Skip to content

Month: March 2016

They don’t need to worry their pretty little heads about foreign affairs

They don’t need to worry their pretty little heads about foreign affairs

by digby

Fewer Than One In Four National Security And Foreign Affairs Guests On Sunday And Weekday Shows Combined Were Women. Women comprised just 21 percent of nearly 3,300 total guests featured during 2015 news coverage of foreign affairs and national security on the Sunday political talk shows on ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox Broadcasting, and NBC and on weekday prime-time (defined as 8 to 11 p.m.) programming on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC.

But who cares, right? Much bigger fish to fry in this world that worrying about women’s equality.

*By the way, it’s not that female foreign affairs experts don’t exist. They do. Obviously.

Burning the GOP boats behind them #Ihopetheycanswim

Burning the GOP boats behind them 

by digby

David Brooks has an epiphany:

Since Goldwater/Reagan, the G.O.P. has been governed by a free-market, anti-government philosophy. But over the ensuing decades new problems have emerged. First, the economy has gotten crueler. Technology is displacing workers and globalization is dampening wages. Second, the social structure has atomized and frayed, especially among the less educated. Third, demography is shifting. 

Orthodox Republicans, seeing no positive role for government, have had no affirmative agenda to help people deal with these new problems. Occasionally some conservative policy mavens have proposed such an agenda — anti-poverty programs, human capital policies, wage subsidies and the like — but the proposals were killed, usually in the House, by the anti-government crowd. 

The 1980s anti-government orthodoxy still has many followers; Ted Cruz is the extreme embodiment of this tendency. But it has grown increasingly rigid, unresponsive and obsolete. 

Along comes Donald Trump offering to replace it and change the nature of the G.O.P. He tramples all over the anti-government ideology of modern Republicanism. He would replace the free-market orthodoxy with authoritarian nationalism. 

He offers to use government on behalf of the American working class, but in negative and defensive ways: to build walls, to close trade, to ban outside groups, to smash enemies. According to him, America’s problems aren’t caused by deep structural shifts. They’re caused by morons and parasites. The Great Leader will take them down.
If the G.O.P. is going to survive as a decent and viable national party, it can’t cling to the fading orthodoxy Cruz represents. But it can’t shift to ugly Trumpian nationalism, either. It has to find a third alternative: limited but energetic use of government to expand mobility and widen openness and opportunity. That is what Kasich, Rubio, Paul Ryan and others are stumbling toward. 

Amid all the vulgarity and pettiness, that is what is being fought over this month: going back to the past, veering into an ugly future, or finding a third way. This is something worth fighting for, worth burning the boats behind you for.

More specifically he means it’s worth “burning the party behind you for.”

Well, good luck with that. Republicans like Brooks created this situation standing back while their party stoking the white racist lizard brain for years, demonizing the other side as loathsome monsters, watching as their Party lost its collective mind over many years, from impeachment to illegitimate wars to torture to a total loss of control at the election of a black president. This is the result.

Basically Brooks and others are coming to the conclusion that they will have to build a new party. The question is, who are they going to get to vote for them?


Update:  Looks like some members of the establishment are getting behind the far right wing extremist. Jesus:

The younger brother of former President George W. Bush and failed presidential candidate Jeb Bush has joined Ted Cruz’s national finance team. Neil Bush and his wife Maria were announced as the newest members of Cruz’s backing team in a Tuesday press release from the Texan senator’s campaign. Jeb Bush, meanwhile, has remained quiet about endorsing any candidates for the March 15 primary in Florida. “We are seeing incredible momentum around our campaign,” Cruz said in the statement, which boasted of former Jeb, Rand Paul, and Rick Perry supporters joining his team.

I wonder if this will actually hurt Cruz.  It’s not popular to get “financial support” from people like Bush in this cycle.

Unbelievable.

.

These men are just too emotional

These men are just too emotional

by digby

Sam Bee said it so well:

This is something I hadn’t thought of before. Their behavior in this primary has undercut one of the subliminal attacks that would be deployed against Clinton if she were to be the nominee. These GOP candidates seem to be unusually emotional.

A political “Hunger Games”

A political “Hunger Games”


by digby


I wrote about tonight’s primaries for Salon today:


Today is the day of the Michigan, Idaho, Hawaii and Mississippi GOP primaries and they may just prove to be a turning point in this race. Or not. Every time you think the trajectory is set, something happens to change it up and we’re right back where we started. As of this morning, whatever polling is available suggests that Donald Trump is still in the lead in all four states, but much of it was conducted before the fallout from the “little hands” debate at the end of last week. At the end of the night, we’ll see just how much, if any, altitude Trump lost in the last unbelievable week — and if his closest rival Cruz is benefiting from it.

Michigan is the one state which has very recent polling that suggests Trump may be losing ground there. Some polls show Cruz and Kasich neck and neck as runners-up, others have Cruz firmly in second place. One might assume that Ben Carson’s former votes would accrue to Ted Cruz, being that they both tended to attract the more traditional evangelical/conservative movement types. But with Rubio sinking like a stone, Kasich may be equally benefiting if those votes are going to him. It’s always possible a few Trump voters are finally sobering up as well. In the Super Saturday states, the early voting went for Trump much more heavily than the election day votes. (It’s easy to make too much of that however, since Trump hasn’t been winning the late deciders throughout the whole race so far.)
Michigan is the big prize today, and it should be an easy win for Trump. It’s filled with what you might call “Ted Nugent Republicans” — pot smoking, gun toting white guys who don’t even pretend to be religious and couldn’t care less about what the Club for Growth thinks is important for “the economy.” They like heavy metal in both cars and music, and they do not care for sensitive new-age types or holy rollers either. If Trump loses these guys, he’s lost his base.
There was a time when Ted Cruz thought he would capture this region as part of his plan to reinvigorate the alleged “missing white voters,” who were so demoralized by all the sin and depravity of the Obama years that they had simply given up. Unfortunately for Cruz, the numbers have never really added up. Ron Brownstein did a deep dive into all the data back in 2013, and concluded that it was a monumental long-shot:
For Republicans to increase the white share of the electorate in 2016 or beyond would require them to reverse the virtually uninterrupted trajectory of the past three decades. According the NJ exit poll analysis, the white share of the total vote has declined in every election since 1980, except in 1992 when it ticked up to 88 percent (from 85 percent in 1988) amid the interest in Perot’s quirky third-party bid. Otherwise, this decline has persisted through the years of both high and low overall turnout. Even in 2004 when George W. Bush’s state of the art micro-targeting and turnout operation allowed Republicans to equal Democrats as a share of the total vote for the only time in the history of polling, whites’ share dripped 4 percentage points from 2000.
This questionable theory is actually just another version of the old right-wing belief that Republicans only lose because they weren’t conservative enough. If only the candidates would stay true to the cause and eschew all attempts to broaden the appeal of the party people would vote for them in massive numbers. The problem here is that for every conservative Republican you might turn out with an extreme right-wing agenda, you also turn out at least one liberal Democrat who will be equally motivated to stop it. This leaves people who think of themselves as moderates (there are a lot of them) to swing one way or the other. What are the chances that Ted Cruz will appeal to any of those people? His own party can barely tolerate his presence.
Cruz’s strategy hinged upon the dubious assumption that he could uniquely appeal to movement conservatives, evangelicals, libertarians and blue collar workers. Having proved he could bag the Southern evangelicals, Michigan was to be one of the hunting grounds Cruz thought would bring out those missing voters — the upper midwest being he epicenter of the blue collar “Reagan Democrats,” who left their party in rebellion over its wanton ways some 35 years ago. (They have actually been called “Republicans” for a very long time now, so it’s a mystery why Cruz and others persist in thinking of them as something distinct from the blue collar white people who always vote for the party.) This would be the first big test of whether he can broaden his appeal beyond the movement conservative evangelical center of the party.
Unfortunately, Donald Trump shot holes all through his strategy by bringing in (white, of course) Southern voters from all classes and age groups with his incoherent authoritarian nationalism and an appeal to a fair chunk of the “prosperity theology” evangelical voters whom Cruz assumed were a lock for his campaign. So far it looks as though many of those missing white voters were looking for a man on a white horse, not a movement foot soldier.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has been pushing the “contested convention” theory to stop Trump, but this would also have the effect of stopping Cruz. If the establishment could stand the guy, they’d clearly tell Rubio and Kasich to drop out and get behind him. But they’re not, and it’s because they know he is a very weak general election candidate. At this point, at least half of the people in the GOP find him to be thoroughly repellent. The idea that he could win the general election is so farfetched that the fear is that it could completely destroy them down-ticket if he were the nominee.
Of course, Trump could do the same, which explains why party pooh-bahs are trying to manipulate the system they created to install someone other than what appears to be the first and second choices of Republican voters as the presidential nominee. They have a major problem on their hands, after all. But it’s very unlikely that their restive rank-and-file will go along with this plan to save the party from its own voters.
Last night on CNN, Republican strategist Anna Navarro put it this way:
A brokered convention would be the equivalent of the political “Hunger Games”. And I am not exaggerating. Take a look at what’s going on at Donald Trump events. Take a look at what happens to protesters. They get basically assaulted. If you think people aren’t going to get clubbed like baby seals on the floor of the convention you haven’t been watching what’s been happening.
As Michelle Goldberg noted in Slate, the conservatives at the CPAC convention last weekend were not suffering the same level of angst as the political establishment about either of the top two candidates. Cruz was the big winner there and many people surmised that Trump backed out at the last minute because there were people talking about staging a walk-out and he was sure to be booed. Still, Goldberg found that most people would vote for Trump if he won the nomination and that rank-and-file Republicans are not as panicked as we might think.
She wrote:
Kellyanne Conway, the conservative pollster and president of a pro-Cruz super PAC, told me that Trump is the second choice of most Cruz voters. “The one-two punch of Trump and Cruz has shown that this is a conservative populist party,” she told me.
Of Mitt Romney’s warning about the dangers of Trumpism, Conway says, “If Gov. Romney really thought his message was going to be so resonant among the conservative faithful, he would have delivered it here at CPAC. But then he would have risked being booed. And he would have risked running into a movement that’s fairly unified in its thirst to beat Hillary Clinton in the fall.” In other words, despite the protestations of aghast intellectuals and religious purists, conservatives will eventually fall in line behind Trump if that’s what it takes to win.
Grover Norquist agreed, telling Goldberg that he was perfectly happy with any of the last four standing, and believed there wasn’t much a difference between them. Like all the rest, he reserved his scorn for the “establishment.”
(It’s amazing how all these people who’ve been hobnobbing in the highest circles of GOP power for decades all consider themselves to be anti-establishment. One wonders if Donald Trump and Ted Cruz see it that way.)
Republican voters are justifiably angry that their top two choices for the presidential race are seen as unacceptable by the powerful members of the party. And the powerful members of the party are justifiably concerned that their members are about to choose one of two extremists who are likely to lose in a landslide in the fall and possibly take the Senate with them. It’s a problem.
Tonight we’ll see if Ted Cruz is going to be able to transcend the conservative movement that spawned him and to which he shown tremendous loyalty. And we’ll get a sense if the hot air really is coming out of the Trump balloon or if he just had a bad few days in some caucuses where his lack of organization makes a bigger difference. But either way, this race is now between Trump and Cruz and any ideas these GOP establishment types have about usurping the will of their voters is likely to be met with fierce resistance.
In the end, it’s very doubtful that will come to pass. They’ll accommodate themselves to whomever wins. And then they’ll accommodate themselves to a probable loss in the general election. For all their handwringing and chest beating, they really don’t have any choice.

QOTD: Trump’s voters

QOTD: Trump’s voters

by digby

CNN interviews about protesters:

Q: What do you think of that, that they want to get those people out of here? 

Woman one: I loved his comment on punchin’ back in old days, when you could fight and punch ’em right in the nose and they’d be carried out on a stretcher…fine wi’ me.  

Trump (on video): Bye bye … I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you that. If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of him will you?  

Woman two: He’s a leader. He can do what he wants.

Woman three: He can do anything he wants to! He’s our future president!

I wonder what they like about him?

Get ’em outta here! @BloggersRUs

Get ’em outta here!
by Tom Sullivan


Average female and male face (University Regensburg, Germany)

Both by accident and by design, we have spent the last thirty to forty years creating through taxes, trade and deregulation a world system where you serve the economy instead of the economy serving you. What’s so hard about saying so? Over, and over and over. If that’s not the “one-world government” of conspiracy theorist nightmares, I don’t know what is.

People are angry about it, for sure. Some are backing Donald Trump for president. Others are backing Bernie Sanders. But being animals, we are wired to identify enemies with faces. Systems have none, or we could punch them in their noses. Unless you are Orwell, systems are harder to tag as bad guys. So when things go wrong, we look instead for scapegoats, people to blame, people with faces. That is why Donald Trump gets more mileage with disaffected voters from blaming Mexicans, Chinese and Muslims than Bernie Sanders does from blaming Wall Street, big banks, or economic inequality. No noses.

Lefties think voters will be impressed by what they know, with their command of theory and facts. Trump doesn’t bother. The alpha dog just wants to show who’s boss. “Get ’em outta here!” Trump, like a corporation, is a base creature of appetite and instinct.

It was interesting to see Louis C.K. remind voters of that. “He is not one of you. He is one of him.” The comedian continues:

Trump is a messed up guy with a hole in his heart that he tries to fill with money and attention. He can never ever have enough of either and he’ll never stop trying. 

I don’t know whether to feel sorrier for Trump or for the fans who keep feeding him, hoping to get something they want in return. Good luck with that.

They’re good with either of their barmy extremists

They’re good with either of their barmy extremists

by digby

This tracks with my instinct about the GOP base but it’s interesting to see some back up.  Michelle Goldberg went to CPAC and came away with the clear impression that despite the fact that Trump isn’t the number one choice of conservatives he’s not a deal breaker:

 [A]fter spending three days talking to many conservatives at CPAC, I’ve concluded that the opposition to Trump is not nearly as staunch as we might expect. Most of the Trump opponents I spoke to didn’t see him as a paradigm-shattering threat to the Republic. They simply saw him as their less-preferred presidential candidate. That’s why it’s a mistake to view the GOP as entirely polarized between the Trump and not-Trump wings. Kellyanne Conway, the conservative pollster and president of a pro-Cruz super PAC, told me that Trump is the second choice of most Cruz voters. “The one-two punch of Trump and Cruz has shown that this is a conservative populist party,” she told me. 

Of Mitt Romney’s warning about the dangers of Trumpism, Conway says, “If Gov. Romney really thought his message was going to be so resonant among the conservative faithful, he would have delivered it here at CPAC. But then he would have risked being booed. And he would have risked running into a movement that’s fairly unified in its thirst to beat Hillary Clinton in the fall.” In other words, despite the protestations of aghast intellectuals and religious purists, conservatives will eventually fall in line behind Trump if that’s what it takes to win. 

I thought Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform and a central figure in right-wing organizing, might express qualms about Trump. After all, Norquist is an advocate of immigration reform; his wife is a Palestinian Muslim, and he is loathed by Islamophobes for his efforts to bring Muslims into the Republican Party. In the course of a 45-mintue conversation, however, he was far more disdainful of the anti-Trump forces on the right than of Trump himself. 

At CPAC, the real anger was reserved for Republican elites who might try to manipulate a brokered convention.

I would take issue with the definition of the party as “conservative populist” which makes no sense and just call it “right wing extremist”. The authoritarian white nationalists, the theocrats and the low tax/regulation plutocrats have been living together quite happily for many years now. If they want to stay together they just have to stop pretending to be mainstream and be what they are: an extremist fringe party. (Of course, that’s exactly what is fueling their anger — seems they don’t like not being in charge of everything. Imagine that.)

I suspect Goldberg is right. They’ll hold their noses and vote for Trump and so will the establishment. And they’ll all do the same for Cruz if he’s the one who prevails. The smart ones know, however,  that either one will be a disaster for the party. The country may be open to conservatism in certain ways but the ugly extremism represented by either of the two leading candidates is outside the realm of mainstream thinking in America.

And if the truth were known, the smart ones don’t want either of them to win even if they could since they are both espousing crackpot fringe ideas that will destroy the country.

Don ‘t forget just how looney tunes Cruz has always been:

When Ted Cruz came to the Senate in 2013, after winning a squeaker of a Senate race the previous November, he didn’t waste any time in bringing himself to national attention. It wasn’t his style to use his freshman term to keep his head down and learn the ropes.  Just seven weeks after being sworn in, Cruz made a name for himself by accusing fellow Republican Chuck Hagel of taking money from communist North Korea during his confirmation hearings for Secretary of Defense. This accusation startled virtually everyone and earned Cruz a rebuke from committee chairman John McCain. Senator Barbara Boxer drew an apt analogy when she said she was reminded of “a different time and place, when you said, ‘I have here in my pocket a speech you made on such-and-such a date,’ and of course there was nothing in the pocket.” She was alluding, of course to the notorious Senator Joseph McCarthy.

As Jane Mayer reported in the New Yorker at the time, this was not hyperbole. She had personally heard Cruz claim that the Harvard School of Law had harbored a dozen communists on the faculty when he was a student there:

Cruz made the accusation while speaking to a rapt ballroom audience during a luncheon at a conference called “Defending the American Dream,” sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, a non-profit political organization founded and funded in part by the billionaire industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch. Cruz greeted the audience jovially, but soon launched an impassioned attack on President Obama, whom he described as “the most radical” President “ever to occupy the Oval Office.” (I was covering the conference and kept the notes.) 

He then went on to assert that Obama, who attended Harvard Law School four years ahead of him, “would have made a perfect president of Harvard Law School.” The reason, said Cruz, was that, “There were fewer declared Republicans in the faculty when we were there than Communists! There was one Republican. But there were twelve who would say they were Marxists who believed in the Communists overthrowing the United States government.”

Within seven weeks of becoming Senator, Cruz was a national figure who was being compared to one of the most reviled figures in American politics.

The more establishment figures like McCain and Brooks loathed him, the more the right wing of the party loved him. He became a backroom advisor to the “Freedom Caucus” in the House and he led the charge to shut down the government in 2013. Many on the right attribute their victory in 2014 to his strategic leadership.

Is he a lesser threat than Trump?

In your guts, you know they’re both nuts.

.

The cost of creating Bizarroworld

The cost of creating Bizarroworld

by digby

Josh Barro has an original and insightful take on how Trump was able to rise unimpeded despite his very obvious flaws. He says it’s because the GOP has abandoned all mechanisms for weeding out charlatans and con artists and has created a world in which there are no institutions that can credibly hold anyone to account:

If you want to understand how Trump invaded your party, think first about what Ben Carson’s campaign, and other campaigns like it, say about your party. 

It has become routine for people who obviously never ought to be president, like Herman Cain, to enjoy success in the Republican primary polls for a time and conservative fame — and speaking fees and book sales — thereafter. Sarah Palin has made a similar career without ever technically running for president, raising funds instead for a political action committee that mostly spends money on consultants, giving very little to actual Republican campaigns.
[…]
[W]hat does it say about the Republican Party that its voters spent even a week or two seriously contemplating giving the presidency to Herman Cain? Republican insiders should have realized the appeal of scam campaigns was a symptom of a problem with the way Republican voters evaluate candidates — and that eventually, someone smarter than Herman Cain would come along and figure out how to run the scam long enough to win the nomination. 

t’s not normal for a political party to rent frontrunner status to cranks and charlatans for weeks at a time. Disastrous candidates are supposed to be blocked by validating institutions. Policy experts explain that their proposals do not add up. The media covers embarrassing incidents from their past and present. Party leaders warn that they will be embarrassing or incompetent or unelectable. 

The problem is that Republicans have purposefully torn down the validating institutions. They have convinced voters that the media cannot be trusted; they have gotten them used to ignoring inconvenient facts about policy; and they have abolished standards of discourse by allowing all complaints about offensiveness to be lumped into a box called “political correctness” and ignored. 

Republicans waged war on these institutions for a reason. Facts about policy can be inconvenient — a reality-based approach would find, for example, that tax cuts increase the deficit and carbon emissions cause climate change. Acknowledging the validity of complaints about racism could require some awkward conversations with racist and quasi-racist voters in the Republican coalition. 

Of course, we’re now seeing the unintended consequence of the destruction of those institutions and the boundaries they impose around candidate acceptability: In doing so, Republicans created a hole that Donald Trump could fly his 757 through.

Even the alternate universe of Fox News is having trouble holding on to its faux credibility. They’ve created an electorate that believes nothing that conflicts with their own impressions of reality. These voters are now operating on pure instinct. It’s no wonder that a rich celebrity like Trump could come along with a strongman attitude and bowl them over.

I think a lot of the architects of the conservative movement and the GOP cynics who signed on for the votes thought they were actually training these folks to blindly follow the propaganda program they laid out all those years ago. (Read the post below with the Tea Partyer blathering on about the constitution.) But Trump shows that many of them were just tribally affiliated, not actual true believers.

Barro is right that the jokers running their scams, whether briefly or for longer periods, were a canary in the coal mine that something was working on a whole different level than ordinary politics. It’s not normal for someone like Ben Carson to ever be a frontrunner or to collect 60 million dollars in donations. It’s sign of something gone haywire.

.

“He doesn’t like us”

“He doesn’t like us”

by digby

The Donald may be sweeping up the all the xenophobes in the land but there’s a backlash brewing:

Donald J. Trump’s harsh campaign rhetoric against Mexican immigrants has helped him win a substantial delegate lead in the Republican primary, but it is also mobilizing a different set of likely voters — six of them alone in the family of Hortensia Villegas.

A legal immigrant from Mexico, Ms. Villegas is a mother of two who has been living in the United States for nearly a decade but never felt compelled to become a citizen. But as Mr. Trump has surged toward the Republican nomination, Ms. Villegas — along with her sister, her parents and her husband’s parents — has joined a rush by many Latino immigrants to naturalize in time to vote in November.

“I want to vote so Donald Trump won’t win,” said Ms. Villegas, 32, one of several hundred legal residents, mostly Mexicans, who crowded one recent Saturday into a Denver union hall. Volunteers helped them fill out applications for citizenship, which this year are taking about five months for federal officials to approve. “He doesn’t like us,” she said.

I tried to warn them. All they had to do was look at California to see that this effect would happen. Backlashes aren’t only for white people.

As Lindsey Graham put it (as only he can)

“We’re doubling down on the problem we have with Hispanics. We went from self-deportation to forced deportation. Have you ever heard the statement too big to fail? We’re too stubborn to win. So here’s what I’m going to say in November when we lose: I told you so…please quite beating up on the Hispanic community, please quit saying that most illegal immigrants are rapists and drug dealers because they’re not.

We are losing because we are in a demographic death spiral with Hispanics and young voters.”

.