Skip to content

Month: November 2015

Collecting it all

Collecting it all

by digby

There was a time when Americans believed that attorney-client privilege was sacrosanct. That is, apparently, one of those old-fashioned notions that has gone out the window in our hi-tech, post 9/11 panopticon world:

AN ENORMOUS CACHE of phone records obtained by The Intercept reveals a major breach of security at Securus Technologies, a leading provider of phone services inside the nation’s prisons and jails. The materials — leaked via SecureDrop by an anonymous hacker who believes that Securus is violating the constitutional rights of inmates — comprise over 70 million records of phone calls, placed by prisoners to at least 37 states, in addition to links to downloadable recordings of the calls. The calls span a nearly two-and-a-half year period, beginning in December 2011 and ending in the spring of 2014.

Particularly notable within the vast trove of phone records are what appear to be at least 14,000 recorded conversations between inmates and attorneys, a strong indication that at least some of the recordings are likely confidential and privileged legal communications — calls that never should have been recorded in the first place. The recording of legally protected attorney-client communications — and the storage of those recordings — potentially offends constitutional protections, including the right to effective assistance of counsel and of access to the courts.

“This may be the most massive breach of the attorney-client privilege in modern U.S. history, and that’s certainly something to be concerned about,” said David Fathi, director of the ACLU’s National Prison Project. “A lot of prisoner rights are limited because of their conviction and incarceration, but their protection by the attorney-client privilege is not.”

Sigh. Remember, they want to “collect it all.” After all, you never know when the government might need to find some evidence against somebody.

.

Your Dystopian Hellscape in one chart

Your Dystopian Hellscape in one chart

by digby

This was the first question in the GOP undercard debate last night:

SMITH: Alright, that’s it, so let’s begin with Governor Christie. Governor, economically, our country is struggling with some of the most anemic growth we have seen on record. More than 90 million Americans are unemployed, or they are not in the workforce altogether. 

The number of people now willing, able, and wanting to go to work is at a level that has fallen to a level we have not been since the 1970’s. For those that are working, wages aren’t budging while other things, costs, like housing, remain high.
As President, what concrete steps will you take to get America back to work.

The airplane tactic

The airplane tactic

by digby

This plane bombing is a terrible thing. Nobody who flies on airplanes can fail to feel a chill down thir spine at the thought of it. But I just have to remind people that it’s not unprecedented. Airplane bombing have been part of our lives for decades. Everyone remembers Pan Am 103, which exploded over Scotland back in the late 1980s.

Unless you watched the Netflix series Narcos, you may not remember this one:

Avianca Airlines Flight 203 was a Colombian domestic passenger flight from El Dorado International Airport in Bogotá to Alfonso Bonilla Aragón International Airport in Cali. It was destroyed by a bomb over the municipality of Soacha on November 27, 1989.

The aircraft took off from the Colombian capital Bogotá en route to Cali. It was in the air for five minutes and flying at a speed of 794 kilometres per hour (493 mph) when an explosive charge detonated on board, igniting fuel vapors in an empty fuel tank.

The aircraft was a Boeing 727-21 with registration number HK-1803; it was purchased from Pan Am. The aircraft took off as scheduled at 7:11 a.m. Five minutes into the flight, a bomb placed near the fuel tank exploded at 13,000 feet. The blast ripped the airliner apart: the nose section separated from the tail section, which went down in flames. All 107 people on board were killed, as well as three people on the ground who were killed by falling debris. According to the investigations the bomb was placed by a man wearing a suit who was able to bring the bomb inside the aircraft in a suitcase.

The bombing of Flight 203 was the deadliest single criminal attack in the many decades of Colombian violence. Pablo Escobar of the Medellín drug cartel planned the bombing, hoping it would kill presidential candidate for the 1990 elections César Gaviria Trujillo. Gaviria, however, was not on the aircraft, and would go on to become President of Colombia. Two Americans were among the dead, and because of this, the Bush Administration began Intelligence Support Activity operations to find Escobar.

Dandeny Muñoz Mosquera, the chief assassin for the Medellín Cartel, was convicted of the bombing in a United States District Court and was sentenced to 10 consecutive life sentences.

With all the breathless coverage over this latest airplane bombing (or what appears to have been one anyway) it seems important to remind people that it isn’t something we have not dealt with before. It’s been a horrible part of our lives going back to the 1970s.

And you don’t even want to think about the hijackings.

.

“Very nice and humane” deportation

“Very nice and humane” deportation

by digby

Chuck Todd has not been paying attention to what Donald Trump actually says which I think may be one of the problems with political journalism in general. Last night he tweeted this:

I knew about Operation wetback oh … for decades, so when Trump said this on the trail I wrote about it:

While Ronald Reagan also used the slogan “Make America Great Again” when he ran for president, his vision was much more upbeat and optimistic than Trump’s, which harkens back to paleoconservative candidates like Pat Buchanan and his “Pitchfork Brigade”. Indeed, it centers around “getting rid of bad people” which is not what most people think of as morning in America. Last week he even explicitly went back to the 1950s and evoked the Eisenhower era program “Operation Wetback,” which he characterized on “60 Minutes” as “very nice and very humane.” (It wasn’t.) He said “Did you like Eisenhower? Did you like Dwight Eisenhower as a president at all? He did this. He did this in the 1950s with over a million people, and a lot of people don’t know that…and it worked.”

He elaborated at his rallies later in the week:

“You know, Dwight Eisenhower was a wonderful general, and a respected President – and he moved a million people out of the country, nobody said anything about it. When Trump does it, it’s like ‘whoa.’ When Eisenhower does it, ‘well that was Eisenhower, he’s allowed to do it, we can’t do it.’

That was also in the ’50s, remember that. Different time, remember that.

That’s when we had a country. That’s when we had borders; you know, without borders you don’t have a country, essentially. We don’t have a country. Without borders, you just don’t have it.

But Dwight Eisenhower, this big report, they used to take them out and put them on the other side of the border and say, ‘you have to stay here.’ And they’d come right back, and they’d do it again and again, so they said ‘Wait a minute, this doesn’t work.’ And they took them out and moved them all the way South; all the way. And they never came back again; it’s too far. Amazing.

And I’m not saying this in a joking way — I’m saying this happened. It wasn’t working, they were coming back, and then they literally – literally – moved them all the way. A lot of the politicians – they never came back, it was too far. They’d put them on boats and move them all the way down South, and that was it.”

Needless to say reporters didn’t have to read Eisenhower’s biography to know any of this. The Washington Post had this just a month ago:

In Mexicali, Mexico, temperatures can reach 125 degrees as heat envelops an arid desert. Without a body of water nearby to moderate the climate, the heavy sun is relentless — and deadly.

During the summer of 1955, this is where hundreds of thousands of Mexicans were “dumped” after being discovered as migrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally. Unloaded from buses and trucks carrying several times their capacity, the deportees stumbled into the Mexicali streets with few possessions and no way of getting home.

This was strategic: the more obscure the destination within the Mexican interior, the less opportunities they would have to return to America. But the tactic also proved to be dangerous, as the migrants were left without resources to survive.

After one such round-up and transfer in July, 88 people died from heat stroke.

At another drop-off point in Nuevo Laredo, the migrants were “brought like cows” into the desert.

Among the over 25 percent who were transported by boat from Port Isabel, Texas, to the Mexican Gulf Coast, many shared cramped quarters in vessels resembling an “eighteenth century slave ship” and “penal hell ship.”

These deportation procedures, detailed by historian Mae M. Ngai, were not anomalies. They were the essential framework of Operation Wetback — a concerted immigration law enforcement effort implemented by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1954 — and the deportation model that Donald Trump says he intends to follow.

It’s a small thing, but it’s disheartening that the GOP front-runner is running on this policy in 2015 and reporters wouldn’t be aware of what he’s saying.

.

God’s right hand man

God’s right hand man

by digby

This column by Doyle McManus in today’s LA Times about Ben Carson lays out all the reasons why Ben Carson is completely unqualified to be president, based on the many ridiculous things he’s said.

But it concludes with something that actually shows why his followers believe he is more qualified than anyone else in the nation:

In his books, he often mentions incidents in which God intervened in his life. When he neglected to study at Yale, God showed him the answers on a chemistry exam. When he fell asleep while driving home one night, God spared his life. When he used new surgical techniques on children’s brains, God saved some of his patients. And when he was on a safari in Africa, God answered his prayer for plenty of photogenic wildlife.

Now that he’s running for president, Carson sounds as if he’s counting on divine intervention to pull him through again. There can be no doubt about the sincerity of Carson’s Christian faith or his belief in the power of prayer. But voters — even the most devout — deserve more earthly evidence that he’s up to the job.

The other day I wrote about the fact that GOP primary voters don’t just mistrust government anymore, they have lost faith in their party and the system of government set forth in the constitution. They desire a president who will “get the job done” without succumbing to all that folderol of congress, the courts, elections etcetera. In other words they no longer believe in democracy.

The Trump people want a strongman. The Carson people want a religious figure. Everyone acknowledges that his inspirations life story is the basis upon which his entire campaign is based, and he says that explicitly. From his ill-tempered youth to his career as a neurosurgeon depending on God to guide his hand during brain surgery that life story is a story of divine intervention.

He doesn’t need to know anything. His followers believe he is the vessel through which God himself will be the president.

.

The dull debate

The dull debate

by digby

Mr. Trump, as the leading presidential candidate on this stage and one whose tax plan exempts couples making up to $50,000 a year from paying any federal income taxes at all, are you sympathetic to the protesters cause since a $15 wage works out to about $31,000 a year?


TRUMP: I can’t be Neil. And the and the reason I can’t be is that we are a country that is being beaten on every front economically, militarily. There is nothing that we do now to win. We don’t win anymore. Our taxes are too high. I’ve come up with a tax plan that many, many people like very much. It’s going to be a tremendous plan. I think it’ll make our country and our economy very dynamic.


But, taxes too high, wages too high, we’re not going to be able to compete against the world. I hate to say it, but we have to leave it the way it is. People have to go out, they have to work really hard and have to get into that upper stratum. But we can not do this if we are going to compete with the rest of the world. We just can’t do it.

The Donald also reiterated his plan to deport 11 million people and take them deep into Mexico and drop them off in the middle of the desert or something.  He elaborated today saying that he would for a “deportation force” to get that done.  I’d imagine they’ll have some very snazzy uniforms.
And Ben Carson informed the US Intelligence agencies that the Chinese are actively participating in the Middle East conflicts. (His spokesman Armstrong Williams explained this morning that his information comes from unofficial sources the government may not know about. #AlexJonesprobably)

But those were the highlights of the weirdness and the rest was pretty much boilerplate wingnut. Anyway, I wrote about it for Salon this morning:

Last night, the Republican presidential candidates gathered in Milwaukee to talk ignorantly about the economy and scare the kids about the dystopian hellscape Hillary Clinton promises if she ever embeds her evil talons in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue again. They argued amongst themselves, but mostly in civil fashion (with the exception of Trump who shushed Carly Fiorina for interrupting and got booed for it). The moderators were good little boys and girls throughout.
The kiddie debate was a little bit sad without Lindsey Graham to breathlessly remind us that terrorists are coming to kill us all in our beds, but Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee made up for it by providing Bobby Jindal with the chance to be Baby Ted Cruz and rail against them as big spending Governors who aren’t real conservatives. Christie, for his part, indicated that he believes he is uniquely capable of taking on Hillary Clinton because he knows how to beat up on … Democrats. In fact he seemed so obsessive about her that she might consider issuing a restraining order. (To paraphrase Joe Biden, every sentence was a noun, a verb and “Hillary Clinton.”) And Rick Santorum opined that the government should do more to ensure that women get married, which was bracingly medieval.
The main event was a little more exciting, with John Kasich deciding that it was time to commit political suicide and officially become the Job Huntsman of 2016. Jeb Bush did his usual potted plant impression while Trump  and Carson vamped their way through the proceedings, as they usually do, thereby solidifying their frontrunner statuses once more. Fiorina and Paul were energetic and forceful — and completely irrelevant.
If you combine the two debates you can easily see the divisions that plague the GOP. Christie, Huckabee, Kasich and Bush are all governors or former governors with pretty impressive records. Unfortunately for them, they are also politicians who remain wedded to reality, at least on some levels, and in today’s Republican Party that makes them weak and vulnerable. Kasich decided to finally just let his freak flag fly and he showed himself as the curmudgeon he is by being as rude to the wing-nuts as they are to the party establishment.  They did not like it one bit. If Frank Luntz’s focus grouphas any  validity (a big if, to be fair), Kasich was roundly loathed by just about every Republican watching the debate. (The focus group’s main complaint was that he is a liberal.)
The other candidates are all running, to one degree or another, as outsiders and that status seems to allow them tremendous leeway with the facts. The jousting over the immigration issue showed this most starkly:
TRUMP: Maria, we’re a country of laws. We either have a country or we don’t have a country. We are a country of laws. Going to have to go out and they will come back but they are going to have to go out and hopefully they get back. But we have no choice if we’re going to run our country properly and if we’re going to be a country. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
KASICH: Well, look, in 1986 Ronald Reagan basically said the people who were here, if they were law-abiding, could stay. But, what didn’t happen is we didn’t build the walls effectively and we didn’t control the border. We need to. We need to control our border just like people have to control who goes in and out of their house. But if people think that we are going to ship 11 million people who are law-abiding, who are in this country, and somehow pick them up at their house and ship them out of Mexico — to Mexico, think about the families. Think about the children. So, you know what the answer really is? If they have been law- abiding, they pay a penalty. They get to stay. We protect the wall. Anybody else comes over, they go back. But for the 11 million people, come on, folks. We all know you can’t pick them up and ship them across, back across the border. It’s a silly argument. It is not an adult argument. It makes no sense.
TRUMP: All I can say is, you’re lucky in Ohio that you struck oil. That is for one thing. (LAUGHTER) Let me just tell you that Dwight Eisenhower, good president, great president, people liked him. “I like Ike,” right? The expression. “I like Ike.” Moved a 1.5 million illegal immigrants out of this country, moved them just beyond the border. They came back. Moved them again beyond the border, they came back. Didn’t like it. Moved them way south. They never came back.  (LAUGHTER) Dwight Eisenhower. You don’t get nicer. You don’t get friendlier. They moved a 1.5 million out. We have no choice. We have no choice.
KASICH: In the state of Ohio, the state of Ohio, we have grown 347,000 jobs. Our unemployment is half of what it was. Our fracking industry, energy industry may have contributed 20,000, but if Mr. Trump understood that the real jobs come in the downstream, not in the upstream, but in the downstream. And that’s where we’re going to get our jobs. But Ohio is diversified. And little false little things, sir, they don’t really work when it comes to the truth. So the fact is, all I’m suggesting, we can’t ship 11 million people out of this country. Children would be terrified, and it will not work. (CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: …I built an unbelievable company worth billions and billions of dollars. I don’t have to hear from this man, believe me. I don’t have to hear from him.
That exchange perfectly illustrates the fundamental division among Republicans. On the one hand, you have some people speaking in fairly lucid terms about a problem and others engaging in absurd hyperbole. According to Luntz, the Kasich-Bush line on immigration was extremely unpopular, but the debate audience applauded both of them. (It’s likely because debate audiences are often filled with party functionaries, aka “the establishment.”) But of course, the talk-radio right will have none of it. Some might be persuaded to abandon Trump’s deportation plan, but there is no room for a path to citizenship. The fact that Bush explicitly used that language following Trump’s scrap with Kasich will almost certainly doom him (if he wasn’t doomed already).

Read on. I delve into the Rubio-Cruz cage match in some detail which is where I still think the race may be headed.

All in all,it was a dull affair. But the next time someone complains about Democrats getting softball questions in debates, remind them of this one:

First off, Dr. Carson, to you. You say you are in favor of a tax system, I guess akin to tithing, sir, with a flat tax rate of up to 15 percent because you said, if everybody pays this, I think God is a pretty fair guy. So tithing is a pretty fair process. But Donald Trump says that is not fair, that wealthier taxpayers should pay a higher rate because it’s a fair thing to do. So whose plan would God endorse then doctor?

And no, the debate wasn’t changed to the 700 Club at the last minute. That was Neil Cavuto of Fox Business News.

.

Sense and Insensibility by @Batocchio9

Sense and Insensibility


by Batocchio

On Armistice Day (or Veterans Day, or Remembrance Day), it’s an especially good time to pause and reflect. Those most eager for war are rarely the ones who will fight or pay the costs. Requiring a high threshold for war is the position of basic sanity; it’s common sense. Yet saber-rattling and posturing bravado always sell well to certain crowds, and blithe imperialism will eternally be fashionable among a particular vacuous and powerful set. What’s ignored is the human experience and the inevitable suffering of people a step or two (or many) removed.

World War I, the Great War, which sadly proved not to be “the war to end all wars,” was raging 100 years ago. One of the war’s best poets was Wilfred Owen, who tragically died shortly before the war’s end. I’ve featured his poetry before, including this piece, but was reminded of it again recently:

Insensibility
By Wilfred Owen

I
Happy are men who yet before they are killed
Can let their veins run cold.
Whom no compassion fleers
Or makes their feet
Sore on the alleys cobbled with their brothers.
The front line withers.
But they are troops who fade, not flowers,
For poets’ tearful fooling:
Men, gaps for filling:
Losses, who might have fought
Longer; but no one bothers.

II
And some cease feeling
Even themselves or for themselves.
Dullness best solves
The tease and doubt of shelling,
And Chance’s strange arithmetic
Comes simpler than the reckoning of their shilling.
They keep no check on armies’ decimation.

III
Happy are these who lose imagination:
They have enough to carry with ammunition.
Their spirit drags no pack.
Their old wounds, save with cold, can not more ache.
Having seen all things red,
Their eyes are rid
Of the hurt of the colour of blood for ever.
And terror’s first constriction over,
Their hearts remain small-drawn.
Their senses in some scorching cautery of battle
Now long since ironed,
Can laugh among the dying, unconcerned.

IV
Happy the soldier home, with not a notion
How somewhere, every dawn, some men attack,
And many sighs are drained.
Happy the lad whose mind was never trained:
His days are worth forgetting more than not.
He sings along the march
Which we march taciturn, because of dusk,
The long, forlorn, relentless trend
From larger day to huger night.

V
We wise, who with a thought besmirch
Blood over all our soul,
How should we see our task
But through his blunt and lashless eyes?
Alive, he is not vital overmuch;
Dying, not mortal overmuch;
Nor sad, nor proud,
Nor curious at all.
He cannot tell
Old men’s placidity from his.

VI
But cursed are dullards whom no cannon stuns,
That they should be as stones.
Wretched are they, and mean
With paucity that never was simplicity.
By choice they made themselves immune
To pity and whatever moans in man
Before the last sea and the hapless stars;
Whatever mourns when many leave these shores;
Whatever shares
The eternal reciprocity of tears.

These are old and recurring themes, and this poem resonates across eras. It spoke to World War II veteran Eugene Sledge, who wrote the war memoir With the Old Breed (part of the basis for the series The Pacific and also used in the Ken Burns documentary, The War). Sledge recommended the piece to Studs Turkel during his interview for Turkel’s great, ironically titled oral history, The Good War. Remarking on the poem’s speaker, Sledge observed, “This is the only way he can cope with it mentally… and he hates to see his buddies killed.” (It’s fascinating to listen to the discussions between Sledge and Turkel because Sledge is so candid and reflective, and Turkel is so genuinely interested in other human beings.)

“Insensibility” covers a great deal of ground in a short space – it expresses a sardonic wit, explores numbness (whether voluntary or involuntary) as a survival mechanism, and ponders “Chance’s strange arithmetic,” an apt phrase for a perennial wartime fear. Insensibility isn’t the only possible response – Sophocles explored rage and madness in his 5th century BCE play, Ajax, a piece that still resonates with modern audiences, particularly those who have experienced combat. How does someone deal with such experiences? It’s not easy, and sometimes the response may indeed be post-traumatic stress disorder (the “shell shock” of an earlier era), or numbness, or rage, or depression, or fatigue, or some mix, or something else altogether.

This is an old story, but not one our country has grappled with well, especially as it plays out against actual human beings. Obviously not every veteran is a powder keg, and that’s definitely not the point of discussing this – the issue is whether we’re offering adequate help to those who need it. A set of 2014 studies bolsters past findings on PTSD and its prevalence. It can be treated, but there’s still a heavy and unfortunate stigma attached. Anthony Pike of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) observed that “An estimated 20 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are diagnosed with PTSD or depression, and most civilians are unaware that 22 veterans take their own lives each day.”

Reportedly, the military has gotten better at addressing PTSD and similar issues over the years. But for perspective, military spending by the U.S. has often exceeded 600 billion a year in the past decade or so, and that trend looks to continue when everything is tallied. Given all that money, perhaps more could be diverted to the general mental health and well-being of servicemen and women. Perhaps more effort could be made at addressing attitudes that PTSD or other problems are due to a lack of character (or, as we’ve explored in previous posts, a lack of religious faith).

Wars of choice are unconscionable (and we’ve explored that in depth in other pieces), but especially if one supports such a war (or really any war), it’s inexcusable not to take care of that war’s veterans. That means not serving up hollow slogans or flag-waving or jingoistic platitudes and instead providing actual help, from physical health care, to mental health care, to jobs programs. (Honestly, all of that would a good idea for the whole country, too.) The vacuous, the rabid, and the dullards might not want to discuss such things – or any of the negative consequences of war – but addressing them remains a matter of basic decency and common sense.

America has built the equivalent of 10 Keystone pipelines since 2010, by @Gaius_Publius

America has built the equivalent of 10 Keystone pipelines since 2010

by Gaius Publius

The blue lines show expansion since 2005. Note the expansions to Port Arthur and Corpus Christi, Texas.

As you may know, TransCanada Corporation, the owner and builder of
the Keystone (KXL) Pipeline, has recently withdrawn its application for
approval, hoping, most analysts say, for a more carbon-favorable next
president. Obama didn’t take the bait, didn’t interrupt the approval process, and rejected the proposal anyway:
“He announced on Friday that he would not approve the Keystone application, saying the project did not serve the nation’s interests.”

That great victory obscures a sobering fact. A virtual Keystone pipeline is being built anyway. Yadullah Hussain at Financial Post:

America has built the equivalent of 10 Keystone pipelines since 2010 — and nobody said anything

While TransCanada Corp. has been cooling its heels on its Keystone XL proposal for the past six years, the oil pipeline business has been booming in the United States.

Crude oil pipeline mileage rose 9.1 per cent last year alone to reach 66,649 miles, according to data from the Washington, D.C.-based Association of Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL) set to be released soon.

Between 2009 and 2013, more than 8,000 miles of oil transmission pipelines have been built in the past five years in the U.S., AOPL spokesperson John Stoody said, compared to the 875 miles TransCanada wants to lay in the states of Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska for its 830,000-bpd project. By last year, the U.S. had built 12,000 miles of pipe since 2010.

“That’s the point we make,” Stoody said. “While people have been debating Keystone in the U.S. we have actually built the equivalent of 10 Keystones. And no one’s complained or said anything.”

What does “10 Keystones” look like? Read this and refer to the map at the top:

The 487-mile southern leg of the project, dubbed the Gulf Coast project, between Cushing, Okla. and Texas refineries came on stream in 2014.

While the northern leg of Keystone XL remains under review, the Lower 48s have seen new oil pipes crisscrossing the country.

“If you look at 2010 versus now we have seen historic realignment that has transformed the infrastructure situation,” said Afolabi Ogunnaike, analyst at Wood Mackenzie. “There has been tremendous investment in pipelines and more investments are coming on.”

The U.S. midstream infrastructure is responding to a near-doubling of U.S. production over the past six years. The U.S. saw an 11.6 per cent increase in crude oil transport via pipelines in 2014, according to AOPL data.

As I said in this Virtually Speaking Sundays episode (second half of the show), the way to eliminate carbon emissions is to strangle (“disrupt”) supply and/or strangle (“disrupt”) demand. I favor disrupting supply, since demand for energy coupled with diminished carbon-based supply will accelerate the creation of alternative energy sources. As the article makes clear (there’s more in it than I quoted), increased delivery capacity enables as much supply as producers are willing to create. It’s hard to disrupt supply when (1) they’re digging as much as they can profit from, and (2) there are no barriers to transporting to refineries and users, including foreign ones.

Bottom line — the victory against the pipeline named Keystone is real and important. That said, it’s just the first touchdown in the first quarter of a much longer game. It’s not over. (Sorry for the sports metaphor; ’tis the season.)

GP

.

GOP Debate IV: Back to the Future by @BloggersRUs

GOP Debate IV: Back to the Future
by Tom Sullivan

Well, that was pretty incoherent. Palm Beach Post columnist Frank Cerabino summed up last night’s GOP presidential debate with this tweet late in the game:

There is no time this morning to attempt a play-by-play on last night’s fourth GOP debate, but perhaps a few standout moments.

Cerabino was perhaps referring to Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s sense of the coming election. Maria Bartiromo had asked Rubio and other candidates why Americans should choose them over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, what with her “impressive résumé” and all. The crowd booed loudly. Instead of making a case for himself, Rubio made a stump speech on American exceptionalism, traditional values, and the future:

And so here’s the truth: this election is about the future, and the Democratic Party, and the political left has no ideas about the future. All their ideas are the same, tired ideas of the past.

This came after more saber rattling at ISIS from the group, a defense of coal mining from Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, and a call to return to the gold standard from Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. I guess tired ideas of the past are all shiny and new again when you’re young and Republican.

Fact checkers will have fun with this, of course, but Josh Marshall found the debate quite the mess:

This debate is the logical outcome of the blow up after the CNBC debate. CNBC is a generally right leaning network on economic issues. But simply pressing the candidates to answer questions or noting when they’re making demonstrably untrue claims made them liberal. So now we have a debate structured around letting candidates say absolutely anything – because scrutinizing candidates is liberal.

Trump at one point agreed with his rivals and tried to look presidential like he’s not going anywhere. Kasich and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul sounded sensible at times. Cruz and Rubio will slowly rise in the polls. Carly Fiorina kept interrupting, as Trump noted to boos, and sounded as if she wanted the U.S. to return to building battleships. And Jeb Bush again might as well have stayed home. Ben Carson was as incoherent as ever, but had a better night for not having to answer personal history questions.

Perhaps the most fun of the evening was the attack ad against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by “lobbyists for Navient, a student loan company that the CFPB is currently investigating for allegedly cheating student loan borrowers.” The ad echoes Apple’s famous “1984” spot and features an image of Elizabeth Warren as Stalin (or was it Lenin?). Even American Banker thought that one would likely backfire.

Fairnbalanced

Fairnbalanced

by digby

I thought this was funny:

THE FIX: After the last debate, some of the candidates suggested future debates should be moderated by conservatives. Are you what the doctor ordered?

BARTIROMO: Not at all. I’m an independent. I’ve voted both ways in my life. I come at this from the standpoint of, “Here are the issues; what are you planning to do about it?”

CAVUTO: No. I understand candidates getting annoyed, but they better be careful about looking like whiners and babies. I see this on the right and the left. I think you can ask very tough questions without coming off like an ass. I think it’s incumbent on us to know and appreciate the difference.

Good luck guys. I’ll believe it when I see it.

I think the chance of them asking “very tough questions” is pretty unlikely but you never know. Their baby whining and tantrums have always been effective before.

.