"Yesterday on Face the Nation, John Dickerson asked Donald Trump a question that didn't seem to make sense."

"Both my mom (Ann Althouse) and I pointed this out without discussing it with each other or reading what the other had said about it. My mom and I are both in the legal field, and we thought it was very odd that Dickerson suggested that since Trump claims he has *followed* the law as a businessperson, it will be hard for him to ask people to follow the law under his administration! So I'd ask John Dickerson to give some kind of clarification or retraction."

Wrote my son John Althouse Cohen, referring to my post "On 'Face the Nation' today, John Dickerson asked Donald Trump a question about law that I — being in the law field — found very weird."

What was very cool was that John Dickerson responded:

Good question. What I was trying to get at is where is he on the question of gaming the laws and abiding by them. Does he think laws exist to be maneuvered around and taken advantage of? In the case of companies like Apple and others he makes a moral objection to their taking advantage of tax and trade laws. But in his own business he says he plays every game he can even when he acknowledges (as he did with H1B visas) that it's a bad thing to do. (He's under investigation both for his use H1B visas and his tax filings) So what I was trying to get at is whether he expects everyone to game the system when he's trying to make the system better or whether he expected a different standard than the one he uses once he's on the other side — since his view of standards is a moving target. (For example, he campaigns against foreign workers taking jobs but hires them; campaigns against foreign made goods but makes them). So where's' the line? How does he draw it? How will he draw those lines when he's president. He offered a lot of that in his answer. The point is to excavate his reasoning. The reason I asked about his event with Dr. Carson is that it's part of the same inquiry: what guides your behavior? Is politics a system to be gamed? Seems like a lot of people are upset about politics being turned into a game this election cycle. As the candidate who has achieved a special status because voters think he tells unique truths, how can he say something seemingly true one minute and then say oh that wasn't true it was just politics the next minute. There's no law against doing that. He's just playing the game. But I keep hearing that people are tired of the game playing. Also, it seems like a pretty shifting set of standards — and campaigns are about whether what you're saying will still be true once you're elected. So why, if his standards are shifting now, should people not think he'll shift his standards when he gets into office. Nothing will be there to bind him in many cases but his personal set of standards. Thanks for asking!

I continue to believe that private citizens are entitled to take advantage and it's the job of government to refine the law and make it right. I don't see any hypocrisy from Trump here. Businesspersons should be competent and government should be competent. Trump is offering to transfer his businessman competence into the field of government and saying it's a plus that he understands the game. 

"So when people look at Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, with their heavy accents and awkward hairstyles..."

"... they see themselves (sure Donald Trump was born wealthy, but he has a distinct nouveau riche affect; he can hardly be described as patrician). And when people mock them for their hair or their straightforward manner of speech, it channels every cultural slight these voters have faced in the past decade. Sadly, this is unlikely to get better before it gets worse; this growing cultural divide shows no signs of abating."

From "The Perils and Promise of Authenticity," by Sean Trende in Cato Unbound.

Ban the ban.

"Wisconsin bill would create ban on plastic bag bans."

GOP lawmakers... are trying to head off any future local initiatives.... Senate Bill 601 would restrict a town, village, city or county from regulating "containers" made of plastic, paper, cardboard, metal and glass. This would prohibit a community from regulating single use bags at retail locations, including restaurants. Communities also could not impose fees or surcharges on plastic bags and containers....

Scott Adams takes responsibility for the Trump riots and therefore disavows himself.

Then he explains how the media are "priming the public to try to kill Trump, or at least create some photogenic mayhem at a public event."

Again, no one is sitting in a room plotting Trump’s death, but – let’s be honest – at least half of the media believes Trump is the next Hitler, and a Hitler assassination would be morally justified. Also great for ratings. The media would not be charged with any crime for triggering some nut to act. There would be no smoking gun. No guilt. No repercussions. Just better ratings and bonuses all around.

Adams bolsters his credibility with the accurate prediction he made in 1997 that the media would "kill famous people to generate news that people will care about." 3 months later paparazzi chased Princess Diana to her death.

Adams calls on the media to withdraw its assassination incitement and predicts the call will go unheeded because it is "not financially advantageous."

ME: "I would bet $500 that Trump is going to win Ohio."

MEADE: "Oh, yeah. Especially now that Mitt Romney is there campaigning for Kasich."

(Conversation just now at Meadhouse. I was looking at the 2 new polls today, which both show Kasich and Trump in a tie, after weeks of polls showing Kasich ahead.)

ADDED: I am not actually taking bets here, please note. No betting is occurring through this website. But by the way, did you notice....

Since when do town hall moderators kiss the candidate?

Watch Hillary Clinton walk in and accept kisses on the cheek from Jake Tapper and Roland Martin. This was last night's CNN town hall:

What do you think of that kissing?

Totally normal.

Special, but appropriate, because she's a lady and they are gentlemen.

Indicative of inappropriate closeness where there should be at least a veneer of professionalism.

Weird!

 

pollcode.com free polls

ADDED: How is Sanders greeted? Tapper leans forward with an extended hand and, after the handshake, pats him on the back a few times. Martin extends his hand and, during the handshake, uses his left hand to grip Sanders's upper arm.

Hillary said she's "receiving messages" from foreign leaders asking "if they can endorse me to stop Donald Trump."

Do Americans want the foreign-endorsed candidate? We're seeing Trump tarred as xenophobic, and meanwhile Hillary touts herself as the choice of foreign leaders. This deserves a closer look, and I expect some lampooning from Trump.

At last night's CNN town hall in Columbus, Ohio, Hillary Clinton got a question from Amit Majmudar, a radiologist and — Jake Tapper called this "trivia" — the poet laureate of Ohio. (Majmudar referred to the minority status of his religion, but didn't say what religion it was. The answer is Hindu. He's got a book of poems called "Dothead." That has a poem that refers to "my dark unshaven brothers / whose names overlap with the crazies and God fiends.")

Majmudar had already asked Bernie Sanders a question. He'd said Donald Trump had started to make him and his family "a little uncomfortable here, and frankly, a little bit scared." His question, to both candidates was: Which one of you has a better chance to defeat Trump? Sanders said that the polls show him beating Trump by a wider margin than Hillary and that Democrats win when turnout is high and he's the one who's exciting and energizing the crowds. Presenting himself as the one who'd be good at exposing Trump, Sanders misspoke ludicrously:

This is a guy who goes on Republican T.V. debate and says wages in America are too low. Tell that to the people in Ohio that wages are too low. 

Oh, Bernie.

When Majmudar posed the same question to Hillary, she referred to all the votes she's gotten so far in the primary (more than anyone else), the "broad-based, inclusive" nature of her campaign, and how tough and ready she is to fight. She says she's got "a lot of arguments" she's going to be able to make against Trump but she's "not going to spill the beans right now" about what they are. Then she says:

But, one argument that I am uniquely qualified to bring, because of my service as Secretary of State is what his presidency would mean to our country and our standing in the world. I am already receiving messages from leaders — I'm having foreign leaders ask if they can endorse me to stop Donald Trump. I mean, this is up to Americans, thank you very much, but I get what you're saying.

So... it's "up to Americans," but Americans might prefer her because foreign leaders say they prefer her? Why do foreign leaders prefer her and not Bernie? I get that they are opposed to Donald Trump (and suspect Donald Trump counts that in his favor). But the question is why Hillary over Bernie? It seems that she's just enthused about this support from foreign leaders and wanted to clue us in about it. But why? Why does she think we'd be impressed and why are they supporting her? Who is supporting her?

Jake Tapper asks: "And can you tell to tell us who?"

She doesn't reveal who's been speaking to her behind the scenes, offering support. She just says: "Well, some have done it publicly, actually. The Italian Prime Minister, for example."

Tapper aptly pushes: "How about the ones that have done it privately?"

She says "No, Jake," and the audience laughs. She adds: "We're holding that in reserve too."

How can you refer to it and then hold it in reserve? Who are these people? Why are they supporting her?

She keeps talking, changing the subject — "But, I - you know, lots of times foreign policy doesn't play as big a role as I think it should, you know? The wonderful question that the woman asked me before...." — and blabbering up to the commercial break.

IN THE COMMENTS: Balfegor said:

Well, there's a not insubstantial segment of the American public today who believe that "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" requires that we follow their opinions, rather than that we merely explain why we're conspicuously not doing so, like in 1776.

"Wow. Finally. An article from the NYTs about economic populism. The working class has been screwed by the political elites since the 1990s."

"By both political parties. True, many jobs may never come back. But our manufacturing base, what made America, has been decimated. We can rebuild, but the politicians really need to clamp down on the EPA and the other useless alphabet soup federal agencies. Obama has waged war on coal. That means more job losses for Americans. This is why Trump is leading. This is why Sander's won Michigan, and may win other 'rust belt' states."

Says a top-rated comment at a NYT column titled "The Era of Free Trade Might Be Over. That’s a Good Thing" by Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and former economic adviser to Joe Biden.

Trump and Sanders represent a single phenomenon, no? It's a phenomenon that Hillary and the GOP establishment have a motivation to minimize, and portraying Trump as toxic (and Sanders a nice, but unrealistic old man) is a minimization device.

At the Subliminal Café...

... what have you noticed lately? That photograph is something Meade just made a point of writing down.

On "Face the Nation" today, John Dickerson asked Donald Trump a question about law that I — being in the law field — found very weird.

From the transcript:

DICKERSON: At the debate, you talked about H-1B visas. You said: "It's something I, frankly, use, and I shouldn't be allowed to use it." When you have talked about the bankruptcy laws, you talk about how you took advantage of them. When you and I talked about your taxes, you say you try and pay as little as possible. If you are president, why would anybody follow the laws that you put in place if they knew you were taking advantage of those laws when you were in the private sector?

What's Dickerson trying to say, that taxpayers should pay more than they owe? That businesspersons shouldn't understand the law, see what's to their advantage, and structure their transactions efficiently? Why wouldn't voters trust a businessperson who followed the law and figured out how to use it? Don't we want someone knowledgeable and competent? We're supposed to prefer someone who's so intimidated by law that he wastes money? Is Dickerson a fool or is he just trying to manipulate viewers into thinking ill of Trump?

Here's Trump's answer (with another weirdly obtuse question by Dickerson):

A 7-point sequence beginning with the assertion that adults getting offended by language isn't a thing.

1. Scott Adams blogged: "Let’s stop pretending that other adults are offended by language. That isn’t a thing. We are offended ON BEHALF of people we imagine would be offended. But those people do not exist. Stop imagining offended people."

2. Meade said: "My 90 year-old greatest generation wise beyond her years mother is offended. My mother exists. My mother grew up on a cattle farm in central Indiana. Manure. Blood. Dirt. Guts. Varmints. Sex everywhere you looked. None of that offends her. But Trump does.... She isn't offended on anyone else's behalf. She isn't offended by any of his words. She's offended by Trump. She has voted Republican her entire life. But she's offended by Trump."

3. At the last debate and in the press conference with Ben Carson that followed, Trump introduced a new elegant, calm, presidential tone, which I blogged about here, causing R. Chatt, in the comments, to ask: "What does Meade's mother think? Is she persuaded by Trump's less offensive demeanor?"

4. 4 minutes later, Meade said, "I'll call her and get back to you."

5. About an hour and a half later, Meade came back with: "@R. Chatt, I finally got a hold of her. She said she spent the morning out on her front porch in the sun watching cement trucks moving around and she forgot to take her phone with her.  Quotes: 'Oh, I hated seeing the doctor [Ben Carson] line up behind Trump,' 'Ben might be able to keep Donald in line.' Asked about her opinion of DT's behavior during the debate last night: 'Better than usual. Trump seems to appreciate the doctor.' 'It will be hard for [Trump] to change his me, myself, and I attitude and his being money hungry because he's too old to change.' Mother said she will 'hope for the best' and will 'pray' because 'even though prayer doesn't always give us what we want, it never hurts to pray that God's will be done.' When I told her that you were interested in her opinions, she said, 'Oh, well, isn't she NICE?' By the way, I've never known my mother to use sarcasm."

6. 2 days after that, amba said: "Meade should start a blog called 'Shit My Mom Says.' She's very wise."

7. I remember the old "Shit My Dad Says" twitter feed, which recorded the things comedy writer Justin Halpern's dad said. The dad really did use words like shit (and worse). Example: "1st amendment doesn't protect assholes from criticism. The right to act like an asshole and be called an asshole's the same fucking right." That's from 3 years ago, so don't think it's Trump-inspired, even though it's Trump-applicable.

8. But, of course, Meade's mother would never use words like that, as amba necessarily knows, which is why we found her comment so amusing and I'm writing this list.

When protesters prevent people from hearing the speaker they came out to see: It happened to us here 5 years ago in Wisconsin.

"Why did the anti-Palin protesters think it was right and good to shout her down?" — I wrote in April 2011. It was a Tea Party rally featuring Sarah Palin at the Wisconsin Capitol, coming at a time when the Capitol had been dominated by anti-GOP protesters for 2 months. In video shot by Meade and me, we are surrounded by protesters chanting, booing, and blowing vuvuzelas. We were near a loudspeaker but could barely hear Palin:



About a minute into that, I turn around to the man who's been yelling "shame, shame, shame" right behind me. He doesn't like being on camera. He vigorously asserted his right not to be photographed depriving me of my right to hear Palin. He switched to a threat of violence: "I will knock those cameras out of your hands." And Meade says, "No, you won't. That would be assault." He says: "You're here to see the damned rally. Turn around and watch it." "Watch" was the right word, because I couldn't hear, since he went back to shouting "shame."

I have another video montage of that day. In this you hear a 14-year-old girl, speaking from the podium and getting heckled. A woman actually bellows "Corporate thief!" and "Koch suckers!" at this child. Hang on until the end and you will hear a voice you may remember — beginning at 3:35 — telling the protesters to "go to Hell."



That's Andrew Breitbart. The protesters laugh at him.

Here's one more video from that day featuring a little boy banging on a plastic bucket "drum" and lots of cowbell ringing. The 14-year-old speaker is heard over chants of "Go home! Go home! Go home!" and when the girl ends with "God bless America" the protesters boo:



So for those of you who think Donald Trump has given rise to a new phenomenon of protesters aiming to destroy a rally, I can tell you with personal experience and my own video evidence that this was done 5 years ago in Wisconsin. And a lot of the protesters came here from Chicago. Keep an eye out for the CPD hat — CPD = Chicago Police Department — and the White Sox jacket. We were very familiar with the Chicago presence at the Wisconsin protests. I'll never forget the band of union protesters who marched onto the scene with the chant: "Chicago is up in the house! Chicago is up in the house!"



ADDED: If the anti-Trump protests continue, Trump has a fine opportunity to do an endorsement press conference, if, in fact, Scott Walker supports Trump. Walker could bring some great perspective on these issues of protest and free speech.

AND: Scott Walker mostly stayed off the scene during the Wisconsin protests, but one time he came out on the Capitol steps to honor some Special Olympians, and protesters — dressed as zombies — got between the Governor and the honorees.

The new YouGov/CBS poll has Sanders up over Clinton (by 2) in Illinois...

... and Trump equal to Kasich in Ohio.

There's also a Marist poll out this morning, and it has Kasich leading Trump by 6 in Ohio and Clinton up by 6 in Illinois.

FiveThirtyEight has incorporated these new polls already and still gives Hillary a 96% chance of winning Illinois. Kasich has a 74% chance of winning Ohio.

"Have we contributed to this culture that has turned American politics and the American political discourse into the equivalent of the comments sections in these blogs?"

That's the question Marco Rubio said "we all need to take a step back" and ask. He adds: "Presidential candidates are now basically Twitter trolls."

That's my transcription from "State of the Union" this morning, where the moderator Jake Tapper is bearing very heavily down on the subject of the violence and anger supposedly fomented by Donald Trump.

ADDED: Here's a taste of Tapper. Note the woeful face and the dire words:

"I’ll advance a superwild hypothesis for why [the word 'super'] has taken off in this country..."

"... that in the land of the Super Bowl, of superstars in every discipline and their droves of superfans, of countless superheroes..., of the superrich who rule the uncontested superpower of the world, super is tied to American exceptionalism and its own sense of superiority. While it is true that many Europeans say super in their tongues and ours — the French, in particular, have a fondness for it — it doesn’t seem to be as rampant as it is for American English speakers. On its own in a Google Books Ngram search, super bottoms out in 1902 before elevating unchecked from 1910 to 1931, then again from 1940 to its peak in 1947 — both periods of growing American ascendancy. Perhaps, too, there was a need to buck up the troops during wartime with words of encouragement and optimism."

Writes novelist Teddy Wayne, who fits the mood of the Obama administration, which seems to have actively sought to dispel exceptionalism and deflate our sense superiority. Despite the old posters that said HOPE, Obama invited us to mature beyond our need for encouragement and optimism. Don't buck up. Buck down.

ADDED: This post needs a little musical accompaniment:



AND: How is it Teddy Wayne failed to mention superdelegates?! From last night's cold open on "Saturday Night Live," Larry David as Bernie Sanders expresses his annoyance when he's prodded by "Jake Tapper" with "You may have won Michigan, but Hillary still leads you in delegates and superdelegates":

Can I ask just something? What's a superdelegate? Who calls themselves that? It's so cocky. They walk around like they're such big shots. Ooh! I beg your pardon, Mr. Superdelegate. Let me tell you something. I've met some of these superdelegates. They're not so super. Mediocre delegates is more like it.

The Donald Trump we don't get to see: The Donald Trump "that sits, and reads and thinks."

I've been thinking about that line. It comes from the press conference with Ben Carson. Trump had just done a debate the previous night, within which it seemed that he was mellowing his persona, reshaping into something more Americans would recognize as presidential. Toward that end, Carson worked on our brain:

"There are two different Donald Trumps. There’s the one you see on the stage and there’s the one who’s very cerebral, sits there and considers things very carefully. You can have a very good conversation with him, and that’s the Donald Trump that you’re going to see more and more of right now."

Trump said:

"I don't think there are two Donald Trumps. I think there's one Donald Trump. But certainly you have all of this, and you have somebody else that sits, and reads and thinks. And I'm a thinker. And I have been a thinker. And perhaps people don't think of me that way because you don't see me in that forum, but I am a thinker. And I thought it was very nice what Ben said of me. I'm a very deep thinker. I know what's happening. Okay?"

When I heard that I thought: Why can't we see our candidates sitting and reading and thinking? All these debates and rallies — they're so loud and contentious. How about a nice video feed of the candidate reading for a few hours? Show me Donald Trump, in his usual reading environment, reading in the usual way that we haven't seen. He sits and reads and thinks. I'd watch that show. Does he read on an iPad? Does he have leather-bound tomes? Is he reading print-outs — reports of this and that? Does he fall asleep halfway through? Does he pause and stare into the middle distance, absorbed in thought?

I'd like to see them all reading, really reading...



... not just posing reading....