Month: May 2016

Trumpie the clown

by digby

This is a very nice piece of Trump analysis by Lance Mannion.  An excerpt:

Trump is a clown by design and with purpose. He clowns to show he’s in on the joke and to make a joke of the whole process. He clowns to bait his opponents into making fools of themselves in response. He clowns to distract the media from what he’s really up to, knowing they’ll report on the success of the act and not what he’s actually saying. He clowns to show he’s not taking himself or the election or politics seriously, which is, of course, just what the media want to hear because it’s what they believe, that it’s not a serious business, that nothing important’s at stake, that all politicians who aren’t knaves are fools and most of them are both so there’s no need to waste time on the work necessary to understand policy, they can sit back and enjoy writing about how they’re enjoying the show.  He clowns to let his fans know that none of it matters, that it’s all fun and games, that he’s letting them in on the joke, that they’re right to be cynical and distrusting of the supposedly smart and successful people who run the show and make them feel like fools and suckers in the process, that’s he’s making those supposedly smart and successful people look like the real fools and suckers.

He clowns because he’s good at it and it works.

The history of American politics is rife with examples of successful politicians who clowned their way into and through office. Huey Long being a prime example. Prohibition-era Chicago mayor Big Bill Thompson being another. Thompson, about as corrupt as a corrupt pol can be, once staged a “debate” with a pair of caged rats he named after two of his political rivals. Even some good guys have been clowns or had a touch of the clown about them. Fiorello LaGuardia, for example. For that matter, FDR wasn’t above a bit of clowning when the mischief got in him and he felt the situation called for it. Bill Clinton could do it too. Politics is a performance art. Good leaders have to entertain and amuse as well as engage and inspire. Trump entertains and amuses as a means of engaging and inspiring by clowning. Of course, what he inspires is anger, resentment, envy, and hate. But that doesn’t change the fact that his clowning has been a key to his success.

His weakness isn’t that he’s a clown.

His weakness is he’s a self-infatuated clown.

He loves his own act. He can’t get enough of himself.  And he loves that other people love the act too. He loves the laughter and applause because they confirm him in his own high self-regard. So he can’t resist playing to his audience, repeating the same jokes and patter over and over in order to elicit the same laughter and applause. The only way he can bring himself to vary the act is by trying to top himself. He has to take things further and farther, piling up the laughs, getting the crowd roaring, bringing down the house.  But in the end all he’s doing is repeating the same tried and true shtick to an audience who’s already proved they can’t get enough of the same old same old.. And he’s happy with that. He’s glad to stop there. He doesn’t take the risks necessary to winning over new fans. All he dares do is try to make his current fans laugh longer and clap louder.

This means he’s limiting his appeal to people who are already committed to voting for him and to other Republicans who are coming around because, after all, that’s all he is in political reality—just another Republican.

Many people getting a kick out of how Elizabeth Warren’s been needling him on Twitter think she’s doing a good job of getting under his skin. I’m not so sure. And I’m not sure getting under his skin is the object. From what I’ve seen of their exchanges, I think what she’s been doing is goading him into repeating himself. He thinks he’s getting the better of her. His fans agree. They’re laughing and clapping and cheering and crying for more. And he’s giving it to them. He can’t help himself.

This means he can’t make the presidential pivot.

I agree about Warren. She’s drawing fire. And other Democrats are starting to do the same thing.  It’s risky but it just might work.

And I also agree that Trump cannot make the presidential pivot.The question is whether it really matters. Lance makes some excellent points about how the media prism affects this and I think he’s right.

And he notes that voters, being human beings, will retreat to their partisan corners and the Republicans will learn to love the clown. They already are, as I noted in my piece below. If that’s true it means he can win. And even if he doesn’t it means that the Republican Party will never be the same. Trump is them and they are Trump — clowns, lacking in all integrity, not to be take seriously on any ideological basis. And whether he wins or not we know for sure that they are willing to endorse open bigotry, torture, summary execution, mass deportation, banning religion, surveillance of minorities, greater police power and an unleashing of the military with no restraint whenever the nation is “disrespected.”

This is good to know.

Be sure to read Lance’s whole piece.  Excellent as usual.
.

He may be a loathsome cretin but he’s their loathsome cretin

by digby

This is an actual meme going around in wingnut circles

Do you have any Trump voting friends? They know what he is. And apparently they don’t care. What does that say about them?

Most of these hard fought elections really do come down to tribalism. I had a relative tell me once that asking her to vote for a Democrat would be like rubbing the cat’s fur backwards. And I get that. It’s uncomfortable to even consider voting for a member of the other team.

But this is Trump. He’s not normal. There’s never been anyone like him and he’s simply unfit for the presidency in every way and most of them know it.  As a citizen you have a responsibility to look beyond this tribalism when Hitler’s on the ballot and recognize that something more important is at stake. And these Republican voters aren’t doing it. It’s telling.

.

This might actually be fun
by Tom Sullivan

“Donald Trump cares about exactly one thing: Donald Trump,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren said, opening up with both barrels in a speech on Tuesday:

“Donald Trump was drooling over the idea of a housing meltdown because it meant he could buy up a bunch more property on the cheap,” Warren said at a Washington, D.C. gala for the Center for Popular Democracy Tuesday night.

“What kind of a man does that?” an incredulous Warren asked. “Root for people to get thrown out on the street? Root for people to lose their jobs? Root for people to lose their pensions? Root for two little girls in Clark County, Nevada, to end up living in a van?”

“What kind of a man does that?”

“I’ll tell you exactly what kind,” Warren continued. “A man who cares about no one but himself. A small, insecure money-grubber who doesn’t care who gets hurt, so long as he makes some money off it. What kind of man does that? A man who will never be president of the United States.”

After taking Trump to the woodshed for being who he is, Warren took him to task for what he doesn’t do: pay taxes. Trump last revealed his taxes in 1981. He told George Stephanopolis:

I try very hard to pay as little tax as possible and have said that for the last two years. I fight very hard because this country wastes our money. They take our tax money and throw it down the drain…. So I fight very hard to pay as little tax as possible.

Trump has yet to release his taxes this year, the first presidential candidate in 40 years not to, Warren said. As the Washington Post, reported:

The last time information from Donald Trump’s income-tax returns was made public, the bottom line was striking: He had paid the federal government $0 in income taxes.

Warren continued,

But we know one thing: the last time his taxes were made public, Donald Trump paid nothing. Zero. Zero taxes before, and for all we know, he’s paying zero taxes today. And he’s proud of it. Two weeks ago he said he’s more than happy to dodge taxes….

Like so many other Republican politicians, this man who fights hard not to support this country wants Americans to put him in charge of governing it. Chutzpah is too small a word to describe this Man without a Conscience.

Trump’s GOP

by digby

No need for civility anywhere:

As a junior ranking senator, [Arkansas senator Tom] Cotton spends lots of his time presiding over the Senate. And, as a result, a lot of time listening to Reid. And on Wednesday, Cotton had enough of it, leaping to the defense of Sen. John McCain after Reid bashed the GOP for rushing through a massive defense bill.

“I’m forced to listen to the bitter, vulgar, incoherent ramblings of the minority leader. Normally like other Americans I ignore them, I can’t ignore them today,” Cotton said of Reid’s complaints. “When was the last time the minority leader read a bill? It was probably an electricity bill.”

Then responding to Reid’s protestations over the Senate GOP’s schedule, which appears headed toward working the least days in session in 60 years, Cotton said there is a silver lining.

“Whatever you think about that, the happy by-product of fewer days in session in the Senate is that this institution will be cursed less with his cancerous leadership,” Cotton said.

Reid then came on the floor, mostly to engage with McCain on a back-and-forth over the proper procedure of handling the big defense policy bill. But he did fire a shot at Cotton, the youngest senator who has served for a year and a half in the chamber.

“I think it would distract from what we’re doing here today to go into the statements by the very junior senator from Arkansas,” Reid said.

There is obviously no love lost between these two.

I still think Tom Cotton looks eerily like this guy:

Picture removed. My apologies for using it.

Read on, there’s lots more. Starr is one of America’s most notorious villains whose name should forever be synonymous with out-of-control political witch hunts right up there with Joseph McCarthy.

.

Portland Police Chief Shoots Friend In Back, Calls It ‘Self Inflicted.’ Is Placed On Leave


by Spocko

On a hunting trip April 21, Portland Police Chief Larry O’Dea shot his friend in the back, then suggested that the wounded man accidentally shot himself.
Portland police chief misled investigator about hunting accident, sheriff says

Larry O’Dea, pictured at the Police Bureau  in October when Mayor Charlie Hales announced he had selected O’Dea to succeed retiring  Chief Mike Reese. Beth Nakamura/The Oregonian

Portland Police Chief Larry O’Dea On Leave Amid Probe He Covered Up Shooting NBC News May 25 2016, 10:15 AM ET

Wow. That’s some serious hubris. O’Dea thought that the police would back him up when he said the gun shot wound in the guy’s back was “self inflicted.” Who did he think he was, Dick Cheney?

Too bad O’Dea didn’t have a friend like Harry Whittington. After Cheney shot him in the face Whittington apologized. I still remember thinking what an amazing display of power that was.

“My family and I are deeply sorry for all that Vice President Cheney and his family have had to go through this past week. We send our love and respect to them as they deal with situations that are much more serious than we have had to deal with this week.

We hope that he will continue to come to Texas and seek the relaxation that he deserves.”

   — Whittington apologizing for getting in the way of Cheney’s        shotgun pellets. YouTube 

Not everyone can get away with this level of blame acceptance. At least Whittington had knowingly put himself in that situation, but what of tens of thousands of people who were injured by gun accidents who don’t?

What if they were just minding their business in a store when an incompetent guy with a gun accidently shot them?

When there is a gun accident the gun lovers want people to say,

I mean nobody would let incompetent people with guns into their business, unless they trusted them, or the state certified their worthiness to carry a gun, right? He didn’t intend to shoot anyone, so he’s not a bad guy. I guess there is no one to blame for an honest gun accident.”

This is the logic customers are using now if they go into stores that allow guns. This is illogical and dangerous.

The first mistake people make is believing the gun lovers when they lie about how much safer people are with guns as “protection.”

You know what will protect you from a gun shot? A bullet proof vest, a ballistic helmet and body armor. The guns everywhere crowd want the gun for its retaliatory features.  You don’t hear guys bragging about their COOLMAX® Bullet & Stab Proof Vest.

At $210 you could buy two for the price of one Glock.

When long time professionals trained in guns and gun safety have accidents, what does that mean for the people who aren’t trained? This week West Virginia removed any requirements for people carrying concealed weapons to get a permit or training. I’m sure that they will take this responsibility seriously…yeah right.

When people without training have an “accident” that is really negligence, that incident needs to be pushed in the faces of the people who got rid of training and certification. Each toddler death, each dropped gun in a store needs to be tweeted at the legislators. 

Some of the, “I gotta have my gun with me everywhere” people are going to screw up. If we are lucky they will only hurt themselves, but we aren’t always lucky. So far this year 951 haven’t been. 

I wouldn’t choose to go hunting with these people, so I sure as hell wouldn’t choose to go shopping with them. It’s not the “bad guys with guns” I’m afraid of, it’s the incompetent guys with a guns.

No businesses should take their word for their competence either. Hell, the one thing these businesses could point to was the line, “Well, they had a permit.” They were hoping that it meant some level of competence. Now even that is gone.

Why should I trust untrained, uncertified people roaming the aisles with deadly weapons?

We get understandably pissed off over mass shootings. They make the national news. We should also get pissed off over multiple gun accidents every single day.

I see 3-5 every day and those are just the ones that make the news. Link to Gun Violence Archive West Virginia incidents the last two years.

 I’m tired of people, especially police, making excuses for negligent behavior when it comes to storing, handling and transporting weapons. Maybe they are thinking “There but for the grace of God go I.” since they know more stories like Chief O’Dea’s.

 No, police chief Tyler Brewer, it’s not a “knucklehead situation” when a 37 year old man playing with the gun in his sock shoots someone during graduation ceremonies at Augusta High School in Kansas. (BTW, Kansas is another state where no concealed carry permit is required.)



If states are changing laws to make what was illegal, legal so there is no criminal case following someone’s gun negligence, then we need to make it a civil case.

Of course the NRA is already preparing for this. They just convinced the Tennessee legislation to make the public universities immune from any liability now that teachers can carry guns on campus. And they didn’t require the teachers to have any training or extra insurance. The Tennessee NRA people aren’t stupid, but the legislators who believed there wouldn’t be any problem with guns on campus are.

What is also astonishing to me is that these “no permit, no training” changes were passed against the wishes of the majority of the people in the state.

More guns in the hands of more people with no training and no certification is a bad idea. 

Laws can be changed that make negligence an “accident” so no criminal charges are filed. But criminal law isn’t the only area to look at. When all those untrained, unlicensed “responsible” gun owners screw up it’s time to make them pay up.

 Maybe start with the Oregon police chief. Do you know how much the helicopter ride from the remote town of Fields, Oregon to Boise Idaho’s hospital to help his injured buddy was? Between $35,000 and $55,000. Do you think that is going to come out of his $153,605 yearly salary?

About the hair

by digby

Normally I wouldn’t stoop to writing about someone’s hair, but in the case of Donald Trump it seems worth doing simply because he’s so cruel about everyone else’s looks and thinks he’s some kind of adonis.  This piece of investigative journalism about Trump’s weave is very impressive. In fact, if I had to guess, the man who appears to keep it up for him — a con artist — may very well be the “Muslim friend” he’s always talking about who allegedly tells him how right-on all his Muslim bashing is.

Anyway, it will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about Trump’s weird hair but there is some relevance to bringing it up in that one of the most disturbing, violent stories about Trump came out during his divorce from his first wife Ivana. And it had to do with his hair:

After a painful scalp reduction surgery to remove a bald spot, Donald Trump confronted his then-wife, who had previously used the same plastic surgeon.

“Your fucking doctor has ruined me!” Trump cried.

What followed was a “violent assault,” according to Lost Tycoon. Donald held back Ivana’s arms and began to pull out fistfuls of hair from her scalp, as if to mirror the pain he felt from his own operation. He tore off her clothes and unzipped his pants.

“Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months. Ivana is terrified… It is a violent assault,” Hurt writes. “According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, ‘he raped me.’”

Following the incident, Ivana ran upstairs, hid behind a locked door, and remained there “crying for the rest of night.” When she returned to the master bedroom in the morning, he was there. 

“As she looks in horror at the ripped-out hair scattered all over the bed, he glares at her and asks with menacing casualness: ‘Does it hurt?’” Hurt writes.

Donald Trump has previously denied the allegation. In the book, he denies having had the scalp reduction surgery.

“It’s obviously false,” Donald Trump said of the accusation in 1993, according to Newsday. “It’s incorrect and done by a guy without much talent… He is a guy that is an unattractive guy who is a vindictive and jealous person.”

She later said it was just a marital spat and that she never really considered it to be rape, but she never said the incident didn’t happen or that Trump wasn’t enraged over his baldness.

The man has so many issues it’s hard to keep track of them.

Also, this:

She needs to answer for his pants

by digby

John Amato helpfully caught this doozy from yesterday:

Most of the media hasn’t indulged Donald Trump’s use of Bill Clinton’s behavior, but it only takes one, and yesterday on MTP Daily, Chuck Todd took the bait when he asked HRC’s spokesman Brian Fallon this lame question:

“Do you feel as if Hillary Clinton needs to respond to at least explain why she forgave her husband?”

Like me, many people were dumbfounded by this question, because it validates Trump’s use of lies, nonsense and conspiracy theories, in his attempt to discredit his opponents.

Fallon’s response was correct, but Todd didn’t let go of Trump’s line of questioning.

“Chuck, I think that the country remembers these issues from two decades ago. They recognize these issues as having been litigated and fully aired then.”

TODD: So, she doesn’t believe (INAUDIBLE)…

FALLON: … She’s written two autobiographies in the years since then. She’s given numerous sit-down interviews where she’s talked about that, dating back to 2003. She was asked about it by — in 2000 Senate debates. She’s answered that question multi…

TODD: … Do you feel as if she owes no more explanation, period?

FALLON: Again, I don’t think that the public is clamoring for this issue to be re-litigated, that’s why I think it’s a failed strategy on Donald Trump’s part.

But as you can see from Chuck’s insistence, Cokie’s Law had been activated by the Meet The Press host, and Trump has been rewarded for his despicable behavior.

I saw that exchange yesterday and tweeted it. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.

But it’s par for the course. Clinton has been asked to answer for her husband’s personal behavior for years, as if it says something about her.

I’m sure they’ll keep asking though. They can’t quit the sex stuff. It hasn’t benefited Republicans in the past but who knows, maybe voters today will be shocked by Bill Clinton’s sex life — and will be moved to vote for the pious, morally upright Donald Trump instead.

.

Trump’s intimidation strategy

by digby

I wrote about why he’s partying like it’s 1999 right now for Salon this morning:

Throughout the GOP primary people have been shocked at the cretinous behavior of Donald Trump. From the very beginning when he claimed Mexico was sending rapists over the border to saying Megyn Kelly was bleeding “from wherever” to talking about the size of his penis on national television to calling Ted Cruz a pussy and accusing his father of being in on the JFK assassination it’s been clear that he has no limits. And yet, for some reason, the media is shocked each time he proves it again.  This week was no exception. Yesterday all anyone could talk about was the audacity of his latest atrocious comments to the Washington Post’s Robert Costa:

One issue on Trump’s radar is the 1993 death of [former Clinton administration official Vince] Foster, which has been ruled a suicide by law enforcement officials and a subsequent federal investigation. But some voices on the far right have long argued that the Clintons may have been involved in a conspiracy that led to Foster’s death.

When asked in an interview last week about the Foster case, Trump dealt with it as he has with many edgy topics — raising doubts about the official version of events even as he says he does not plan to talk about it on the campaign trail.He called theories of possible foul play “very serious” and the circumstances of Foster’s death “very fishy.”

“He had intimate knowledge of what was going on,” Trump said, speaking of Foster’s relationship with the Clintons at the time. “He knew everything that was going on, and then all of a sudden he committed suicide.” He added, “I don’t bring [Foster’s death] up because I don’t know enough to really discuss it. I will say there are people who continue to bring it up because they think it was absolutely a murder. I don’t do that because I don’t think it’s fair.”

He doesn’t think it’s fair. And he’s only repeating that he’s heard the former president and his wife, the probable presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, are murderers. He’s just sayin’.

For the record, this case was investigated by the police, several congressional committees one of which famously staged a shooting of a watermelon in the backyard of the committee chairman as some sort of homemade forensic experiment. It was investigated by two independent prosecutors with unlimited funds and mandates and they were all forced to admit the obvious — that Vince Foster had committed suicide. And he committed suicide because he was depressed about being hounded night and day by the Republicans who acted like rabid dogs from the moment Clinton was inaugurated. The endless disgusting airing of the issue was extremely painful for the Foster family as one might imagine.

None of that ever quelled the gossip in the dank waters of the fetid right wing fever swamps where it mixed with a toxic brew of purported drug running, numerous murders and assasinations, sexual perversity, love children and anything else that emerged from the gothic imaginations of small town Arkansas and found its way to the nation’s gullible press corps.  Many rightwingers still believe it was all true, every last bit of it and they’re never going to admit otherwise. To the media it was a tabloid bonanza and ratings gold — just like Donald Trump.

It’s been clear that Trump was going to dredge up all this stuff for months so nobody should have been surprised. His close associate, the professional character assassin Roger Stone has said so openly, frequently appearing on Alex Jones’s conspiracy program announcing that Trump himself was paying some of the women from the old days to hit the circuit once again and tell the stories that have also been thoroughly investigated and ultimately discredited. And he’s written a fictional scandal primer, especially for the campaign, called “The Clintons’ War on Women” which is serving as Trump’s main source of dirt and slime.

But it’s fair to ask why he would decide so early in the general election campaign to lob something as incendiary as a murder charge. One might have assumed that he would start more slowly and build up to it. I think there are a couple of reasons for his doing it now. Trump is a gut player but when it comes to the tactics of mud-slinging there is good reason to believe that he thinks it through.

Right now his most important task is to consolidate the Republicans, and in particular bring the conservative movement types into his camp. The polls show that the voters are falling in line but he needs talk radio and Fox and the movement groups like the Tea Party to be enthusiastic and the best way to do that is to viciously attack their common enemy. He’s also now in the fundraising business and he has a good feel for what will work to get the folks all riled up. They love the Mexican and Muslim hate, but there’s nothing like a good old fashioned Clinton bashing to get their blood up.

Needless to say, this is also an effort to nullify his own myriad weaknesses.  He likes to say that he’s a counter-puncher but it’s not precisely correct.  He hits his rival not only when they take a shot at him but when the press takes a shot at him. It’s his way of deflecting the attention away from his vulnerabilities to what he sees as his strength — his willingness to bludgeon his enemies.

But these are not the main reason he’s hitting now and hitting hard with on of the ugliest accusations from back in the day. It’s about intimidation. And we know this because the has telegraphed his intentions for some time, going all the way back to December when he tweeted at Clinton to “BE CAREFUL” and shortly thereafter went after Bill Clinton for being an “abuser” and Hillary Clinton for being an “enabler”.  He has bragged on the stump ever since that this one-two punch “gave them a very bad week-end” and seems to think it scared Bill Clinton off the campaign trail.

Now that he’s vanquished all of his Republican rivals after having used similarly degrading comments, he is convinced that this is the key to his success and believes he wins through sheer dominance, looming over his rivals with his big hair and his big hands and his big brass ego. (And don’t kid yourself, that’s exactly how he plans to “make America great again” around the world as well — through belligerence and bullying.)

This is primitive stuff. And Trump isn’t the first one to use this cheap ploy. Read any Maureen Dowd column for the last 20 years to see how simple stereotypes have been used to portray Democratic men as effete and feminine leaders compared to the macho swashbucklers on the right. From poor Mike Dukakis in a tank to John Kerry’s flaccid flip-flopping to Barack “Obambi” these tired tropes have been deployed in election after election.

But doing this with an actual woman as the nominee is tricky requiring something a little bit more complicated than the typical bully behavior.  He first has to justify his attacks by portraying her as an archetypal evil woman — a conniving, manipulative harpy who stood by her husband for professional reasons but brutally punished the women he pursued. (There is zero evidence for this but it makes dramatic story.) But once he establishes that narrative he then has to subjugate her with ruthless efficiency by attacking her for her husband’s failings and rendering her mute with audaciously inappropriate gendered insults. The point is to make her look powerless and weak. He wants to attack her repeatedly and with such force that we feel ill and just want it to end.  That’s how he wins.

It’s going to be an ugly six months, uglier than anything we’ve seen in politics for a long time — perhaps ever. One cannot help but marvel that our country is about to nominate the first woman on a major party ticket in its long history and it has produced the most boorish, retrograde openly misogynist man it could find to oppose her. What does that say about our our culture and our country? Nothing very edifying that’s for sure.

Burr: Whistling past the political graveyard
by Tom Sullivan

Photo by Rachel Sian, via Creative Commons.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) told Huffington Post yesterday he has “issues” with his state’s HB2 anti-transgender law passed overnight in March:

Burr has largely avoided talking about the law. He previously said he was out of the country when it passed; stated it’s up to the courts to decide if it’s valid; suggested it doesn’t actually discriminate; and declared it a state issue.

It is certainly an issue for Charlotte. The Chamber of Commerce there is under fire from the Human Rights Campaign as an “anti-LGBT bully.” The Chamber supported a city council vote for repealing the now moot nondiscrimination ordinance that the legislature gave as the reason for passing HB2. The Chamber nonetheless issued a letter to state lawmakers asking them to allow cities to pass ordinances to protect LGBT citizens.

A report from the Chamber estimates that HB2 has so far cost Charlotte and Mecklenburg County “$285 million and a loss of as many as 1,300 jobs,” according to the Charlotte Observer:

The report also says inquiries about new economic development are down 58 percent since lawmakers passed the bill in March, and client visits down 69 percent from last year.

A new PPP poll released yesterday shows just how unpopular HB2 is inside North Carolina:

Only 35% of voters in the state support the bill, to 44% who are opposed to it. We continue to find that there are a lot more Republicans (28%) who are opposed to it than there are Democrats (16%) in support of it. 50% of voters in the state would like to see it repealed, compared to only 38% who think it should stay on the books. That includes a 46/39 spread among independents in favor of repealing it.

The reason for voters wanting HB2 repealed are pretty straightforward- they think it’s hurting the state both economically and in terms of its national reputation. Overall only 29% of voters believe HB2 is helping North Carolina, t0 56% who think it’s hurting. That includes a 29/53 spread with independents. Specifically on the issue of the economy, only 12% think it’s having a positive impact on the state to 50% who think it’s hurting. Even among Republicans 14% more think it’s negatively affecting the state’s economy than positively. And just 24% of voters think HB2 is helping the state’s national reputation, to 53% who think it’s hurting.

This may account for why Burr finally felt the need to say something mildly negative about the law:

A couple of factors may be softening Burr on the issue. One is that polls show HB 2 is increasingly unpopular in the state. A PPP poll released Tuesday found that half of North Carolina voters want the law repealed, compared with 38 percent who want to keep it. Another factor is that Burr is up for re-election, and his opponent, Democrat Deborah Ross, has been hounding him for avoiding talking about HB 2.

“When HB 2 began hurting working folks and businesses started leaving our state, he couldn’t be bothered. Now that he thinks it’s hurting his re-election chances, he’s changing his tune,” Ross spokesman Cole Leiter said in a statement. “Burr’s Washington-style politics of self-interest haven’t worked for North Carolina, and it’s time for a change. Deborah Ross has spoken out against HB 2 and told the truth about its impacts since day one.”

Deborah Ross spoke here at a couple of events over the weekend and appears to be a strong challenger. Ross pulled to within 4 points of Burr in an April PPP poll. A poll by the conservative Civitas Institute puts Ross within 1 point.

“Burr” is the sound an incumbent makes with that kind of cold wind blowing against the back of his neck. Care to make it even colder?