I don't know if y'all are familiar with James Taranto's "Bye-kus," but every candidate gets one when they bow out. He frets that today's might not be warranted by Sen. Sanders's ambiguous announcemnets. But James has penned a true masterpiece:
[President Obama] doesn't sound all that hot, though. In that regard, the video [endorsing Sec. Clinton] reminds us of a Barry Goldwater campaign ad from 1964, featuring Ronald Reagan. "I ask to speak to you because I'm mad," the future California governor and president tells the camera. "I've known Barry Goldwater for a long time. When I hear people say he's impulsive and such nonsense, I boil over."
Reagan's arms are defensively crossed, but he's still far too genial to convey anger convincingly. It shows why Reagan was a B actor but an A-plus politician. -- James Taranto (All Hail!)
UPDATE: Honorable mention, a few paragraphs down:
Another Sanders backer, 24-year-old Deonte Smith, says: "I would vote for Mickey Mouse before I pick Trump or Hillary." Bill Kristol, are you listening? Mr. Mouse has excellent name recognition and is very popular with denizens of Main Street USA.
Hope you're all feeling all historic and shit this week!
Sorry for the coarse language, but I can't get into it. I actually did harbor some excitement about Barack Obama. Tough I supported Sen, McCain, I was happy when this great nation elected an African-American. I don't have a whiff of that with Clinton. Not one whiff.
The real claim to Democratic Party history belongs to Bernie Sanders. Sen. Sanders has recentered the Democrats, once and for all, as a party of the political left. He has reimagined the Democrats--almost with the force of his personality--as a party of the state, of government and of redistribution. Period.
The party of Franklin Roosevelt through Lyndon Johnson and its alliance with private-sector industrial unions made Democrats aware that their fortunes ultimately were joined to the success of the private sector.
The Democrats are now the party of Bernie Sanders, the progressive icon Sen. Elizabeth Warren and--make no mistake--of Barack Obama, a man of the left from day one. Rather than distrust the private sector, they disdain and even loathe it.
Like the populists woken by Donald Trump, this wing of the party was always there. Sen. Sanders showed them they could win. Or, they could have, were there no superdelegates.
This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization -- incredibly -- conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it's only fitting that their nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward and undemocratic sputter. -- Noted Right Wing Nutjob Glenn Greenwald
This. A Barton Hinkle makes an important point by marrying conservative distrust of disorder with libertarian distrust for the state monopoly on force.
[Sen. Bernie Sanders:] "Our campaign of course believes in nonviolent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals."
Which, to be blunt about it, is a crock. Sanders' entire campaign is premised on the idea of violent change--lots of it. His supporters just want someone else to do the dirty work.
Sanders proposes hiking the minimum wage to $15 an hour, which is another way of saying he wants to make it illegal for employers to pay workers less than $15 an hour--even when there are workers who are willing to take less. He also proposes to make employers provide 12 weeks paid family and medical leave, two weeks of paid vacation, and seven paid sick days.
How is he going to achieve all that? By changing the law and then enforcing it. Note the root of the word "enforce." If a company chooses not to comply the consequences will, eventually, entail the use of armed officers of the law.
I so wish that I wanted the Republican to win this year. What great fun it is to watch Sec. Clinton step in it, again and again. "Oh, my Husband is going to run the economy! I'm just going to do Women's empowerment and let the men handle all the important stuff" is a good measure of her campaigning chops. But the WSJ Ed Page recognizes a deeper contradiction: 21st Century Democrats do not want 42's trade, tax, regualtion and labor policies.
The Clinton contradiction is that she claims she'll produce economic results like her husband did with economic policies like Mr. Obama's. For the record, let's lay out the differences between the agenda that helped drive the prosperity of 1993-2001, when the U.S. economy expanded by 3.8% annually on average, and what Mrs. Clinton is proposing to close out the 2010s, when GDP growth has failed to exceed 2.5% in a single year.
Well, at least she has that charisma thing going for her...
Investors' Michael Ramirez gave us a two-fer yesterday. This one is a summary of Tuesday's Democrat and Republican presidential nomination contests in New York. Hint: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were the victors for the respective parties.
Mr. Sanders's audience was granted after he participated in a Vatican conference celebrating the 25th anniversary of Pope John Paul II's encyclical Centesimus Annus. In his remarks on the encyclical, Mr. Sanders used his Vatican pulpit to declare that "the issue of wealth and income inequality" is "the great moral issue of our time."
The irony is that Senator Sanders seems to be completely unaware that Centesimus Annus was one of the most pro-market documents ever to come out of the Vatican. While it certainly carries warnings about a capitalism unbounded by law and a healthy culture, it also spoke eloquently of the "human rights to private initiative, to ownership of property and to freedom in the economic sector." It also recognized that the ultimate source of wealth is not material but the human mind.
As for socialism, the encyclical was unsparing. Pope John Paul II agreed with earlier popes that socialism fails as a political system because it is rooted in the denial of freedom. So perhaps it's useful for Mr. Sanders to spend time with Centesimus Annus, assuming he reads enough to see its denunciations of socialism and appreciation for what human creativity can accomplish in a free-market economy.
"Competition and technology change have eaten into our traditional phone business, with more and more Americans giving up their landline phones altogether," McAdam wrote. "To remain competitive, we've transformed our wireline operations into a broadband company by building fiber-optic networks, offering Internet and video services, and investing in employees' skills and work tools to help them make the turn to a 21st-century digital economy."
McAdam argues that Verizon's demands in union negotiations reflect their attempt to safeguard "good jobs, good wages and great benefits for thousands of workers" in the face of technological changes.
Senator Sanders (I[nsane] - VT) selects Verizon for the part of "whipping boy." In a too-rare and too-beautiful move, CEO Hank Rearden Llowell McAdam hits back. Sanders says the firm paid not a nickle in taxes -- which is true, who would confuse a nickle for "more than $15.6 billion in taxes over the last two years?"
"Sen. Sanders also claims that Verizon doesn't use its profits to benefit America. Again, a look at the facts says otherwise," the CEO continued. "In the last two years, Verizon has invested some $35 billion in infrastructure -- virtually all of it in the U.S. -- and paid out more than $16 billion in dividends to the millions of average Americans who invest in our stock. In Sanders's home state of Vermont alone, Verizon has invested more than $16 million in plant and equipment and pays close to $42 million a year to vendors and suppliers, many of them small and medium-sized businesses."
The Denver Post's Joey Bunch explains Colorado's Democratic and Republican caucii, prior to Super Tuesday (March 1.)
"So will we have a winner Super Tuesday? Well, yes and no. The Democrats will have a preference poll but it really doesn't mean that much. It basically just tells you which way the wind is blowing on Tuesday, because those delegates can still change their mind all the way to the nominating convention in Philadelphia.
Republicans aren't even bothering with the straw poll. The reason being because the national party says that the winner of the caucus, those delegates are pledged to that person all the way through and in 2008 that didn't work out so well for Colorado. Rick Santorum won the caucus but then he was out of the race in a month, so Colorado was irrelevant at the convention."
This reporter is obviously a right-wing establishment stooge because he completely ignored the part about the process being rigged to stop Trump.
Still, [Sanders Campaign Manager] Weaver expressed displeasure about how how the party reported the results. "It is certainly disturbing that the information gets sent to one campaign and not to another," he said.
[Colorado Democratic Party Chairman] Palacio said he didn't tell the Sanders camp about the divergent numbers "because it didn't necessarily affect (them). It was our mistake that ended up affecting the estimation of Hillary's campaign."blockquote>
Not seeming to recognize that if the delegate doesn't actually go to Hillary, it goes to Bernie instead.
That's the name given to the political endorsement "game" that is a major part of electoral politics. Aaron Bycoffe at fivethirtyeight blog has a weighting formula that gives ten points to an endorsement by a governor, five from a senator, and one from a lowly congresscritter. Using these point values, Hillary Clinton is swamping Bernie by a score of 489 to 7. No surprise there. The surprise is on the GOP side, where "frontrunner" Trump has less than half the points of Cruz, and a mere 4 points more than John (who's he) Kasich.
(click to enlarge)
In the book "The Party Decides" (2008), the most comprehensive study of the invisible primary, the political scientists Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel and John Zaller evaluated data on endorsements made in presidential nomination contests between 1980 and 2004 and found that "early endorsements in the invisible primary are the most important cause of candidate success in the state primaries and caucuses."
Another interesting observation - in the GOP half of the chart above, at this point in the campaign, "invisible primary frontrunner" Ted Cruz has almost the same number of points (91) as did Ronald Reagan when he led the endorsements race, late and grudgingly, in the 1980 primary campaign (96.)
From the earliest days, Clinton aides and senior officials focused intently on accommodating the secretary's desire to use her private email account, documents and interviews show.
Throughout, they paid insufficient attention to laws and regulations governing the handling of classified material and the preservation of government records, interviews and documents show. They also neglected repeated warnings about the security of the BlackBerry while Clinton and her closest aides took obvious security risks in using the basement server.
Senior officials who helped Clinton with her BlackBerry claim they did not know details of the basement server, the State Department said, even though they received emails from her private account. One email written by a senior official mentioned the server.
Anybody else, I'd think this person was in trouble.
Mrs. Clinton would have us believe that the 31,830 emails she deleted from her server pertained to yoga and weddings. And yet look at what the press has gleaned even from the few emails and foundation details that were released.
Foundation cash after Russian mining approvals. More than a dozen speeches by Bill to corporations and governments with business pending before Hillary’s State Department. Dozens more donations to the foundation from companies that were lobbying the State Department. Checks to the foundation from a Swiss bank after Secretary of State Clinton solved its IRS problem. An email to Ms. Abedin, while she was at State, asking for help winning a presidential appointment for a Clinton Foundation donor. -- Kim Strassel: Hillary's Other Server
Big news in l'Affaire Clinton Server is hidden in the detritus of election news, but Andrew Napolitano is on it!
He directed the Judicial Watch lawyers to ascertain whether there was a conspiracy in the secretary of state's office to violate federal law. If those lawyers find evidence of such a conspiracy, they may then seek the oral examination of Clinton herself.
This search for a conspiracy will take Clinton down the road to perdition--to the end of her hopes. Along that road are instructions to a subordinate to divert all her government emails through her private server. On the side of that road are emails instructing her aides to remove "secret" markings from documents and resend the documents to her via a non-secure fax machine.
On that road are emails revealing the names of secret undercover intelligence assets, the locations of North Korean nuclear facilities, the transcripts of telephone conversations among foreign intelligence agents, and the travel plans of then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens in the days before he was murdered.
Democrats who indulge in Clinton's false hopes will do so at their peril. Don't they want to know of her potential status as a criminal defendant before they complete their nominating process? Or do they, like her, think that they can just hope that all this will go away?
I suspect many Democrats believe -- like me -- that the rule of law is so damaged in America that big fish walk and little fish go to jail. Here's hoping!
Democrats should be, if nothing else, democratic. Good or bad, that's their gig, right? The people should choose our political office holders, and the members of the several parties should choose their nominees for those offices, right?
Well, one major party is doing a better job of adhering to that ideal than the other.
PRIEBUS: Come on. That's not my job. My job is to put forward the fairest process that we can put forward, to not put my hand on the scale, to allow our delegates to make the choices that they want to make and then accept the decision that the delgates make, unlike on the Democratic side where they have superdelegates and could give a darn about what the grassroots are telling the party. That's not how we operate our party on our side.
Thirteen hours ago, jk Tweeted "Sanders tops Clinton in a national poll for the first time." Hillary must be having Deja vu. It's 2008 all over again, as the man with a plan overtakes the stalwart Machiavellian who has seen her "turn" come and go more than once already.
Barack Obama's plan was "Hope and Change." What kind of change didn't matter, because it was hopeful - says so right there on the label. Bernie Sanders' plan is more concrete - fairness.
Democrats and Republicans have too often favored policies and regulations that pick winners and losers. This helps perpetuate a cycle of control, dependency, cronyism and poverty in the United States. These are complicated issues, but it's not enough to say that government alone is to blame. Large portions of the business community have actively pushed for these policies.
Consider the regulations, handouts, mandates, subsidies and other forms of largesse our elected officials dole out to the wealthy and well-connected. The tax code alone contains $1.5 trillion in exemptions and special-interest carve-outs. Anti-competitive regulations cost businesses an additional $1.9 trillion every year. Perversely, this regulatory burden falls hardest on small companies, innovators and the poor, while benefitting many large companies like ours. This unfairly benefits established firms and penalizes new entrants, contributing to a two-tiered society.
Whenever we allow government to pick winners and losers, we impede progress and move further away from a society of mutual benefit. This pits individuals and groups against each other and corrupts the business community, which inevitably becomes less focused on creating value for customers.
Those are not the words of Bernie Sanders, but they do address the perception that our economic system is rigged to benefit the already successful, at the expense of those on the bottom who are trying to get ahead. Many, but not all, will be surprised by who wrote those words, given the scorn heaped upon him by the left. None other than the - evil - Charles G. Koch. Brother of David. Together, the "Koch Brothers" although there are four all together. What does Charles want? Sounds a lot like what our parents used to describe as "the American Dream."
It is results, not intentions, that matter. History has proven that a bigger, more controlling, more complex and costlier federal government leaves the disadvantaged less likely to improve their lives.
When it comes to electing our next president, we should reward those candidates, Democrat or Republican, most committed to the principles of a free society. Those principles start with the right to live your life as you see fit as long as you don't infringe on the ability of others to do the same. They include equality before the law, free speech and free markets and treating people with dignity, respect and tolerance.
It's not just Democrats who are rallying around Bernie's "fairness" message. A February 18 Quinnipiac poll has every Republican except Trump beating Hillary head-to-head, but those very same candidates all losing to Sanders by four to ten points each. One of the Republicans had better start emphasizing this part of his campaign - if any of them has it as part of his campaign - perhaps after the savagery of the GOP primary has concluded, if there is to be a Republican successor to President Obama. Or, Hillary may still manage to gerrymander her way to the nomination and we can endure politics as usual and still have our Republican Supreme Court justice picker - but not the real "hope and change" that America needs and deserves.
I was hopeful for greater insight from this article. I think I have found it.
"Dear Older Women Insisting All Women Vote For Hillary,
Because of you, we promise never to let anyone take away or compromise the freedom we have today... not even you.
But understand that based on the principles you've taught us, we know having a female presidency is less important than gaining true gender equality.
Our experience following in your footsteps has taught us what real equality means and we will not be distracted by sexist attacks, even from you. With the strength you gave us, we will refuse to be guilted or shamed into voting for Hillary based on gender alone. Because of you, we will vote for policy, for mind and heart, not genitals because we know that to do anything less would undermine everything you've fought for, everything your mothers and your mothers' mothers fought for and won.
Thank you for everything you've taught us and know that we won't let you down. We've got your back, even if you don't have ours.
A Millenial Woman Feeling the Bern."
A curious mixture of principled independence, emotion, and hypocrisy.
Apparently, in the name of the principle "real equality" today's young Democrat woman abandons the guilt or shame of traditional "women's issues" for Bernie's socialist equality policies. Coincidentally, infringing the freedom and property rights of every American taxpayer is somehow divorced from "compromising the freedom we have today." (I suppose because she believes she will come out on the long end of the redistribution stick, revealing that it isn't really about the entire "we" - even the entire female "we" - after all.)
Just when I was thinking this was some sort of gender discrimination issue I am to dense, and too male, to recognize or even understand - the mask comes off: IT'S THE EGALITARIAN SOCIALISM, STUPID!
Indoor plumbing and the washing machine may have heralded a longer, happier and healthier life for all mankind, but these labor saving advances come at a price - detachment.
We tend to think of youth arriving in waves by generation, every twenty years or so. In reality, the waves are five times as frequent - every four years another class of know-nothings matriculates from the academy. So while the naïve waifs who elected President Obama may now actually, for the most part, recognize their error, two more waves have washed over top of them. And since nothing has been done to correct their curricula, the tide of egalitarian socialism is on the rise, making each successive wave that much stronger than before.
Witness the rise of Senator Socialist, the Independent-In-Name-Only from Vermont, who offers nearly everything as reward for one's vote, deftly stopping short of promising to outlaw war and neckties and long pants. One wonders how his followers might change their thoughts and attitudes and priorities if they had to wash their own clothes, by the river, by hand. Or if they had to defend their village from armed invasion by hungry hoardes from beyond the horizon.
I'm for making the viewing of History Channel's 'Vikings' a mandatory precondition for voter registration. All four seasons. The fourth of which, begins a week from tonight.
(Either that or they have to charge their iPhone with a bicycle generator for a month or so.)
I think I need to add a new category for Socialism... I've done so for my bookmarks. Sanders' rise seems to be good time to blow the dust off this old canard.
KHOW's excellent new morning talk host who is also a serial columnist (including NRO, Am. Spectator...), has a Denver Post Column titled What the Iowa Caucus Says starting off in classic InYoFace mode:
Iowa caucus point to the destructive effects of educational institutions that have turned so many young Americans into naïve socialists whose fundamentally harmful policy positions should not be forgiven due to claimed good intentions or youthful exuberance.
Then follows with good news about how DEM turnout was down 27% while GOP turnout was up 50%, and then segues back to his main theme:
How can it be that throngs of our youth dislike and distrust our nation's most successful people, looking at millionaires in the same way that a leech looks at your ankle? How can it be that after years of "higher learning," millennials have learned nothing from the many lessons of history showing that Sanders' ideas are not only destined to fail if implemented but would also impoverish and enfeeble a once prosperous, proud and mighty nation?
He notes on his KHOW blog that the comments show that the vast majority of readers display massive ignorance on economics. So, as a service to our dear readers, I repeat some of last night's readings: the "gravity" of (Seattle CEO) Dan Prices' equal-pay gambit [pun intended], and inspired by the imitable Dr. Boudreux a Google Search on economic beliefs; the best being from RealClearMarkets. I'll wager that the good doktor is correct in that many economists still believe some really wacky stuff (esp. about minimum wage), but I couldn't find any easily.
Hugh Hewitt even picked up on this last night, while interviewing a novelist, noting the demonization of Billionaires (started by our current imPOTUS, for sure!) that seems to be sweeping popular culture. A quick pulse-check will see if this is more blatant demagoguery or a serious thread: do the names Soros or Steyer ever appear?
In sad news, my #1 choice has dropped out; good luck to her continuing to enliven the GOP zeitgeist!
"Hey Washington: You shut the hell up. We'll save America."
Are we ready to take Trump seriously yet? We'd better be, because he is being thrust upon us by the Republican electorate. A plurality of that group is so completely and totally fed up with big government cronyism - the "Washington cabal" if you will - that it is willing to throw a grenade into the administrative branch in the form of a walking-talking comb over who "must be telling us the truth because who in his right mind would say those things unless he believed them?"
But that is only half of today's political story. The other half is that a plurality of the group called Democrats feels the same way. Except it is completely and totally fed up with big bank and big government cronyism, and the "inequality" that they are somehow responsible for.
And he may not be able to win a national election, but we are seeing an electorate so starved for an honest and trustworthy politician that they will make allowances for ideologies that they may not have considered before.
The most important result from New Hampshire's "first in the nation" primary election is not the attributes of the two candidates who won, but the attributes of all of the other candidates, who didn't.
Hate-filled, tawdry, right-wing attacks directed at Sec. Clinton from . . . The New York Times.
"We have to destroy her story," Mrs. Clinton said in 1991 of Connie Hamzy, one of the first women to come forward during her husband's first presidential campaign, according to George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton administration aide who described the events in his memoir, "All Too Human." (Three people signed sworn affidavits saying Ms. Hamzy's story was false.)
When Gennifer Flowers later surfaced, saying that she had had a long affair with Mr. Clinton, Mrs. Clinton undertook an "aggressive, explicit direction of the campaign to discredit" Ms. Flowers, according to an exhaustive biography of Mrs. Clinton, "A Woman in Charge," by Carl Bernstein.
Mrs. Clinton referred to Monica Lewinsky, the White House intern who had an affair with the 42nd president, as a "narcissistic loony toon," according to one of her closest confidantes, Diane D. Blair, whose diaries were released to the University of Arkansas after her death in 2000.
Ms. Lewinsky later called the comment an example of Mrs. Clinton’s impulse to "blame the woman."
Over the years, the Clinton effort to cast doubt on the women included using words like "floozy," "bimbo" and "stalker," and raising questions about their motives. James Carville, a longtime strategist for Mr. Clinton, was especially cutting in attacking Ms. Flowers. "If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find," Mr. Carville said of Ms. Flowers. (Mr. Carville has maintained that earlier reports indicating that he had made the remark about Paula Jones, another Clinton accuser, were incorrect.)
Now that the stories are resurfacing, they could hamper Mrs. Clinton's attempts to connect with younger women, who are learning the details of the Clintons’ history for the first time.
In completely, totally, not-related-in-any way news:
Fox News exclusively obtained the unclassified letter, sent Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III. It laid out the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies that identified "several dozen" additional classified emails -- including specific intelligence known as "special access programs" (SAP).
That indicates a level of classification beyond even "top secret," the label previously given to two emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate's handling of the government's closely held secrets.
The cases are totally different.
According to court documents, former CIA Director David Petraeus was prosecuted for sharing intelligence from special access programs with his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell. At the heart of his prosecution was a non-disclosure agreement where Petraeus agreed to protect these closely held government programs, with the understanding "unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention or negligent handling ... could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation." Clinton signed an identical non-disclosure agreement Jan. 22, 2009.
There are all sorts of ironies here. The notion that Clinton is more pro-Obama than Sanders would come as a shock to pretty much anyone who remembers the 2008 campaign, or has read her emails, or has good cognitive functions. -- Jonah Goldberg (All Hail!)
I joked about this, but I want to ask it seriously. Why are the Democrat debates on broadcast TV and GOP on cable? I won't insist on serious comments, but hear me out. Millennials are not watching FOX Business Channel.
I was surprised to see a nominally apolitical Facebook friend post "I Love Bernie" last night. I understand my true-believer friends, and I can sort of appreciate a few teachers (If a candidate promised to shovel money at data storage...).
This woman owned her own business and, while I wish she knew better, I suggest was drawn to his passion and authenticity. I bet a lot of cable-cutting, Hulu/Netflix millennials are as well. I wish they would see a Republican someday.
The New Year has once again, I believe, reaffirmed the point that in today's world, many young men from the Middle East are plenty happy to spread across the world, with little interest in local assimilation.
Add in the wobbly-kneed whites in the western world offering a beckoning finger where we can run a new chapter on the "Stockholm Syndrome" and add this to the script we saw play out in Cologne (and a few other N.European cities), right down to the corrupt police, mendacious media and craven politicians who, in John Hiderocker's words:
[the] political class doesn’t really care what happens to citizens. It’s all about their power. In Europe, that power is threatened by “far right” parties that speak for the people on the issue of immigration.
I first heard about this sort of rape jihad going on in Gothenburg, back in 2005. It's a power struggle, and the good guys are misinformed, slandered, and even actively silenced.
I am fine in principle with large #'s of immigrants, even from the ME. I am not fine with it at this time, with the triple threat presented in Rotherham, Stockholm and Cologne, that is in full play in the good old US of A, in the White House and in the Democratic primary race. Dorothy Rabinowitz highlights the case in Philly:
To hear the mayor of Philadelphia was to grasp, more clearly than ever, the fury that has led to Donald Trump’s success in attracting voters—the fury of citizens who know official lies when they hear them, whether about border security, immigration, or the ever-expanding requirements of multiculturalist dogma.
So, while local officials are either encouraging them, overwhelmed by them, or turning a blind eye to them their leaders gilt their rose-colored glasses and collect accolades from media (Merkel was Time's Person of the Year), academia and L/W think tanks, what are these "asylum" seekers doing? Well, some 10-20,000 were told by a prominent Islamic-leaning statesman that assimilation is a crime against humanity
McCarthy adds more, calling them Unassimilable, reminding us that no-go zones are active all across Europe.
From a report on Rotherham, we saw an echo in San Bernadino, where neighbors didn't report the suspicious activity of the soon-to-be mass killers, so as to avoid profiling (of themselves!):
the fear of appearing racist was more pressing in official minds than enforcing the law of the land or rescuing terrified children. It is one of the great scandals of our lifetime.
GOFFSTOWN, NH--Saying he would not accept anything offered by the nation's corporate elite, presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders reportedly refused to use the podium provided by ABC for Saturday’s Democratic primary debate in favor of his own modest, homemade lectern. "No, no--I don’t need some flashy, expensive podium when I can make one myself," said the Vermont senator, waving off ABC producers as he dragged on stage his own crudely built lectern, cobbled together from several old two-by-fours and some reclaimed plywood from behind his garage.
I thought it amusing. My brother (a die hard #BernFeeler) commented "But he was a carpenter," prompting a little research. It seems, and I hope some scatalogical references will be forgiven:
He worked some as a carpenter, although "he was a shitty carpenter," Bloch told me. "His carpentry," Morrisseau said, "was not going to support him, and didn’t."
"The electricity was turned off a lot," Barnett said. "I remember him running an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn’t pay his bills."
My first though was OSHA, that extension cord business sounds dangerous. But my second was that this article is pretty telling. I wonder how many are drawn to Socialism by an inability to flourish in Capitalism.
With the energy of the race on the Republican side, however, Democrats have low expectations about the enthusiasm level for a Donald Trump-less debate showdown on the Saturday night before Christmas -- even with the drama of a major data breach unfolding as the candidates and their staffers traveled to Manchester.
"There's a Democratic debate on Saturday?" political strategist and longtime Clinton ally James Carville half-joked. "You've got people at Trump rallies saying, 'light someone on fire.' It's hard to get attention. There’s so much over there that’s so compelling.'"
Perhaps that's why Team Clinton and the DNC (redundancy alert) chose to torpedo the Sanders campaign this week. A lack of interest and enthusiasm for Clinton and ... polling lead in early primary states:
Until the data breach ramped up tension, Cunningham’s comment was a rare direct shot at Sanders by a Clinton ally. Indeed, her campaign sees no upside in overtly targeting a liberal popular with the party’s base.
But the ghosts of 2008 also have them on high alert about being taken by surprise by Sanders’ near-native son status in New Hampshire, where he is currently leading by double digits in the polls, and his war chest of $26.2 million. In Iowa, Sanders remains within striking distance -- Clinton leads by just 9 points.
This despite Clinton showing a 25-point lead, albeit tightening with Sanders' share being as high as ever.
Sitting on a sofa
On a Sunday afternoon,
Going to the candidates' debate,
Laugh about it,
Shout about it,
When you've got to choose,
Every way you look at it you lose.
Updated, 9:27 a.m. | The Democratic National Committee has told the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont that it was suspending its access to its voter database after a software error enabled at least one of his staff members to review Hillary Clinton’s private campaign data.
The decision by the party committee is a blow to Mr. Sanders' campaign as he prepares for a debate against Mrs. Clinton Saturday night. The database includes information from voters across the nation and is used by campaigns to set strategy, especially in the early voting states.
Of course, my Facebook angle was "NOW SHE CARES ABOUT DATA SECURITY!"
At 6:30 a.m. on April 24, 2012, federal agents, wearing Kevlar vests and with guns drawn, raided my home in Katy, Texas, with a warrant for my arrest. This was as shocking to me as it would be for any normal, law-abiding citizen.
I'm not a drug dealer, violent criminal or money launderer. I'm an engineer. In 2010 I helped stop the BP oil spill after an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig left a damaged well spilling crude directly into the Gulf of Mexico.
They wanted to throw somebody in jail. Mister Mix had a pulse and had -- I hope you are sitting down -- deleted a couple text message threads.
Looking back now at the Justice Department's conduct, I realize that I made one egregious error: I naïvely believed that the task force simply wanted the truth. I was certain that once it had the full record of my actions, everything would be fine, and the trauma my family and I had gone through would end.
I was in for a rude awakening. Facts were not what the investigators wanted. They wanted a conviction. They wanted to prove to the public that their lengthy, expensive investigation was successful. And success meant conviction. I had banked on the truth saving me, but the truth was not enough.
WHO DOES HE THINK HE IS? THE GORRAM SECRETARY OF STATE?
I did my job with honor and professionalism. I served the public's best interests. For this, I was hounded for four years and threatened with up to four decades in a federal penitentiary.
Unlike a Harvey Silverglate story [Review Corner], Mix did not get 40 years in the calaboose. After just four years of ruinious litigation, he was offered a misdemeanor plea -- to something he didn't do of course, but he can go back to work.
I hate to mix outrages, but it is upsetting both from the Siverglate, three-felonies-a-day perspective and the unfavorable comparison to Sec. Clinton's treatment. If anybody wanted a "collar" (I watch TV, too!) it's there for the taking. Mix admitted readily to the deletions and cooperated extensively to recover them.
.... is a political term, that even HRC is trying to avoid using. Her current slant is that she never sent/received eMails "marked as classified." This - like all other things Clinton - begs an important question: How does one mark an eMail, Madame Schtickery?
The legal term is drawn from 18 U.S. Code § 793, is information respecting the national defense or as Cornell's LII (or it in the title of the statute?) terms it; "defense information." To be in compliance with section 793, one must assure that all such information given or provided to or by you does not leave, it's "proper place of custody."
Here's the rub:
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Also an important definition is intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation
It's pretty easy to see that HRC's use of a private, unsecured server and that an eMail containing the identity of a CIA agent (heh, revealed in an eMail from chairman Gowdy) would constitute "defense information" and sending it through an unsecured network to Syd Blumenthal (who, sans security clearances was trying to set up a security services scheme in Libya) constitutes, bad judgement, incompetence, and gross negligence. It will be interesting to see how much of Ramirez's vision is validated in due course of events (long live Trey Gowdy!).
Accolades to a blog that does not have a "Clinton" category, and apologies to those in the BERN world who are sick and tired of hearing about "emails," but there's a warehouse of smoking ordinance in that Fox story about Gowdy's revelations.
Sure, this batch of candidates sounded like a bunch of loons. They contended socialism is mostly about standing up to the richest one percent and promoting entrepreneurialism and small business; climate change is the biggest national-security threat facing the nation; college education should be free for everyone; all lives don’t matter, black lives do; and Obama is simultaneously an enormously successful president in managing the economy and the middle class is collapsing and there’s a need for a "New New Deal" which is in fact an Old Old Idea, considering how FDR called for a Second New Deal in 1935.
Then this past August, a Platte River Networks employee wrote to a coworker that he was, "Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shaddy (sic) s**t." -- CNN
It's fairly incestuous around here and I know a guy who knows the Platte River CEO really well. No doubt he's faced tougher journalists than this humble blogger, but who knows, maybe a few beers, he might spill...
Democratic presidential primary candidate Bernie Sanders is holding a rally in Boulder on Saturday, his campaign announced.
The Vermont senator, an Independent who has attracted large crowds in Colorado and other states and who is popular among progressives, plans to hold the rally at Potts Field at the University of Colorado at 2 p.m.
Uhh, because he couldn't afford two bucks to buy his own sticker?
Maybe 'Bernie fan' would feel better if the federal agency ISS - Internal Sticker Service - had audited his car and, finding him with more stickers than the sticker poverty level, forced him to scrape it off and mail it in for redistribution himself. Under penalty of law, of course!
Huma Abedin, a longtime confidante of Mrs. Clinton's, was somehow allowed to work, simultaneously, at the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and as a consultant to Teneo--a consulting firm run by Clinton loyalist Doug Band. All three of Ms. Abedin's hats come into play in an undisclosed email exchange regarding a 2012 dinner in Ireland. As the Washington Examiner reported in May, Mrs. Clinton received an award at the dinner from a Clinton Foundation donor. The ceremony was promoted by Teneo. Mrs. Clinton attended in her official capacity as secretary of state. Sort through that. -- Kim Strassel
I am used to being ridiculed for my fashion choices. But I am not used to patronizing for my political projections. I'm a cool realist: a devoted and disciplined student of the possible. I even am slowly accepting that Donald Trump's candidacy might last longer than the slow news month of August.
When I suggest that Senator Sanders has the same potential at least, I receive tut-tuts (or is the plural tuts-tut?)
I don't pretend that my Facebook feed is a perfect statistical sample, but I am astonished at the homogeneity of my lefty friends in supporting the steely-eyed Socialist Vermonter. All my Democrat friends, all my lefties are #feelingthebern. An almost apolitical teacher acquaintance took an online "what candidate do you support?" quiz, got the Sanders verdict, and is now a die-hard supporter. #feelinthebernyet?
I struggle to find a single thing on which we agree, but he is authentic and he speaks to some deep seated beliefs in the party. And I'm dishing out props today for courage. Like Sen. Rand Paul's tour of Howard University, Sanders is reaching out with a speech at Liberty University (video at the link).
To the consternation of Objectivists, Sanders is (rather deftly) exploiting the philosophical overlap between religious altruism and socialism. Up front: let's agree-to-disagree on abortion, but saddle up and ride to conquer unjust income distribution! Just as I have suggested Trump could find a swath of support in the populist wing of the Democrats, Sanders could peel off some disgruntled populist GOP voters.
Blog friend Terri invokes Kim Strassel in a comment, and I reserve the right to post on that. But this bon mot of Mister Taranto is Friday-worthy:
Actually, the Mail headline overstates matters a bit. The story reports that some 200 people showed up for the Columbus, Ohio, Women for Hillary event: "The modest-sized ballroom was half empty . . ., with supporters herded into a cordoned-off area to give the impression of a packed crowd." A pessimist would say the room was half-full. -- James Taranto
Ladies and Gentlemen, the next President of the United States:
The sanctions relief from this deal is the second piece, and it goes to the second issue mostly. "Well, Joe, even if, even if I believe that you were able to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, you’re going to give them a lot of money Joeboy. And there going to go out and do more of the bad things they are doing now, doing it more efficiently, and threaten our friends in an existential way, because they will have so much more money and capacity." Totally legitimate argument and concern. -- VP Joe Biden
Even Clinton's staunch ally David Brock, founder of the rapid response organization Correct the Record, told POLITICO he has heard concerns from the donor class about how the barrage of headlines about criminal probes and FBI investigations are harming the campaign. -- Annie Karni @ Politico
People get so tense these days...
Hat-tip: Taranto, and notable for the unflattering photo in Politico.
My blog brother pines [7th comment] for a "collapse of the Democratic Party in 2016's enabling a non-establishment Republican..." It could happen.
All McGovern talked about in '72 was the war in Vietnam, that he would get us out, and fast. Sanders is on to something that grips the Democratic Party voter. He is their messenger. The issue of economic inequality and economic unfairness, of being left behind and ignored and forgotten, is a powerful message.
Sanders is serious. The issue is serious. He needs to be taken seriously. No longer small potatoes, he is a big deal.
Even for a Clinton, this is all very low and unseemly. Worse than that, it has jeopardized national security. Hillary has no explanation or valid defense. This should be "game over" for her presidential campaign. Her entourage of advisers and toadies should now focus on hiring an adept criminal-defense team. -- Buck Sexton, National Review
That other light haired woman at the WSJ Ed Page...
Finally, Mrs. Clinton has very good friends in the corporate world. This newspaper reported Thursday that while serving as secretary of state, she took the unusual step of intervening to fix a problem that Swiss banking titan UBS was having with the IRS. In the years that followed, UBS donated $600,000 to the Clinton Foundation, anted up another $32 million in loans via foundation programs, and dropped $1.5 million on Bill for a series of speaking events. Both sides deny any quid pro quo. But the pattern is clear: More than 60 major firms that lobbied the State Department during Mrs. Clinton's tenure also donated some $26 million to her family's foundation. -- Kim Strassel
The initial reaction by tax experts was one of befuddlement.
"I'm struggling to see how it affects the behavior of corporate management by going after the investors," said David Kautter, a partner at McGladrey, a Chicago-based tax consultancy firm. "It seems to me they're shooting at the wrong target."
TRUMP: I think you have to have it, and, again, I said I'm conservative, generally speaking, I'm conservative, and even very conservative. But I'm quite liberal and getting much more liberal on health care and other things. I really say: What's the purpose of a country if you're not going to have defensive [sic] and health care?
If you can't take care of your sick in the country, forget it, it's all over. I mean, it's no good. So I'm very liberal when it comes to health care. I believe in universal health care. I believe in whatever it takes to make people well and better.
KING: So you believe, then, it's an entitlement of birth?
TRUMP: I think it is. It's an entitlement to this country, and too bad the world can't be, you know, in this country. But the fact is, it's an entitlement to this country if we're going to have a great country.
Can we, perhaps, close the Trump boomlet now? Or must I excerpt direct negotiations with Iran...
The obvious explanation is that Mrs. Clinton's equivocation on trade is a matter of pure pandering, designed to counter the threat of Bernie Sanders. That one can write those five words--"the threat of Bernie Sanders"--without cracking up is an indication that Mrs. Clinton is a very weak candidate. -- James Taranto
She makes $250,000 for a 40-minute speech. She demands a $15 minimum wage. She flies on a Gulfstream. You get experience. Even The Guardian noticed:
Clinton's camp has made headlines about its frugality and a hard sell on its fellowship program, which allows aspiring politicos between the ages of 18 and 24 to spend this summer as full-time campaign volunteers. The result, however, is the human-resources reality of a campaign -- one scheduled to hold at least 26 fundraisers this month alone -- that isn't just taking on college students with political science degrees but expecting political veterans to gamble their careers on her without pay.
Clinton, according to her would-be employees, has left full-time organizers with little choice but to criss-cross the country and work as "free help".