watch them in real-time, if only to avoid the commercials. I look for the replays or selected excerpts.

madAsHell said...

I once worked with a guy that would DVR Star Trek, and then play it back at 4x speed. He said it saved time.

Birkel said...

AReasonableMan:

The idea of underperformance is compared to national polling figures, I believe.

Statistics. Damned lies and all that.

People want to believe some times.

dustbunny said...

Althouse was the first to mention the big collar months ago and now I can't stop noticing them. I think it's about making her hips look smaller.

Donald Douglas said...

"Meet the Press" was great. Bob Schieffer is especially good.

Laslo Spatula said...

University Ave, from Inside the Bar.

Various conversations I have overheard:

The two old-old guys that play pool -- one with a white beard down to his chest -- scoff at Sanders' socialist 'bullshit', hate Hillary. Don't really give a damn about Rubio or Cruz, nor ever expect to. Their conversations, when on this topic, center upon Trump. They like trump: he has built things, rather than just being a politician.

The middle-agers at the bar: one Hillary supporter (he is a government worker); the others -- mostly blue-collar -- think Rubio and Cruz are Republican-as-an-euphemism sleazy. Sanders is a non-starter. They talk about Trump in laughing tones, but the tone seems to be aimed at seeing if the others might be in on a Secret.

Frat-style boys at the dart board: hate Hillary. Hate HATE Hillary. One is very enthusiastic of Sanders. One derides him, asking where the money will come from. Two speak openly about liking Trump.

Two intellectual hipsters in a booth: Sanders Sanders Sanders, although they wish he was even more to the left.

Anyway.

I am Laslo.

Laslo Spatula said...

Althouse can do "Meet the Press."

I'll do "Meet the Ave."

I am Laslo.

Laslo Spatula said...

University Ave, from Outside the Bar.

Lots of cars parked along the street. Many of them upper-level: BMWs, Range Rover, Audi. Two Prius'.

Four political bumper stickers that I can see.

Sanders, Sanders, Sanders, Hillary.

The two Prius cars have Sanders stickers. One still has an Obama/Biden sticker.

The Hillary sticker is on a Dodge SUV.

I am Laslo.

jr565 said...

I actually watched a bit on ABC this morning where John Miller was talking about Apple and their encryption. He made the valid point that until September of last year Apple had a master key and would provide it whenever govt needed to get into a phone. So, there really is no basis for Apple's stance here.

jr565 said...

areasonable man wrote:
tim maguire said...
With the combination of Trump underperforming (again)

In New Hampshire:

RCP final average = 31.2
Trump final result = 35.3

Reality, total bitch.

Because you have a lot of candidates syphoning off votes. Bush was taking a percentage of votes, Carson was and so was Kasich. So long as you have so many people in the race Trump can eke out wins with 31%. But will the majority of republicans coalesce around Trump?
Do you really think Bush voters are going to back Trump now that he's dropping out? If Cruz drops out do you really think they will coalesce around Trump?
He can keep winning because of the number of people in the race.

Birkel said...

Laslo:

My observations are similar. People are talking about Trump. Trump seems, to them, to sincerely care about America (I agree.) and the plight of average people (I am ambivalent.).

My problem with Trump is that I see no understanding that making America great again is about fixing the internal problems of culture and bureaucracy. But that sort of concern, while of utmost importance, does not sway voters.

rehajm said...

dustbunny said...
Althouse was the first to mention the big collar months ago and now I can't stop noticing them. I think it's about making her hips look smaller.


It's not so she won't chew off the stitches? Arf! Arf! Arf!

Hagar said...

I actually watched a bit on ABC this morning where John Miller was talking about Apple and their encryption. He made the valid point that until September of last year Apple had a master key and would provide it whenever govt needed to get into a phone. So, there really is no basis for Apple's stance here.

My understanding is that the "key" Miller is talking about applies to earlier generations of the iPhone and not the current technology. So, no, it is not a valid point.

Bay Area Guy said...

I watched them - nothing too noteworthy.

Jake Tapper on CNN is the only non-Leftist.

Carson needs to drop out immediately. Who are the people voting for him? Great man, but has no business running.

Trump is here to stay, whether you like it or not. The thought that he would simply fade away was purely amateur wishful thinking.

Ideally, Cruz or Rubio would drop out and join forces, but that won't happen either. Should they flip a coin for the benefit of the USA?

If folks don't start thinking clearly, they run the risk of assisting Hillary in her quest for power.

Simon said...

American journalism is so tame. The question for both Kaish and Carson is simple: "So are you stupid or corrupt? Stop smiling, it's not a joke: Is Trump paying you to help him or do you not get that you're helping him?"

Michael K said...

With the combination of Trump underperforming (again) and Bush dropping out, Rubio is in the driver's seat.

Pretty funny. Rubio had all the heavy hitters in SC and they could not drag him across the line. Next week is Super Tuesday.

Trump will win all but Texas and Cruz will win that. Rubio might yet wind up as VP on the Trump ticket. Laura Ingraham mentioned that this morning on Fox. Reality is seeping out.

Amnesty is Rubio's weak point and Trump's strong point. They might make a combination.

We'll see but I'm starting to believe that will happen.

Birkel said...

Simon,
Have you considered they prefer Trump? Why should your preferences dictate their choices?

Terry said...

Laslo Spatula wrote:
"Sanders, Sanders, Sanders, Hillary."
In my very liberal, artsy neighborhood the only bumper stickers I see are Sanders stickers.
The downside of having a nomination awarded by super-delegates is that the D's may nominate a person who cannot win the general because the Democrat voters won't show up at the polls.

Birkel said...

Terry:

You typed "downside" which must be a typo.

Sebastian said...

"I think it's a mess. I think they'd better get their act together because they're going to keep losing elections." He's talking about the party that in recent years has won more elections for Congress and in the states than at any time since the 1920s.

AA responds: "That was great." Which raises the question: what exactly was great? The rhetoric devoid of substance? The "telling it like it is" though it actually isn't? The getting away with BS, because only religious sanctimony needs to be tested for lies, and clearly Trump here is grounding morality in things other than God? The sticking-it-the GOPe, because after all that is what matters and, best-case scenario, is more likely to hand the election to Hillary!? Or the blogging opportunity when Trump prevails in the primaries, setting up a series of posts on, "great" drama notwithstanding, "how Trump lost me"?

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

I didn't get to my recording of "This Week With George Stephanopoulos,"

Lucky you, Althouse.

Terry said...

Birkel said...
Terry:
You typed "downside" which must be a typo.
2/21/16, 12:39 PM

Well, downside if you are a Democrat :)
Since the Democrat party was founded -- to protect slavery -- in in 1828, it has consistently run on a platform of using government to privilege one group of citizens at the expense of other groups of citizens. Now, with super-delegates, some Democrats' primary votes are more equal than the primary votes of other Democrats.

Terry said...

I should have used the word 'Americans' rather than 'citizens' in my last comment, since the Democrats considered Blacks to be subhumans, fit only to provide the labor to make Democrats wealthy.

dreams said...

Trump's candidacy has been very revealing in exposing the lack of wisdom of many of our conservative pundits. No wonder there has been so much human suffering throughout the ages when even the supposedly smart people turn out to be not so smart and/or corrupt as looking out for their own narrow interest. Not really a revelation but it does provide perspective.

rcocean said...

Expected Headline:

Trump says Rove is a criminal who's above the law. Can't be arrested.

rcocean said...

Trump became an outsider when he attacked Illegal immigration and our one-sided trade deals.

That's verboten.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Laslo,

They loathe Hillary at the U. It's as unhip to talk up Hillary as it is to talk up Cruz. Of course, they'll probably end up voting for her.

I can never remember Kasich, either. Don't think Trump can be faulted for that lapse.

tim maguire said...

Blogger AReasonableMan said...
tim maguire said...
With the combination of Trump underperforming (again)

In SC:

RCP final average = 31.8
Trump final result = 32.5

Reality is a bitch.


Uh huh...and a few days before that? What's that? What were you mumbling to yourself? 40%? Yes, I think that is what you were mumbling. Remember "A Reasonable Man," if you have to put it in your name, it's because nobody would conclude it from observation.

Hagar said...

In other news, I have the front door open and hear the geese honking ovrhead, circling in the thermals to gain elevation before heading north.
This is kind of early for that.

tim maguire said...

No bank can be too big to fail, no executive too powerful to jail." I wondered: So, then, is no politician too powerful to jail?

Yep, she's used that line before, and I definitely noticed she no longer says "no one too big to jail."

AReasonableMan said...

tim maguire said...
Uh huh...and a few days before that? What's that? What were you mumbling to yourself? 40%?


Your statement was objectively false. I provided the data to demonstrate that. Individual polls were all over the place but the average was a reasonably good predictor leading into the primary. If Trump had come in a little lower than the average it still wouldn't mean anything, since the average also has some error.

tim maguire said...

Blogger Michael K said...
"With the combination of Trump underperforming (again) and Bush dropping out, Rubio is in the driver's seat."

Pretty funny. Rubio had all the heavy hitters in SC and they could not drag him across the line. Next week is Super Tuesday


Trump's supporters keep pretending that when a candidate drops out, their voters go into a pot and get divvied up among the survivors. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Trump is the leader because he owns his niche, but his niche isn't big enough to carry the day. Rubio finished second because, although his niche is bigger han Trumps, he does not own it. With Bush's concession, he owns a bigger share of it.

That is the sad reality for Trump--he's gathered up all his votes already, there aren't enough undecideds left and he's not the second choice of enough people either. Rubio will get stronger, Cruz can't even lock up his own base (evangelicals going for Trump is a disaster for Cruz), and Trump's 30-35% will look less and less impressive as the not-Trump votes divide ever fewer ways.

madAsHell said...

Gaggles of Japanese Students

The ones I talk to on the bus all claim to be from Shanghai. They are really quite amusing to watch. The freshmen walk in groups of 6 to 8, and move like an amoeba. They adapt to jeans, and t-shirts, but always include an I-am-Chinese flourish that makes them look......goofy.

I see as many old Obama (2012 AND 2008) bumper stickers as I see Sanders stickers. Hillary stickers are rare.

Bay Area Guy said...

Are there any right-wingers unhappy with the choices they have?

If so, you might be the type of person unable to decide what to eat from a Denny's Menu - and then blame the Denny's Menu:)

If you are a hearty Conservative, vote Cruz. He has no kinks in his Conservative armor.

If you want to "shake up" the establishment and "send them a message," vote Trump. The man dominates, whether we like it or not. And, in fairness, he has been good on 2 critical issues: illegal immigration and radical Islam.

If you want a moderate GOP, vote Kasich. He's a good man all around. Heck, I remember when he was in Congress 25 years ago, and was considered a Reaganite Hawk, but times change.

If you want a moderate/Conservative/establishment type, vote Rubio. He has one blemish (the Gang of 8), but, notwithstanding,is pretty Conservative all down the line. Even Limbaugh concurs.


The problem, though, is that the GOP is splintering its vote. If it continues to splinter, Trump wins the nomination quite easily. I'm not saying this is bad. I'm just saying it will be bad, if he has a low ceiling and can't beat Hillary. That would be tragic.

tim maguire said...

Blogger AReasonableMan said...
Your statement was objectively false. I provided the data to demonstrate that.


If by "objectively false," you mean "objectively true," then I agree. Trumps numbers crashed in the days leading up to the SC primary. You can dress that up by ignoring everything before the final, but that doesn't change what happened.

AReasonableMan said...

tim maguire said...
If by "objectively false," you mean "objectively true," then I agree.


Rather than acknowledge that you were wrong you tried to move the goal posts. No wonder you are in the tank for Rubio.

Original Mike said...

"If you want a moderate/Conservative/establishment type, vote Rubio. He has one blemish (the Gang of 8), but, notwithstanding,is pretty Conservative all down the line. Even Limbaugh concurs."

Speaking of Limbaugh, I heard him on Friday going off on Trump's latest "I like the mandate". In a nutshell it was, How can you hate ObamaCare but love the mandate? Which is a good question.

David said...

"He [Bernie] sounded — as he usually does — angry."

Because he is angry. Everything pisses him off because he thinks his way is not just the best way but the only way. Bernie is the most arrogant and self centered of all the candidates, beyond even Cruz and Clinton, who are pretty high up there on the arrogance list. Bernie makes Donald Trump look affable and humble (which in a certain rather strange way, he is.)

David said...

"Carson needs to drop out immediately. Who are the people voting for him? Great man, but has no business running."

Who are we to tell anyone whether they should run, keep running or drop out? Carson's not going to win but he has a chance to influence an important election. One way he can influence it is by dropping out, but he gets to decide how to exercise that influence, especially after all the effort he has put in.

David said...

Lazlo says: "make of it what you want."

There one of nearly everything out there. Let us know when you see 2 or 10 or 20.

Dude1394 said...

Blogger rcocean said...

Trump became an outsider when he attacked Illegal immigration and our one-sided trade deals.

That's verboten.

You my friend are spot on. The trade deal comments probably gave some folks heart-attacks. They never expected a republican to EVER criticize open, free and one-sided trade deals.

David said...

There are no hipsters where I live. Some wannabes but no real ones. Except some of the military folks. but their haircuts are the perfect camouflage.

Dude1394 said...

Ann...I thought the comment you said was great by Trump was as well. It is obvious that he is the most American and natural politician out there. No one close.

gadfly said...

TRUMP: People that were totally establishment that loved me, you know, I was a big contributor. I gave $350,000 just before to the Republican Governors Association.

According to OpenSecrets.org Trump contributed $198,500 (all but $1,000 to Republican candidates) during the 2014 mid-term elections. Liars obviously make good candidates since Trump and Rubio convinced South Carolina voters that Ted Cruz was the most untrustworthy candidate according to exit polls.

Terry said...

David said...
"He [Bernie] sounded — as he usually does — angry."

Because he is angry. Everything pisses him off because he thinks his way is not just the best way but the only way. Bernie is the most arrogant and self centered of all the candidates . . .


Vaclav Havel:

To wandering humankind [communism] offers an immediately available home: all one has to do is accept it, and suddenly everything becomes clear once more, life takes on new meaning, and all mysteries, unanswered questions, anxiety, and loneliness vanish. Of course, one pays dearly for this low-rent home: the price is abdication of one’s own reason, conscience, and responsibility, for an essential aspect of this ideology is the consignment of reason and conscience to a higher authority. The principle involved here is that the center of power is identical with the center of truth. (In our case, the connection with Byzantine theocracy is direct: the highest secular authority is identical with the highest spiritual authority.)

http://vaclavhavel.cz/showtrans.php?cat=eseje&val=2_aj_eseje.html&typ=HTML

Sebastian said...

@OM: "In a nutshell it was, How can you hate ObamaCare but love the mandate? Which is a good question" There you go again, demanding coherence. You must be an arrogant GOPe type.

"Trump became an outsider when he attacked Illegal immigration" Right, pushing illegals out and then letting them all back in legally is just the way to stick it to the GOPe.

mccullough said...

Carson has by far the most interesting biography of any candidate. He's an intelligent man who needs to continue brushing up on the issues but he has the best temperament of any candidate I have her seen. His demeanor should be exactly what we want in every president. He's not petty or loudmouth ex or exalted. People extolled Obama's temperament but I can't imagine Carson telling voters to "punish your enemies" or any of the number of intemperate remarks Obama has made, not to mention the asinine Messianic tone and remarks he has made, along with other candidates who believe they are So Important.

Carson had an incredibly important job. He's the only one with an actual skill. Sanders couldn't even support himself as a carpenter he was so bad at it. He didn't have the patience and work ethic to get good. Almost all the rest of them are liberal arts majors with law degrees who talk for a living. Trump has been successful real estate but he grew a company started by someone else. And it's not like he can design a building or pour a foundation.

If we were on a desert island, Carson would be the only useful one.

Chuck said...

Trump keeps trotting out that donation to the Republican Governors Conference. It's all he's got. I don't think Trump has ever given much of anything to Heritage, the AEI, the National Review Foundation, the Weekly Standard, The American Spectator, or any other core-conservative think tank.

Trump always gives (and it isn't much) for the sole reason of access, and celebrity. By Trump's own hilariously honest account -- and this is one time I believe him -- he gave to the Clinton Foundation in order to get the Clintons to come to a Trump wedding. For the social prestige, in other words. For the celebrity.

That's Trump's candidacy in a nutshell. He's the Kardashian Party. He's the Kanye West of politics. Celebrity is his platform. It's the stupidity, stupid.

walter said...

WALLACE: To use a business term, are you involved in a hostile takeover of the Republican Party?

TRUMP: No. I’m not at all. I get along with the Republicans. There's nothing hostile about it. I was a Republican establishment figure. And then the day I decided to run, I became an outsider -- and more so than I even thought.
---

So..the takeover is not "hostile". And being a donor doesn't mean you will be considered an appropriate candidate/rep of a party. Especially since you donated to "everybody".

I'm picturing Rove holding up his trademark dry erase board featuring a devil-horned caricature of Trump.

Terry said...

Sebastian said...
"Right, pushing illegals out and then letting them all back in legally is just the way to stick it to the GOPe."

I will never understand how people who believe that it is impossible to deport 12 million illegals, believe that they will leave voluntarily if they are given a politician's promise that they will then be able to pay a fine and reenter legally at some undetermined point in the future. What illegal alien would ever take this bargain when the consequences of not taking it are . . . nothing?
"Say, that guy won't pay his property taxes, so he's been served an eviction notice, but he won't leave. Howabout we tell him that if he does leave, and pays the back property taxes, we'll see about letting him back in later? That'll work!"

Fabi said...

Trump didn't underperform -- ARM is correct.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AprilApple said...

Bernie doesn't want to win.

It's all part of the show. The coronation. The media want Hillary, the most corrupt public figure in living history, and the media will get what it wants.

Original Mike said...

"pushing illegals out and then letting them all back in legally is just the way to stick it to the GOPe."

I want to know how that's not "amnesty"? jr565 asked that a few days ago and to my knowledge, no one has answered him (full disclosure: I don't read all the posts)

Sebastian said...

@Walter: "I get along with the Republicans." Said the would-be Republican candidate.

@Terry: I would have thought that for opponents of illegal immigration (and whaddayaknow, I'm one) Trump's pledge to let them all back in, from the front of the line, might have posed a problem. But apparently, Trump supporters are just sticklers for legality.

Sebastian said...

@OM: "I want to know how that's not "amnesty"?" Look, you and jr565 and a bunch of other people, including even Rush Limbaugh, keep asking for coherence and common sense, but that just shows you are the arrogant tools of the GOPe.

Original Mike said...

Has no Trump supporter addressed this here?

Terry said...

The "make them all leave and then re-enter legally" plan will go nowhere, because the first part of the plan -- make them all leave -- is not acceptable to the Democrats and to the chamber of commerce Republicans who make up the GOPe. You might as well say that the plan is to first make them all grow wings and fly back to where they came from.
The first step, before anything else is considered, is to stabilize the illegal population by securing the border against entry. The GOP establishment will do nothing to slow down illegal immigration because it will restrict the supply of cheap labor.

gadfly said...

@tim in vermont said...
I wish Cruz's on-line followers would listen to Cruz on how to talk about his Republican rivals. Cruz said any one of them would be better than Sanders or Hillary. But his on-line thugs are going on about "golden weasels" etc, etc. Of course it could be Moby stuff by Hillary operatives, but I don't think so.


We don't have to go to T-Rump supporters to find examples of a campaign badmouthing its opponents - we need only listen to the T-Rump harangue of the day. As for online thugs, the Trump Robot multitude sings off-key better (or is that worse) than any and all political choirs. I wouldn't vote for Donnie, Hillarlary or Bernie in a million years, so the Libertarians had best get on with nominating Gary Johnson, who tells us why he runs for President here.

Original Mike said...

I understand all that Terry but whenever Rubio's name comes up the vitriol against "Mr. Amnesty" is palpable. I want why Trump's plan is not amnesty.

Balfegor said...

Re: Sebastian:

@Terry: I would have thought that for opponents of illegal immigration (and whaddayaknow, I'm one) Trump's pledge to let them all back in, from the front of the line, might have posed a problem. But apparently, Trump supporters are just sticklers for legality.

Front of the line is a problem for me (back of the line is where they belong), but otherwise, I'm okay with that. Realistically, once they have immigrated illegally and established ties with natives, they will have an unfair advantage over their law-abiding countrymen when it comes to obtaining visas, since they will be able to find people who want to get them work visas more easily, but life isn't fair. It's enough to kick them to the back of the line behind other people waiting to get in right now.

But although people pooh-pooh the legality aspect, it's really the most important aspect -- like all laws, the entire immigration system relies on a deterrent against the Holmesian "bad man." A population of highly visible, highly voluble "bad men" flouting immigration law is a serious problem for the law. And more importantly, it is a serious show of disrespect for American sovereignty, like if a bunch of squatters came to live in your backyard. The fact that one or two of your neighbours are friendly with them and hire them for odd jobs doesn't change the fact that they're squatters, not guests, and you need to get rid of them if you want to keep your backyard yours. It's the thin end of the wedge!

And what strikes me is that the government's attitude towards immigration is really just part of a broader problem of the incompetence of American public servants. In a whole host of areas -- immigration, public safety, education -- politicians and civil servants have become expert in coming up with faddish excuses why their failures aren't signs of incompetence, but of virtue, and why they are right to ignore citizens who complain.

We shouldn't try to reduce crime because police are racist against Blacks.
We shouldn't try to control the border because that would be racist against Latinos.
Trying to monitor educational performance is racist against Blacks and Latinos.
Complaining about vagrants trying to expose themselves in public . . . well, maybe it's not racist, but it's an expression of your loathsome bourgeois privilege, so just shut up and take it.

Basically, let's just wallow in our little cesspool, and never strive to make things better, because this is the best of all possible worlds and you're racist and sexist and classist for daring to think things could be better if we did things differently. But give us more money -- keeping things this good is expensive.

Terry said...

Well, Original Mike, it's hard to take anything Trump says seriously.
The GOP establishment is wedded to a flawed post mortem of the 2012 election. The post mortem is flawed, in part, because it dooms the GOP to minority status -- but with enough clout at the federal level to continue to pay off key business interests.
The GOP establishment is reactionary. They have no plan that says "this is what America should be and this is how we are going to make America how it should be." Trump appeals to many people who know this (but not to me).

mccullough said...

The conservative think tanks produced W with his useless wars and the compassionate conservatism of NCLB, Medicare Part D, Homeland Security, and TARP, all supported by Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. There hasn't been a conservative president since Calvin Cooldige and hasn't been a conservative candidate since Barry Goldwater.

Americans like Social Security and Medicare and believe the government should help provide medical care for the poor and those who can't get insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

Wake me when one of the Republican candidates proposes to repeal Medicare D, Homeland Security, and NCLB. Still waiting for Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to bring those bills to the floor. The GOP wants to trim back the government to the 2008 leviathan. They are a fucking joke of a party, just like the Dems. I'm glad Trump is making a mockery of them just as Sanders is making a mockery of the Dems.

Sebastian said...

@Balfegor: I feel your pain (no snark intended). I just don't think Trump is the answer; in fact, de facto amnesty through the doors in the wall compounds the legality issue. Nor do I think most of Trump's actual support comes from people who really, really want to make illegals legal right after they have been pushed out. Of course, Trump has barely begun to think about the actual cesspool -- created in large part by the 1965 immigration amendments (any guess about whether he knows what they say?). That is what we should change.

Sebastian said...

@MC: NCLB has already been repealed. Peanuts, of course, but still.

Rick said...

That was great.

Was it? I remember Karl Rove as the architect of what you claim to think is best about conservatism, and in a more objective evaluation is the last Republican campaign director to actually win a presidential campaign.

But clearly he's the reason Republicans haven't won the last two elections.

Michael K said...

"his niche isn't big enough to carry the day."

That is what is going to be so interesting to watch. I don't have a dog in this fight. I will vote for the GOP nominee since the Democrats have shown they are incompetent in national security and economics.

I don't know who the winner of the GOP nomination will be. I do think Trump might pull it off but I am not invested in him.

AReasonableMan said...

Trump has now eliminated Bush and neutralized Cruz. I am guessing that things now start to get very hot for the senator for immigration. It is hard for me to believe that the establishment really thinks Rubio is up for this challenge. Only the dead-enders will throw their lot in with Rubio at this point.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Ann,

If you ever do watch This Week, do check out the round table commentator who says more than once that Trump is "evil." As "eliminationist rhetoric" goes, that must be pretty far up the scale. (Sorry I can't remember the guy's name; I've never seen him before. Distinctly a "B" Team round table today.)

Rick said...

Compare Tapper protecting Bernie with Katie Couric baiting and attacking Sarah Palin, which is what the left pretended was the expectation for journalists in their role as watchdogs or speakers for the opposition. Then note that Tapper is considered on the right of his profession. So if he's on the right but still instinctively protects the left what does that say about the rest of his profession? Even his willingness to entertain the most basic standard of integrity sets him apart from the mainstream of his profession. And it says much about the right's reasonableness that such a person is lauded, it proves they don't demand perfect political compliance. This seems much like their acceptance of Scalia, who also reached conclusions which would be considered heresies if the right acted as the left did.

Consider Althouse in this pantheon.

rcocean said...

Yeah, I see the typical GOPe responses here on illegal immigration.

-First response: We can't do anything about illegal immigration so its a dead issue
-Second response: Even if we could, we shouldn't 'cause that would be racist.
-Third Response: Even if we were evil enough, it doesn't matter 'cause Trump and Rubio are both for amnesty.

All these responses are wrong. We can enforce the immigration laws, we just need a President who will do it. The Racist charge is a joke. And Rubio has said in both English and Spanish that he is favor of Amnesty. OTOH,Trump has approved the Senator Sessions Immigration plan. They are 180 degrees apart.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Hmmmm. My husband noted this morning that the "powerhouse round table" on This Week contained an obvious Rubio shill, an obvious Hillary shill ... but no Bernie shill. In fact, there's never been one. (Not for Trump either, naturally.) Why ever not?

Anglelyne said...

Original Mike: I want to know how that's not "amnesty"? jr565 asked that a few days ago and to my knowledge, no one has answered him.

I rarely read jr565 because he's a logorrheic sperg, but I'll answer for you.

Trump has been saying this for a while and by my lights it's the stupidest thing he's ever said. (Surprised more people haven't been all over it.) Unfortunately, it's stupid and would still be preferable to what we know we're going to get with Rubio. (Nothing.)

Sending them home (via a combination of enforcement, incentives), combined with a higher probability of serious attention to border security re illegal entry (relative to zero probability with Rubio), and a requirement to re-enter legally for those who wish to return (ask any legal immigrant how quick and easy that is) would result in decrease in illegal population and a meaningful slow-down of inflow. A blanket amnesty in situ with no improvements in border security, as the global data show, acts as nothing but a giant magnet, and countries that follow this path always end up with even larger illegal populations down the line. (And anybody who seriously believes that Mr. Puppet and his handlers are going to do anything about securing the border or disincentivizing migration needs to stop worrying about the alleged gullibility of Trumpkins and find himself a guardian to protect his interests.)

I suspect his fairly obvious evaluation doesn't occur to anti-Trumpers because the voices inside their heads keep telling them that anyone who would vote for Trump is a glazed-eyed true believer who never critically evaluates anything Dear Leader says.

Could Trump end up screwing us on border-security and crackdowns on illegals? Sure he could. But I know Rubio will screw us. Same with legal immigration. I hold out some hope that Trump is educable on, e.g., H1-B scamming. Maybe he isn't, or simply wouldn't command the influence necessary to do anything about it. But I know that both Rubio and Cruz are worthless tools on this issue.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

rcocean,

(1) We can and will.
(2) It's not racist. "Hispanic" isn't a race, and anyway Mexico has much stricter border controls than we do. Sure, they'll pass on kids from the south -- so long as they keep going North.
(3) I don't think either is for amnesty.

Anglelyne said...

Original Mike: I want to know how that's not "amnesty"? jr565 asked that a few days ago and to my knowledge, no one has answered him.

I posted my response to you before I read Balfegor's. His is more interesting than mine. Hmm, maybe I'm wrong and the sending 'em home before letting 'em back in thing isn't as stupid as I thought it was.

Rhythm and Balls said...

You're so unfair to the 74 year-old. Remember, he hasn't spent a lifetime learning how to lie as glibly as she did.

And she's way more powerful than you think.

Rick said...

Oops, there's R&B so the blog version of Godwin's Convention is in effect. The debate is over and whoever R&B agreed with lost.

Rhythm and Balls said...

You really are a dummy, Orangutan Rick. Go knock yourself out and shill for Hillary, then.

She grew up a Goldwater girl and a Republican, after all. So she's all about you and whatever it is you're for.

As if anyone noticed or cared.

Original Mike said...

Anglelyne: Thank you for the response. I have one further question, if you're willing to take the time. I believe Rubio now says The Gang of 8 was a mistake and has called for building a wall as well. How do you know that Rubio will screw us? Gut feeling or objective evidence?

Sebastian said...

"it's the stupidest thing he's ever said" I know this thread is running out of steam, but I couldn't agree more, so just for the record: Trump's central plank on his main issue is "the stupidest thing he's ever said."

Original Mike said...

Sebastian: This is what I'm trying to understand. It doesn't seem to matter what he says, he gets a pass nobody else would.

garage mahal said...

Ya'll are debating whether Rubio is pure enough. Heh. Yah he is.

Sammy Finkelman said...

But this morning, I'm dreading the drawn out post-mortem on Jeb Bush and the predictable predictions of Hillary and Trump's path to the nomination

There was virtually no talk about Jeb Bush, beyond mentioning the fact that he left the race, and they had interviewes with everybody whom they perceived still in contention: Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Kasich. One question to Rubio as to hiw. The focus entirely on the Republican side.

All that Nevada does on the Democratic side is keep things where they were. Sanders really did expect to win, but he didn't get an upset. Insead, he was competitive. All states in the Democratic race allot deegates proportionally, provided someone gets at least 15% - that should be expected to happen everywhere.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Original Mike said...2/21/16, 9:00 AM

Well, one thing you won't see is Hillary Clinton on Fox News Sunday. Neither she nor her campaign will even answer their inquiries.

Donald Trump tried something like that earlier, but he said today, after slight hesitattion, that he expected to be at the FOX hosted debate in March.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Donald Douglas said...2/21/16, 11:14 AM

"Meet the Press" was great. Bob Schieffer is especially good.

I think you mean "Face the Nation"

Bob Schieffer was almost pro-Trump. Of course the old thing about reporters is that they are supposed to act so you can't tell who they are for. But he seemed to think Trump had very good chances to win the nominaton.


Terry said...

One of the reasons that building a wall is so politically difficult is that a lot of the illegals regularly travel from Central America to the US and back again. The government doesn't do much at the local level down there, and so the money brought back from the US really helps the poor village they came from. They are often powerful on the local scene, much more powerful than they ever will be in the US (they may sit on the committee that decides how to spend community money).
So if you put up a wall, they can go back to their village, but then traveling back to the US is not easy. No workers in the US, and the village is in trouble. If they decide to try and make a go of it in the US w/o occasional visits back to the village, their connection to the village is lost and eventually they stop sending money.
You know any of these guys? The guys who go back and forth? Often they have a wife and kids down there and a wife (or girlfriend) and kids in the US.
That doesn't mean that the current open-borders policy is stable. There is a near infinite supply of unskilled labor in Central America. The illegals here can't get higher wages because they will be undercut by new arrivals. Their connection to the US is not strong. Any problems they have here that don't put them behind bars, and off they go to another place in the US or back to the home village. You and I can't live like that, we have to keep our noses clean. Having 10% of the population of Mexico living in your country illegally is not good. We are, in effect, being colonized. So far that colonization had helped the rich and hurt the poor. Who cares? Sanders doesn't care. Rubio doesn't care. No one cares about the people on the bottom who have the most to gain (supposedly) from the privileges of American citizenship.
Once you open the pipeline, as we did in the late 80s and the 90s, it's damn hard to close it down.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Terry said...

Since the Democrat party was founded -- to protect slavery -- in in 1828

The Democratic Party wasn't really foudned in 1828. If you mean Andrew Jackson's party, he first ran for president in 1823/1824.

The Democratic Party, in Coongressional statistics is linked to Jefferson's party which was called Republican. (in 1854 the Republican Party took the name Republican in a harkening back to Jefferson. They tend to call Jefferson's Party now "Democratic Republican" although it probably never really had that name)

The Federalists completely disappared after 1816 and you had people running as independents in the 1824 election. The "caucus" system where acandidate was picked by a caucus of members of the House of Represenatives had disappeared. There had been pretty much no competition in the Election of 1820, and later on some historian decided to call it "the Era of Good Feelings."

The Democratic Party didn't become a big defender of slavery until the election of 1844, when Robert J. Walker (who had also been behind Andrew Jackson's campaign - he ids aperson who was more important in U.S. history than you may realize - he may have been responsible both for the Civil war and for saving the Union, not to mention the purchase of Alaska and corrupting Congress) engineered the staealing of the nomination from Martin Van Buren - and it is from that time that conventions became important. He had them adopt the "Rules of 1832" which required a 2/3 majority.

The Convention of 1832 was the first Democratic convention, and was done in imitation of the Anti-Mason Party and the Whig Party. To ensure that no one but Martin Van Buren would get the vice presidential nominaiton, the two thirds rule was put in but I don't think was used in 1836 and 1840.

The party that was not the Democratic Party, or was anti-Jackson, was called the Whig Party. It had been the party of Henry Clay. It existed maybe from the mid-1830s to the early 1850s. John Quincy Adams in 1828 called himself a National Republican and in 1832 Henry Clay used the same name.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Bay Area Guy said...2/21/16, 12:11 PM

Carson needs to drop out immediately.

Carson is not going too withdraw. He's not going to give Cruz the satisfaction.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/19/cruz-carson-held-secret-meeting-about-dirty-tricks.html

After Carson spoke at the convention, and saw Cruz in the hallway again, Cruz didn’t even look at Carson, according to the latter’s campaign.

“There was a political play there and it didn’t work for them,” a Republican operative close to the campaign told The Daily Beast. “The meeting didn’t go as well as Cruz wanted it to go. Carson had a smile on his face and was looking right at him.”

When reached for comment, Rick Tyler, a spokesman for Cruz’s campaign, said, “Yes, they had a good visit.”


Carson did not accept Cruz's explanation of what happened the night of the Iowa acaucuses - or rather, his tolerating it, and not punishing people.

“We disagree on accountability and culpability,” is how Carson put it, according to Osborne.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Geez Sammy. There you go dropping "facts" on Terry. I worry that he might not be able to cope with that. How to fit "facts" into his very neat and tidy and orderly ideology. It could be very traumatic for him.

Terry said...

Geez Sammy. There you go dropping "facts" on Terry. I worry that he might not be able to cope with that. How to fit "facts" into his very neat and tidy and orderly ideology. It could be very traumatic for him.
Uh . . . not sure what you are talking about, R&B. Sammy F sez "The Democratic Party didn't become a big defender of slavery until the election of 1844 . . .". The Southern faction of the Democrat party, the more powerful faction headed by Jackson, was founded specifically to act as brake to an anti-slavery North that was growing in wealth and population a greater rate than the South. The difference between the Northern and Southern Democrats wasn't anti and pro slavery. The Northern Democrats believed that new states should have a referendum on Slavery. The Southern Democrats believed that slavery should be legal in all new states.
The Southern Democrats -- who were founded to defend slavery -- began in 1824, as I wrote.

Despite Adams’s victory, differences between the Adams and the Jackson factions persisted. Adams’s supporters, representing Eastern interests, called themselves the National Republicans. Jackson, whose strength lay in the South and West, referred to his followers simply as Democrats (or as Jacksonian Democrats). Jackson defeated Adams in the 1828 presidential election.

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Democratic-Party

Mr. Forward said...

C-Span, available on your smart phone radio app, repeats the Sunday Morning Talk shows starting around Noon on Sunday. Believe me, it's better with no pictures.

JamesB.BKK said...

If Bernie Sanders can dismiss the views of a person - his bro even - who is a US citizen because he "lives in England," let us hope that he moves quickly to stop confiscating the funds of such a person as being too inconsequential in the American scene. With that, the repeal of the odious FATCA law signed by Obama while the Dems controlled both houses of the Congress would be most welcome to many of such inconsequential offshore persons in possession of faculties and minimal economic sense - other than the sense of using state power to get "free stuff" from other more productive people.