Who Can Keep Score Anymore?

The Republican Party is so overrun with internecine strife that it’s getting very difficult to keep score. Take, for example, the Club for Growth. There are fifteen candidates vying to win John Boehner’s seat in Congress next Tuesday and the Club is endorsing the same guy that the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), is endorsing.

Yet, when the Wall Street Journal tries to explain what is happening in Boehner’s district, they begin by talking about a bakery owner who was loyal to Boehner for years but is now on the pledge-and-salute Trump Train.

Trent Schuler, owner of the bakery founded by his grandfather in 1937, voted for Rep. John Boehner until the former House speaker quit in October. This November, he is backing the least Boehner-like candidate running for president: Donald Trump.

“At least I know I’m not getting more of the same,” Mr. Schuler said.

The Club for Growth is totally opposed to the candidacy of Donald Trump and they’ve been spending millions against him since before Iowa. They are reportedly dumping another million bucks into Florida to try to overturn the polls that currently show Trump on track to win all 99 delegates there.

You might think that Boehner’s downfall is a signal that the Freedom Caucus and other intransigent hardline conservatives are on the rise, but that’s not how things are working out exactly. If Donald Trump is going to do well in Boehner’s district, it seems like a repudiation of both Boehner and his enemies.

Inside the Koch Brothers’ War on the VA

At last night’s debate in Miami, the Republican candidates – as they have all primary season – attacked the VA health care system and demanded its radical restructuring. Few viewers were aware, however, that the candidates were following a script written by the Koch brothers.

In the next issue of the Washington Monthly, investigative journalist Alicia Mundy reveals how the Kochs and their network have executed, with meticulous detail, a plan to get Washington to outsource the health care of millions of our nation’s veterans to corporate sector providers. Among other revelations, Mundy shows:

  • that stories about veterans dying while waiting for VA care in 2014 (the “scandal” that sparked the current call for privatization) turned out to be baseless.
  • that these claims were cooked up by the Koch-funded group Concerned Veterans for America (CVA) and key Republicans precisely to stampede Washington into passing legislation to outsource VA care.
  • that the first round of outsourcing has been a fiasco.
  • that independent research mandated by that legislation shows that the VA continues to provide the same or better quality care than do private sector providers.
  • that the commission now making the outsourcing decisions is stacked with members and allies of CVA and representatives of private sector providers.

To read the full story, click here. And check back Monday to see our whole new exciting March/April/May issue.

Political Paralysis in Ireland?

The recent Irish general election resulted in an outcome that is unlikely to lead to the formation of a stable government. Ireland thus joins a number of countries such as Spain and Slovakia which have had inconclusive elections in response to the austerity policies of recent times. Governments have not been re-elected, but neither have coherent alternative governments been formed. Fine Gael, the main Government party, got 25% of the first preference vote (-11% compared to 2011), and won just 50 seats (-26 since 2011). They are still the largest party but fell far short of the 79 seats required for an overall majority. Their erstwhile coalition partners, Labour, were close to being annihilated gaining just 7% of the vote (- 13%) and 7 seats (- 30).

Fianna Fail, the previous ruling party unceremoniously booted out of power at the 2011 general election for presiding over the bank bail-out and economic collapse made something of a comback, gaining 24% of the first preference vote (+7%) and 44 seats (+20). However they have ruled out forming a grand coalition with Fine Gael, the only combination of parties capable of forming a stable government with an overall majority in parliament. Part of the problem is that minority partners in Irish Governments have tended to be severely punished by the electorate at the next election – witness the permanent demise of the the Progressive Democrats in 2009, the temporary demise of the Greens at the last election, and Labour’s latest implosion this time around.

The other big winners in the election were Sinn Fein with 14% of the vote (+4%) and 23 seats (+9) and a wide variety of smaller parties – People before Profit/Anti-Austerity Alliance (6 seats, +4), Social Democrats (3, +0), Greens (2, +2) and independents from both the left and right of the political spectrum (23, +9). Most are protest or local candidates with no interest in helping to form a national Government.  Collectively most share the traditional wet dream of the left – forcing the two (1922) civil war parties, Fine Gael and Fianna Fail into a grand coalition in order to expose the lack of ideological distinction between the two large centre right catch all parties and seeing them decimated at the next general election leading to a more “European” left right divide in Irish politics with the prospect of the left attaining majority power at some stage in the not too distant future.
The outcome is a situation where only one party, Fine Gael, is unequivocally commited to forming a Government, and they only have 25% of the first preference vote and less than one third of the seats. There are three possible ways out of the impasse:

  1. Fianna Fail breaks its election pledge not to form a grand coalition with Fine Gael and risks being hammered at the next election.
  2. Fianna Fail supports a Fine Gael led minority administration.  This could result in Fianna Fail reaping all the approbrium for unpopular Government decisions and gaining none of the credit.
  3. A new election in relatively short order due to no new Government being formed. This is also a likelyhood with 2. above if Fine Gael and Fianna Fail cannot agree on key decisions.

Enda Kenny, the outgoing Taoiseach who failed to be re-elected as Taoiseach when the Dail met today, is likely to be an early casualty of any of the scenarios described above.  As Fine gael leader he has to take responsibility for their inept election campaign which actually saw them lose support as the campaign progressed. Their election slogan “Keep the recovery going” only highlighted the degree to which most people hadn’t yet shared in that recovery.  GDP grew by 7.8% in 2015, so it takes spectacular political incompetence to actually lose support during that period.

The reality is that most of the benefits of that recovery have been restricted to the relatively well off. Stripping out the output of the multi-national sector, GNP rose by a much lesser 5.7%. Consumer spending rose by only 3.5%, and most of that rise was due to the increased purchase of cars and spending by tourists. Public expenditure – on which the less well off rely – actually fell by 2.6%. In addition the recovery has been very Dublin centric and it is no surprise that Fine Gael lost less support there. Overall there has been a rise in the Irish Gini index, although more recent information is hard to find:

Before taxes and transfers, Ireland is the most unequal society in the OECD, although taxes and transfers bring us below the European average. The importance of taxes and transfers in reducing inequality highlights the regressive impact of cuts in public expenditure and taxes.  Remarkably, Fine Gael made tax reductions a central part of their campaign, when opinion polling indicated that the electorate were much more concerned with restoring funding for public services such as health care, housing and education. Thus despite a spectacular macro economic turnaround with unemployment down from 15% to 9% and the a reduction in the debt/GDP ratio from 120% to 95%, Fine Gael and Labour still contrived to lose the election.

I based my earlier prediction that Fine Gael would do better than the then polls suggested on what I thought was the inexorable logic that the country needed a Government, and Fine Gael were the only party with the serious prospect of forming one.  Instead they went down in the polls and even managed to underperform their deteriorating polls in the actual election. Some of this may have been due to a Shy Tory effect where people were not prepared to tell pollsters that they were gravitating back to Fianna Fail despite that party’s disastrous stewardship of the Government during the 2008-2012 economic implosion. Politics in Ireland is more about relationships than ideology, and many people vote the way their families have voted ever since the Civil war.

However the major factor was undoubtedly the spectacular incompetence of the Fine Gael and Labour campaigns which ignored the realities of rising  regional and social inequalities and the grossly assymetric impact of austerity and subsequent recovery. No Irish Government can afford to allow itself be labelled as arrogant, and most of the electorate were waiting in the long grass to give them a good kicking in consequence.

However the problem which drove my erroneous prediction still stands: Ireland needs a Government, all the more so with the prospect of Brexit and a deteriorated external environment putting the recovery (unequal as it is) at risk and landing us back into crisis mode all over again. However none of the other parties are offering themselves as junior partners in a coalition (despite a floated possible offer of equality for Fianna Fail in terms of cabinet representation and the rotation of the office of Taoiseach between Fine Gael and Fianna Fail). Unless Fianna Fail agrees to some such offer we are likely to see another general election quite soon with no guarantee of a very different outcome.

Perhaps my prediction will then come true with the electorate more focused on voting for parties willing to form a Government and less focused on local issues and providing opposition. However at this stage my sense is all bets are off: the electorate has voted and will resent having to vote again within a short period of time. Some may be even be more disposed to vote for protest candidates or candidates offering a much more leftwing economic programme. It all depends on who they will hold responsible for the political paralysis.

Certainly I would expect any new election to be fought with new party leaders. Kenny has to take responsibility for Fine Gael’s disastrous campaign, and Joan Burton must likewise stand down as Labour party leader.  Fine Gael and Labour could then be perceived to have paid a price for their arrogance and receive some level of forgiveness from the voters. Sinn Fein also badly underperformed their polls and could hardly be satisfied with just a 4% increase in their vote in such propitious circumstances.  Gerry Adams is widely perceived as an obstacle to their further advance as a mainstream party and may make way for a younger leader not associated with the IRA campaign in Northern Ireland.

Ironically, Micheal Martin, the leader of Fianna Fail and almost the only (politically) surviving cabinet minister from the disastrous Fianna Fail led Government which presided over the economic collapse might be the only major party leader remaining in situ when the next election is called.  One has to marvel at his powers of self reinvention or alternatively the short memories of the electorate. There is some research which indicates that many voters are most influenced by their personal circumstances in the previous 3 months and that they are most likely to vote for the politician and party which best articulates their feelings over that period.

However the civil war generation have long died out and Fianna Fail and Fianna Gael have, together, fallen below 50% of the vote for the first time ever having been at 80%+ as recently as 1982. If there is one long term trend this election has exemplified, it is the emergence of parties and individuals outside the Fianna Fail and Fine Gael traditions, most of whom oppose those parties from the left.  Indeed the only right wing splinter party to present itself to the electorate, Renua, which split from Fine Gael because of the latters very limited reform of Ireland’s anti-abortion laws, lost all their seats in the election. The Catholic Church now has no elected politicians supporting their social teaching.

So the long term trend is clear, even if the left are as yet nowhere near a coherent majority in Parliament.  Indeed splits between Sinn Fein and other left wing politicians can be as bitter as any between left and right. I supported the small newly formed Social Democrat Party which retained all three of its seats with resounding majorities but which has, as yet, no national, or indeed in most constituencies, no local organisation. I suspect it will be some time yet before we see a radical re-orientation of Irish politics. In the meantime we will continue to see conservative led Governments being replaced by other conservative led Governments as the electorate vents its frustration without being offered or accepting a coherent alternative. The only question is will it be Fine Gael or Fianna Fail which will play the dominant role on the centre right.  That is what the current impasse and Kabuki theater is really all about.

Quite a Crowd You’ve Got There, Donald

I guess a lot of people are talking about the Trump supporter who punched a black guy at a rally in North Carolina, yesterday. If you haven’t seen the video, it was a sucker punch thrown at a young man who was in the process of being ushered out of the rally. The Trumpista launched a short right-hook that landed to the eye but really didn’t have much juice on it. I wouldn’t talk a lot of smack about hitting a guy who wasn’t looking and not even being able to deck him. It was actually a pretty anemic performance, although it landed with enough force to cause some lingering soreness.

INSIDE EDITION tracked down the supporter, 78-year-old John McGraw, who was unrepentant.

When asked if he liked the rally, he said: “You bet I liked it. Knocking the hell out of that big mouth.”

And when asked why he punched the protester, he said: “Number one, we don’t know if he’s ISIS. We don’t know who he is, but we know he’s not acting like an American, cussing me… If he wants it laid out, I laid it out.”

He added: “Yes, he deserved it. The next time we see him, we might have to kill him. We don’t know who he is. He might be with a terrorist organization.”

This is just embarrassing all around. John McGraw is clearly Alan Keyes-crazy. I mean, he’s absolutely bug-nuts insane.

And the victim, 26-year-old Rakeem Jones, wasn’t laid out until the security guards tackled him for the offense of being punched in the eye.

Normally, I wouldn’t mock a 78-year-old man for punching like an eight-year-old, but he seems to think he’s some kind of tough guy. I’m only forty-six and I know enough not to tangle with a fit 26-year-old man.

Maybe I ought to give this guy a break since he thinks anyone who doesn’t look like him might be a terrorist, but I hope they prosecute him and he spends some time in jail.

At a minimum, he should be prohibited from consuming right-wing media for the rest of his life.

Will Trump’s Rise Leave Neocons Homeless?

Some Neocons already pledged to vote for neocon lite Hillary Clinton … great stuff for Bernie Sanders to exploit. The Israel lobby group has flocked to Floridian Marco Rubio for now … just a short stopover looking at his failed campaign. Some billionaires like Adelson is still sitting on the fence … and his fortune to support a winning ticket and earn influence in Washington DC.

Donald Trump’s (So Far) Unstoppable Run Leaves Neoconservatives Out in the Cold | The Forward | by Nathan Guttman on March 10, 2016

One group of Republicans with something more than just concern about the fate of their party. For neoconservatives, a Trump nomination could mean an extension of their sentence in a political Siberia.

Some members of this hawkish cohort saw the 2016 election as an opportunity to find a way in from the cold, where they have been largely sidelined since playing a key role as boosters of the second Bush administration’s ill-fated invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Trump made clear his own view of that war — at least now, 13 years later — at the Republican presidential debate in Greenville, South Carolina on February 13, when, to the shock of GOP traditionalists in the audience, he declared, “Obviously the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake.” Then, twisting the knife deeper, he added: “We should have never been in Iraq. They lied, they said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew that there were none.”

For neoconservatives, this, along with Trump’s comments about staying “neutral” in the standoff between Israel and the Palestinians so as to preserve his credibility as a mediator, told them all they needed to know. A Trump presidency, they believe, would be a death knell for restoring their vision of promoting democracy and American values through a stronger U.S. military role in the world and, in particular, in the Middle East.

Now, after first hitching their wagons to Jeb Bush’s failed candidacy, many neoconservatives are flocking to Marco Rubio’s camp. Even as the U.S. senator from Florida finds his hopes of winning the GOP presidential primary fading, neoconservatives see Rubio as perhaps their best chance of countering the isolationist policy they see emerging from a possible Trump presidency.

Rubio’s national security advisory council, announced on March 7, is chockablock with neoconservatives and former Bush administration defense officials, many of them Jewish, including Elliott Abrams, Eliot Cohen, Michael Mukasey and Dan Senor …

    The group includes some former members of the team Jeb Bush team rolled out over a year ago, including former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, former Undersecretary of Defense Dov Zakheim, former State Department official Paula Dobriansky and Ambassador Kristen Silverberg. Former Senator Norm Coleman, who was with Lindsey Graham’s campaign, has signed on.


    The new Rubio advisory group also includes two of the three founders of the John Hay Initiative: former Bush administration officials Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman. The Hay Initiative was meant to be a stable for foreign policy officials and experts that all the Republican candidates could use as a resource. They provided help to Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina before they dropped out.  

Exclusive: Romney Foreign Policy Team Is Schooling 2016’s Republicans | The Daily Beast – Sept. 2014 |

The ‘John Hay Initiative’ has been working secretly for over a year to keep a large part of the Romney foreign-policy team together, and it’s ready to help top contenders–even Hillary.

Early in 2013, leaders of the foreign policy team that guided presidential candidate Mitt Romney regrouped under a new banner and began working to influence lawmakers and potential 2016 GOP presidential candidates, keeping their work secret.

Now the “John Hay Initiative,” a nonprofit organization named after the private secretary to Abraham Lincoln who eventually rose to be Teddy Roosevelt’s secretary of state, is planning its first public event, a national security speech by 2016 hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio on September 17 in Washington.

Cross-posted from my follow-up diary – War On The Rocks – McCain Surrogate/ PNAC/AIPAC .

In BooMan’s fp story – Neoconservatives Begin the Long March Back – not once was the magic word ISRAEL uttered … just unbelievable. Look at the crowd of the first 93 signatories: the worst of the worst of interventionists, warmongers, pro-Israel, anti-Iran crowd over the past decades. Most worrisome if they see the Democratic Party under leadership of Hillary Clinton as their vehicle to extend Pax Americana.

CO2 levels rise faster than in the past 56 years

Yes, that title is a direct quote from this BBC article online. It’s beyond frightening. The greenhouse gas needle is way past the red dial danger zone. And no one in the media during this election campaign is talking about it. Because, horse races are easier to cover, I guess. Meanwhile planet earth is not waiting around for our media and political elites to take notice of the world of sh*t that we are mucking around in as I write these words.

Measurements at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii went up by more than three parts per million(ppm) in 2015.

Scientists say the spike is due to a combination of human activities and the El Niño weather pattern.

Put another way, this represents an explosion in the growth of CO2 in our atmosphere.

In another first, NOAA found that 2015 was the fourth straight year in which carbon dioxide concentrations grew by more than 2 ppm, according to Pieter Tans, who leads NOAA’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network.

“Carbon dioxide levels are increasing faster than they have in hundreds of thousands of years,” Tans said in a press release. “It’s explosive compared to natural processes.” […]

According to Tans, the current rate of increase in carbon dioxide levels is 200 times faster than the last time the planet saw such a sustained increase, which was between 17,000 and 11,000 years ago, when there was an 80 ppm increase during that timespan.

Two hundred times faster than the last time there was a sustained rise in the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Back then, it took 6000 years for atmospheric CO2 levels to rise 80 parts per million. That works out to .013 ppm a year. Our current rate over the past five years exceeds 2 ppm per year.

Is it any wonder that the hottest year on record was 2015, beating the prior record which occurred in — 2014. Or that of the ten hottest years on record, nine of them occurred since 2003. Yet, no one in the media is talking about this threat to our nation and the world, and certainly little if any attention during the current campaign is being spent on addressing the threat of climate change, not even during the Democratic Party debates.

Leonardo DiCaprio spoke about climate change for a longer amount of time at the Academy Awards than the presidential candidates have in the debates. In the 18 debates held so far, moderators have asked about everything from Super Bowl picks to flower arrangements, while posing only a handful of questions on climate. They ignored it entirely in the December debates, even though the world had just united around the landmark climate agreement in Paris. This must change. […]

People are paying attention. A bipartisan group of 21 Florida mayors, whose constituents are already coping with impacts of climate change, sent a letter to the debate moderators calling on them to ask questions on sea level rise and climate change. The news outlets– Washington Post, Univision and CNN– should follow-through.

I do not care who you support, this is a topic that needs to be brought up at every debate going forward. We know the Republicans are not going to bother, but why are the Democratic debates ignoring climate change? As even the author of The Hill article noted, this must change. Unfortunately, the next scheduled Democratic Party debate is not until April 9th, far too long to wait. I urge you to contact the DNC and your Congressional representatives and demand a separate debate on Climate Change be held at the earliest opportunity.

DNC contact page

The DNC Main phone number: 202-863-8000

Twitter accounts: @TheDemocrats, @DWStweets, @BernieSanders, @HillaryClinton

The best explanation of the difference between wonk ideas and progressive ones I have ever read

Matthew Yglesias:
“he most decisive reason to like Sanders’s goal of free college, however, didn’t become clear until the campaign itself began. The great thing about free college is that people know what it means and some people are excited about it.

Clinton’s college affordability plan, a much more complicated compact aimed at the goal of allowing students to graduate debt-free, utterly fails on this score. It is true that her plan is more fiscally progressive — delivering more help to poor students and less to non-poor ones. It is also true that I have never met a person who is excited about this plan, even among people who are excited about Clinton in general.”

So this is the problem with the ideas wonks create.  They are Rube Goldberg contraptions – like Obamacare.  Complicated, and hard to defend.

Single Payer is simple.  Free College is simple.  The reason people like Clinton don’t like them is for big government, and always try to talk about public-private partnerships and other such crap.

I think the young see through it – they see these complicated ideas are really nothing more than symbolic – designed to avoid the obvious answer.

Casual Observation

If you think about the reasons that people get punched in the face, it’s usually about something they said. Maybe it’s just a gesture. But, either way, it’s usually because of disrespect. So, it seems to me that it should be obvious that disrespectful speech can incite terrorism. It can get someone off the couch and motivated to do you harm.

This isn’t rocket science.

The Real HRC Stood Up – UPDATE #2

In the debate last night.  If you missed it, Google it.

In ’08 HRC subjected us to smearing Obama through Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers,  and “birtherism.”  Then her campaign went full Southern Strategy and it wasn’t subtle.

“You know, there was just an article posted that found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans — white Americans — is weakening again, and how the whites in both states (Indiana and North Carolina), who had not completed college were supporting me,”
    “These are the people you have to win, if you’re a Democrat, in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that.”
    ~ Hillary Clinton, 2008

And Democrats defended that racist, gutter politics from HRC.  Something they would have been up in arms about if McCain or Romney has said it.  That was then and this is now — HRC has been forgiven and DEMs that supported Obama in ’08 are now “With Her.”  (I don’t forgive nor forget that easily.  Certain things should just never be done by anyone that has any pretense of not being a Republican.)

HRC fans defend her Iraq War vote (various gyrations to get them there), support for the Honduran coup, Libyan disaster, and endless flip-flopping.  They don’t even know which version of Hillary they’re supporting.

Last night she went to places older Democrats never expected to see from a DEM presidential candidate.  In another attempt to smear Benie Sanders, she endosed Reagan’s policies in Central America.  It fits entirely with her Honduran and Libyan acts which for some mysterious reason  doesn’t bother self-styled progressive DEM pundits and bloggers.  Glenn

At Wednesday night’s Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders for praising Fidel Castro in the 1980s, as well for standing with Central Americans governments and rebel groups targeted by Ronald Reagan’s brutal covert wars. “You know,” said the former Secretary of State, “if the values are that you oppress people, you disappear people, imprison people or even kill people for expressing their opinions, for expressing freedom of speech, that is not the kind of revolution of values that I ever want to see anywhere.”

It was practically an article of faith among progressive Democrats of that time to totally reject and opposed Reagan’s dirty wars in Central America.  It also formed the backbone of the outrage over the Iran-Contra scandal.  Perhaps for those too young to have personally experienced those days, it’s been sufficiently buried to exist in a zone of ancient and irrelevant.  Much as the McCarthy era was for those of my generation, but we excavated that tomb and it informed our politics.  Never, ever would we have excused, much less defended, a liberal politician that spoke highly of Joe McCarthy and his claque of rightwinger.  It was one of the reasons why we loathed Nixon and Reagan because they too were red-baiters.

Glenn again:

To defend her remarks, Clinton’s faithful Good Democratic supporters began instantly spouting rhetoric that sounded like a right-wing, red-baiting Cold War cartoon; in other words, these Clinton-defending Democrats sounded very much like this:

   Democrats trust a guy who praises Castro & honeymooned in USSR more than Clinton. Says a lot about Clinton & current Dem party #DemDebate
    — Reince Priebus (@Reince) March 10, 2016

…As my colleague Jeremy Scahill, observing the reaction of Clinton supporters during the debate, put it in a series of tweets: “The US sponsored deaths squads that massacred countless central and Latin Americans, murdered nuns and priests, assassinated an Archbishop. I bet commie Sanders was even against Reagan’s humanitarian mining of Nicaraguan waters & supported subsequent war crimes judgement vs. US. Have any of these Hillarybots heard of the Contra death squads? Or is it just that whatever Hillary says must be defended at all costs? The Hillarybots attacking Sanders over Nicaragua should be ashamed of themselves.”

Every HRC fan/supporter needs to own this NOW.  This is so fundamental to who HRC is that not owning it is not an option for her fans/supporters.  Stand With Her.  So that others may choose never to forget nor forgive what you support.

—-

Two of my favorite works of art about that period are:
The Best Movie You Never Saw: Oliver Stone’s Salvador

Joan Didion’s Salvador

Stone and Didion at their finest.

UPDATE Oh dear. O/T – different victims but same time period – the 1980s.

[MSNBC] Hillary Clinton: The Reagans, particularly Nancy, helped start “a national conversation” about HIV and AIDS.

As Billmon has said:

Even for HRC, this is a) cynical beyond believe, b) a stick in the eye of HIV activists, c) total bullshit.


Don’t have to read books about how Reagan admin ignored a mass epidemic for years: Heard it from the people who were dying.


Beyond shameful. An absolute Orwellian “fuck you” to the victims of the AIDS epidemic. May she rot in fucking hell.

Michael Curry:

MOTHERFUCKING PIECE OF SHIT. This like saying George Wallace “started a conversation” about segregation

Mark Ames:

The world acc to Hillary: Sanders a Koch-supported border vigilante Communist gun-nut; Nancy Reagan was Mother Theresa to LGBT AIDS victims

Pedinska:

This HIV researcher says, what a complete and utter crock of bullshit.

Ryan Grim:

From every angle — moral, factual, political — this is just an appalling statement from Hillary Clinton.

Seems to be pandering to the Reagan voters. With no fear that the LBGT community will be insulted enough to abandon her. Shit — they didn’t mind that she didn’t come on board with same sex marriage until SCOTUS ruled that it was okay — so, why would they mind this bit of historical revisionism?

UPDATE #2 As bad as the HRC quote in the Update is, it’s not half as bad as her complete comment. It’s almost as if she’s as much of an empty vessel get stuff poured into as Rubio. She sits there speaking total garbage with absolute confidence.

She should scare the shit out of liberals.

Cornyn Fixes the Facts Around the Policy

The Washington Post/ABC News poll typically goes into the field once every month or two, so it’s pretty good for examining trendlines. The president’s current approval rating (51%-43%) is the strongest it’s been since just before his second inauguration. You also have to go back to 2013 to find numbers higher than the 31% who strongly approve (in this poll, and in the last one) of the job the president is doing.

My best explanation for this is that Obama looks like Abraham Lincoln compared to the dick-measurers on the other side who are competing to replace him.

Now, in this same poll, respondents were asked if the Senate should conduct hearings to consider the president’s nominee to serve on the Supreme Court. The numbers were not close. A full 44% of the people strongly believed that hearings should be held, compared to 25% who strongly believed they should not. Overall, the split was 63% in favor of hearings and 32% opposed. Sixty-two percent of independents favored hearings, as did 46% of Republicans.

To be clear, this isn’t the same as expressing support for the confirmation of the president’s nominee. That question wasn’t asked. So, this is a judgment on process or norms. People do not agree that it’s kosher to simply stonewall a SCOTUS applicant.

But Senate Majority Whip, John Cornyn of Texas, doesn’t want his caucus to understand this sentiment. He’s passing around a different poll. Actually, he’s passing around a four-page memo based on a poll. It’s a survey conducted by Republican pollster Greg Strimple that hopes to express the sentiments of the entire country by asking 600 people what they think. You probably won’t be surprised to discover that Strimple’s findings are at odds with other recent polling.

For example, Strimple says that “54 percent of those surveyed were more concerned about a liberal justice being chosen to replace Scalia, compare[d] to the nearly 41 percent of respondents who were more worried about the seat being open for a year or more.” But the just-released NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey has different numbers.

In their poll, a 48%-37% plurality would prefer a vote (not mere hearings) on the president’s nominee. On the question of whether to even show the courtesy of conducting hearings, the public favored hearings 55%-28%.

The good news for the Republicans is that the people agreed 62%-29% that if the situation was reversed the Democrats would be employing the exact same obstructive tactics.

See, this how the “both sides do it” reporting we get so often from the mainstream media winds up providing a cushion for the Republicans when the violate every civil norm in our country. After all, if the Democrats would do the same thing, they basically deserve this treatment, right?

So, here we can see two main drivers of our country’s dysfunction in close proximity to each other. On the one hand, we have a public that has been convinced that there’s no meaningful difference between the two parties in terms of which is responsible for our gridlocked politics. And, on the other hand, we have the Senate Majority Whip using bad data to provide “objective” support for an obstructive strategy that the public actually hates.

Per usual, the GOP will fix the intelligence and facts around the policy, whether it’s climate science, Saddam’s WMD and culpability for 9/11, or what the public thinks about blocking a Supreme Court nominee.

And the media will not draw distinctions sharp enough for the public to internalize that, no, the Democrats would never act this way toward a Republican nominee.