Skip to content

Month: August 2016

They just want him to crack some heads

They just want him to crack some heads

by digby

People have been trying to give Trump an out on his daft wall idea for months but he’s been very clear that he means to build an actual wall like the Great Wall of China. I don’t know why anyone thinks otherwise. The question is if it matters:

“And it will be a real wall. It will be a real wall. It won’t be one of these little toys that you see every once in a while, our government throws up a little wall like this.”

And this from a rally Wednesday in Tampa: “We’re going to build a wall, don’t you worry about it. We’re going to build a wall. We’re going to build the wall, and Mexico is going to pay for the wall, 100 percent. And it’s going to be a big wall. It’s going to be a real wall. It’s going to be as beautiful as a wall can be, but it’s going to be a wall.”

And in remarks from that same town hall airing Tuesday night:


HANNITY: I want to talk about — you’ve said a lot of things about immigration. Let’s start with, I guess, your signature issue on immigration, which is you’re going to build the wall. 

TRUMP: Yes, 100 percent.

HANNITY: Here’s my question — 

TRUMP: Well, you know, what has been interesting that I’ve been watching over the last week or two, and they’ve been saying, ‘Oh, well maybe he won’t build the wall, maybe he won’t’ — 

HANNITY: Jeb Bush said that. Jeb Bush said, “He’ll never build the wall.” 

TRUMP: Oh, he said that a long time ago. I think — 

(BOOS) 

TRUMP: I think people now realize we’re building the wall. It’s going to happen. It’s 100 percent simple. You know, I tell the story all the time, the Great Wall of China, 13,000 miles long. This is 1,000 miles and we have Caterpillar tractors to build, okay? 

It’s 1,000 miles — it’s 2,000, but we need 1,000. And it’s so easy to do. And it gets higher and higher and higher every time somebody says I’m not going to build it.

It’s true that some Trump surrogates have suggested that the wall might be virtual. Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) said as much in May. At the time, he also referred to the “rhetorical deportation” of every illegal immigrant. “Maybe we will be building a wall over some aspects of it. I don’t know,” Collins said.

Trump supporter and Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been calling it a “technological” wall and a “digital” wall for months.

But Trump has been steadfast on this point, giving himself no wiggle room.

What’s more, while his supporters have been somewhat understanding of his waffling on deportation, the wall might be a bridge too far.

I’ve seen a few of his supporters interviewed on the subject and they were actually kind of chuckling about the wall. I don’t get the sense they care about it that much. It’s his attitude they like. As long as he promises to unleash the cops and the border patrol to do “whatever they need to do” they don’t care about stuff like the wall or even deportation. They want somebody to crack heads, period. And that goes for Muslims and blacks too, whether here or over there. And if the Chinese need a little ass-whoopin’ they’re on board for that too — just so long as we don’t tie the military’s hands, if you know what I mean.

This isn’t about walls and doors. It’s about showing who’s boss. White America, that’s who.

.

Trump’s inevitable triumphant debate comeback

Trump’s inevitable triumphant debate comeback

by digby

“I know who I am, and it got me here,” Mr. Trump said, boasting of success in his 11 primary debate appearances and in capturing the Republican nomination over veteran politicians and polished debaters. “I don’t want to present a false front. I mean, it’s possible we’ll do a mock debate, but I don’t see a real need.”

Frankly, it wouldn’t do any good.  It’s much too late for him to actually learn what he needs to learn so why bother? And with expectations so low for him he’s likely to be seen as a winner if he simply manages to resist talking about his penis. I have every expectation that Trump will be hailed by the press as being sober and thoughtful and magically transformed on the morning after the debate.

Recall this:

Last night, the most crucial of her political career, Palin managed to come out of a rocky couple of weeks—marked by stumbling interviews with CBS’s Katie Couric—with a credible, confident, aphorism-peppered debate performance that harkened back to her bravura acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. 

You can be sure the old “over-prepared” stick will be given the debate “on points” but she will not perform up to expectations. I may just tweet the reaction in advance and take the night off.

,

After the storm: delegitimizing a Clinton win

After the storm: delegitimizing a Clinton win


by digby

I wrote about it for Salon this morning:

The latest beltway gossip (aside from Anthony Weiner’s latest sexcapade) is that Trump and his Trumpettes have shifted their focus from trying to win the presidency to making sure that a Hillary Clinton presidency is a total disaster. Politico’s Edward-Isaac Dovere reports:

The Clinton delegitimization project is now central to Donald Trump’s campaign and such a prime component of right-wing media that it’s already seeped beyond extremist chat rooms into “lock her up” chants on the convention floor, national news stories debating whether polls actually can be rigged, and voters puzzling over that photo they think they saw of her needing to be carried up the stairs.
[…]
Leading Democrats in Washington and beyond recognize Trump’s tactic because they’ve seen it before. President Barack Obama and his allies spent eight years sandbagged by the birth certificate/Bill Ayers/his-middle-name’s-Hussein attacks that all boil down to the same thinking now threatening Clinton: He’s a fake; his presidency either doesn’t count or is a Moorish-style Trojan horse.

Donald Trump certainly remembers it. He was the man who brought “birtherism” mainstream, questioning the president’s basic qualification to be president. And now, most Republicans don’t believe he was born in the US.

Democrats undoubtedly remember that even before Trump flogged that inane conspiracy theory Senator Mitch McConnell declared that the number one task before the GOP was to make Obama a one term president and Senator Jim DeMint promised that health care reform would be his “Waterloo.”  Total obstruction followed.

One would have thought that after the embarrassment of having to ask the candidate’s own brother to manipulate the voting apparatus in Florida in 2000 and then having to call upon Supreme Court Justices who were appointed by their candidate’s father to stop counting votes would have made them think twice but they were not daunted by such hypocrisy. They already knew how successful it would be because this wasn’t the first time these same Republicans had portrayed a Democratic president as illegitimate. They’d done it with Bill Clinton.

In the book, “A Complicated Man: the life of Bill Clinton by those who knew him” the subject was covered by a number of close confidantes and contemporary reporters. Journalist Michael Kinsley observed:

In 1992, there was a feeling among Republicans of Manifest Destiny, that they were supposed to rule forever. At that point they had been in power since 1980 and basically conservatism had been dominant since the 1978 congressional elections. They thought it should go on forever. That is the reason they were so resentful of Clinton. How could he have won? The only explanation is he must have done something terrible. He must have cheated because he wasn’t supposed to win.

Clinton strategist Paul Begala told the author, ‘There was an ongoing effort to delegitimize him. Some on the right refused to call him President Clinton, called him “Mr Clinton” instead.” He recalled that Congressman Dick Armey said on the floor of the House “he’s your president.”

And they used the fact that Clinton won with a plurality due to the Ross Perot candidacy as proof of his illegitimacy despite the fact that all the studies showed he took equally from both parties. On the day after the election Senator Bob Dole announced, “fifty-seven percent of the Americans who voted in the presidential elections voted against Bill Clinton and I intend to represent that majority on the floor of the US Senate.” And so began the eight years of relentless investigations, scandal mongering, obstruction and finally impeachment.

This is how they operate when Democrats hold the White House. When they have a majority they will lean on investigations and “show” votes to delegitimize the moral authority of the president and create chaos and distraction. When they are in the minority they will obstruct everything. In both cases they will  work to make the American people see a dysfunctional government that takes their money and offers precious little in return.

If the election were held today, Hillary Clinton would win with less than 50% of the vote.  It would be a perfectly legitimate win, as was her husband’s in 1992, Richard Nixon’s in 1968 and Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson and Abraham Lincoln before her. But I think you can see how that is likely to be interpreted by the Republicans. They no longer assume they are in the midst of a thousand year reign, but they have rationalized that by creating the myth of rampant African American voter fraud and hordes of undocumented immigrants voting illegally. She will not be seen as legitimate.

They were very successful at pushing their juicy narratives of corruption and personal misconduct into the mainstream 20 years ago and with the 24 hour news cycle and social media pressures, the press is even less likely to resist today. This is why you see calls for a special prosecutor and wild claims of treason and illegality. If the Republicans manage to keep control of one or more house of congress, they will have a platform from which to run their scandal circus and their own media will prime the MSM pump.

It’s already happening with the State Department emails which have been gathered by right wing organizations for the express purpose of feeding the scandal machine. You can see the outlines of how the mutually reinforcing feedback loops works from Sunday’s Face the Nation in which congressman Jason Chaffetz cites a discredited AP report about the Clinton Foundation as proof of corruption and promises thorough investigations in the next congress. Likewise Meet the Press in which Clinton’s speech condemning Trump’s incestuous relationship with the Alt-right was presented as equivalent to Trump’s incestuous relationship with the alt-right and characterized it as a “race to the bottom.”

There is a bigger concern, however and one that gets more acute every time this happens. This cynical delegitimizing of the duly elected president ends up delegitimizing our democracy in general. And it’s getting downright dangerous. Trump’s “second amendment” remedy talk and the incessant demands to “lock her up” are taking this way beyond even the political trench warfare of the 1990s and the gridlock of the last eight years. These are barely disguised calls for violence. The political media should be very wary of being used as couriers for that message.

.

He still rules our world

He still rules our world

by digby

I wrote about Drudge’s ongoing influence in today’s Salon:

Some years back Washington Post reporters Mark Halperin, currently of Bloomberg News and MSNBC, and John Harris now editor in chief of Politico, wrote a book about political journalism called “The Way to Win: Clinton, Bush, Rove and How to Take the White House in 2008.” In it they made a famous admission about how beltway journalism works in the digital age:

Matt Drudge rules our world . . . With the exception of the Associated Press, there is no outlet other than the Drudge Report whose dispatches instantly can command the attention and energies of the most established newspapers and television newscasts. 

So many media elites check the Drudge Report consistently that a reporter is aware his bosses, his competitors, his sources, his friends on Wall Street, lobbyists, White House officials, congressional aides, cousins, and everyone who is anyone has seen it, too.

Mitt Romney’s former spokesman called him the political media’s assignment editor. And in 2012, on the day after the election, Halperin gave credit where credit is due:

I had sort of assumed  that Drudge’s star had faded a bit in the intervening years as fresher, sexier right wing sites like Brietbart and The Blaze had emerged. But it turns out he’s doing better than ever:

For the first time, The Drudge Report moved into second place on Similar Web’s top U.S. Media Publisher rankings, placing just behind MSN.com with about 1.47 billion page view for the month of July. The Drudge Report’s traffic beat out the likes of news sites from Disney Media Networks (which includes ESPN.com and ABCNews.com), Yahoo, Google, Time Warner and Fox Entertainment Groups.

In an article last month called, The Man Who Could Have Stopped Donald Trump, Oliver Darcy of Business Insider noted his still dominant role:

Drudge was the top traffic referrer to The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and other news outlets in 2015, according to a Vocativ report. The report said the site accounted for a staggering 52% of referral traffic to the Associated Press.

All those organizations are very well aware of the potential for clicks from a Drudge link and they know what kind of stories he wants to flog. The incentives to please him are obvious.

As we approach the last leg of the 2016 campaign it’s worth remembering Drudge’s original claim to fame:

Web Posted: 01/17/98 23:32:47 PST — NEWSWEEK KILLS STORY ON WHITE HOUSE INTERN

BLOCKBUSTER REPORT: 23-YEAR OLD, FORMER WHITE HOUSE INTERN, SEX RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT

The original post which went on to name various publications that were allegedly holding the item put journalists at the center of the story, and needless to say they were beyond excited. The rest, of course, is history. Drudge was fed news items for years by the media, which would often launder them through the foreign press and he would feature links with screaming headlines they could use to show “it’s out there.”

Today these stories are still generated in the British tabloid press but also at right wing conspiracy sites and bigger operations like Breitbart. Recently, Drudge managed to widely disseminate the discredited story of Hillary Clinton’s alleged ill health by posting a picture from a fringe web-site showing Clinton slipping on the stairs some months before with this screaming headline:

2016: HILLARY CONQUERS THE STAIRS
2012: FALLS AT HOME, BLOOD CLOT
2011: FALLS BOARDING PLANE
2009: FALLS GOING TO WHITE HOUSE, BROKEN ELBOW

That story is now part of the campaign, with demands for her full medical records and the press watching her every move like a hawk for signs of brain damage.

With the news this week that Clinton’s right hand Huma Abedin had separated from her husband after yet another public humiliation, Drudge used the opportunity to t-up one of the right’s favorite rumors: that Clinton and Abedin are secret lovers. Unsurprisingly, whispers among unenlightened right wingers about the feminist harpy Clinton being a lesbian go back decades but the Abedin insinuations, which started in 2007, have taken off in this campaign.

Mainstream publications have fed the notion with click-bait stories like this slide-show from Politico which sat at the top of their “most-read” list for months this year despite having been originally published back in 2013. As it turned out Drudge had been up to his old tricks. He had linked to a British tabloid story in which Abedin was quoted saying that she thought Clinton was beautiful which led to millions of drooling Drudge readers searching for “Clinton Huma lesbian.”

There’s no way of knowing if mainstream reporters were among those intrigued by Drudge’s dirt but we do know that The New York Times found this item worthy of a breathless front page lede:

Among the trove of emails released from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state was this instruction to a trusted aide who needed to brief her on a matter that could not wait: 

“Just knock on the door to the bedroom if it’s closed,” Mrs. Clinton wrote in November 2009 to Huma Abedin, then her deputy chief of staff.

Drudge doesn’t even try to find political relevance to his lewd, juvenile innuendo but the mainstream media’s reaction to this week’s Weiner story was hardly any better.  Attempts to make it into a campaign story were downright embarrassing.

Yesterday, under the headline “Weiner free!” Drudge insinuated once again that Abedin and Clinton are lovers with a picture allegedly showing the two of them hugging with joy now that they’ve vanquished one of their husbands. As it turned out the picture wasn’t of Abedine, it was Burmese opposition leader and 1991 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi, but whatever. He made his point.

We can be sure that Drudge’s nasty little sex rumors aren’t the end of it. The more scurrilous charges of Abedin being a secret Muslim agent are just now breaking into the mainstream direct from the fever swamps, via none other than Donald Trump himself. And publications like The Hill and The New York Post, hungry for Drudge links and eager to give the monster what it wants in return are already pushing it into the mainstream. As long as Matt Drudge is driving the news cycle it will only get worse.

Just think about that a little as you read this story:

Above: A morning headline on the Drudge Report—the right-wing news site that, like a number of other outlets with similar ideological orientations, is crudely obsessed with the idea that Hillary Clinton and her longtime adviser Huma Abedin are involved in a secret lesbian/Muslim relationship. Abedin just separated from her husband, Anthony Weiner; the picture and the caption imply that Abedin has in fact dropped Weiner—and perhaps forgone all penis-related romance—because of her relationship with Clinton.

https://www.facebook.com/mattdrudge/posts/10154345256061955

As it turns out that isn’t a picture of Abedin at all. But the point is that this story of lesbian/Muslim brotherhood alliance (in itself totally daft) is pervasive in the right wing fever swamp. And that’s fine. They have their little corner of the world where they can say whatever they want to each other.

That report was from August 15th, 2016.

Don’t kid yourself, the Villagers still devour this disgusting piece of garbage. If you want to get a feel for the zeitgeist that moves them, read Drudge.

Nothing’s changed since then I’m sorry to say except that Drudge’s traffic is bigger than ever.

.

Stock up on popcorn by @BloggersRUs

Stock up on popcorn
by Tom Sullivan


Photo by cyclonebill (Popcorn) [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

As the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates prepare for their debates, they are bringing in expert advice, the New York Times reports:

Hillary Clinton’s advisers are talking to Donald J. Trump’s ghostwriter of “The Art of the Deal,” seeking insights about Mr. Trump’s deepest insecurities as they devise strategies to needle and undermine him in four weeks at the first presidential debate, the most anticipated in a generation.

Her team is also getting advice from psychology experts to help create a personality profile of Mr. Trump to gauge how he may respond to attacks and deal with a woman as his sole adversary on the debate stage.

With Trump’s lack of impulse control, even knowing what’s coming won’t help him. Besides, this guy doesn’t prepare for anything except a strong breeze.

He has been especially resistant to his advisers’ suggestions that he take part in mock debates with a Clinton stand-in. At their first session devoted to the debate, on Aug. 21 at Mr. Trump’s club in Bedminster, N.J., the conservative radio host Laura Ingraham was on hand to offer counsel and, if Mr. Trump was game, to play Mrs. Clinton, said Trump advisers who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the debate preparations were supposed to be kept private. He declined.

Questioning Trump’s net worth and intelligence and business prowess are possible lines of attack. Ghostwiter Tony Schwartz told the Times Trump will bring “nothing but bluster” to the debates, and nothing of substance:

“Even so,” Mr. Schwartz said, “Clinton has to be careful — she could get everything right and still potentially lose the debates if she comes off as too condescending, too much of a know-it-all.”

That’s what did in Al Gore in his first debate with George W. Bush in 2000. For the Clinton campaign, those who fail to learn the lessons of history, and so forth.

Surely, he’s joking: R.I.P. Gene Wilder By Dennis Hartley

Surely, he’s joking: R.I.P. Gene Wilder


By Dennis Hartley








I guess I must have been in shock.


When I received a text from Digby asking if I’d heard about Gene Wilder, I steeled myself and immediately queried Mr. Google. There it was. But I refused to believe it. This just couldn’t be. That’s when I began a one-sided argument with my, erm…laptop:


“Wait a minute. Gene Wilder is no longer with us? Are you saying, he is no longer with us? Is that what you’re telling me, that Gene Wilder…is no longer here? No longer here. He was here, but now, he is not? IS THAT WHAT YOU’RE TRYING TO TELL ME?!”


Goddammit.


Sorry, but people that talented, that funny, are simply not allowed to just up and leave us.


Here are several reasons why, right off the top of my head:





Rest in peace, you bloody little genius.

More reviews at Den of Cinema

Dennis Hartley

“I don’t have a clue, Buh-lee-me”

“I don’t have a clue, Buh-lee-me”

by digby

When he says he approved the message? It doesn’t mean he actually listened to it or understood it:

Donald Trump’s new $10 million TV ad cites two contradictory tax plans — one that Trump has explicitly ruled out and another that he has yet to endorse — raising more questions about what policies the GOP presidential nominee supports.

For the ad’s claim that “working families get tax relief,” it refers viewers not to an analysis of Trump’s own tax proposals, but to a white paper by House GOP leaders about their own tax reform plan. Similarly, the next section promising “millions of new jobs” directs viewers to an analysis of the House GOP plan by the conservative Tax Foundation.

Trump has not endorsed the House GOP plan outright, but his new proposal, announced earlier this month, has some similarities. Most notably, they both advocate collapsing the tax code into three brackets with rates of 12%, 25%, and 33%. But there are also important differences: Washington Post columnist Allan Sloan reported that Trump’s plan would preserve a deduction on business loans that the House GOP plan would scrap that would save up to $1.2 trillion in revenue over 10 years.

Things get even more confusing as the commercial continues. The ad’s next two claims that Trump would make “wages go up” and “small businesses thrive” refer to his old tax plan from last year, which had drastically different rates, including a 0% bracket at the bottom and a top rate of 25%. The on-screen citation directs viewers to a Tax Foundation analysis of that now-defunct proposal from September 2015.

Trump erased his old plan from his website shortly before he announced his new one in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club earlier this month. It has far fewer details, though Trump has promised more are coming, and it has not been analyzed by the Tax Foundation.

So does Trump support the House Republican plan? Does he support his old plan? Does he support neither of them?

Whatever. It’s pretty clear that he has no idea what he’s talking about and his followers certainly don’t care. This looks like some consultants wanted to get cut and just putting something out to me.

.

Hillary Clinton ain’t got no smarts either

Hillary Clinton ain’t got no smarts either

by digby

The New York Times reports:

Mr. Trump is so disliked among college-educated voters, especially white women, that he is at risk of losing by double digits in several districts that the 2012 Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, carried comfortably.

I’m going to take a wild guess that this isn’t going to help:

Keep calling an obviously intelligent woman dumb, Donald. And be sure to mention how she can’t keep her man satisfied. College educated women especially love it when men do that. Buh-lee-me.

.

Is Rudy running for something?

Is Rudy running for something?

by digby

Because he sure can’t stop bragging about his record:

Beyoncé rocked the house last night with her performance at the VMA’s, but former mayor and current Queen Bey critic Rudy Giuliani was not quite so impressed. 

Giuliani appeared on Monday morning’s Fox & Friends, where he was invited to talk about how Beyoncé used her show as an opportunity once again to make a statement on police brutality towards African Americans. Ainsley Earhardt pointed out how the pop idol invited the Mothers of the Movement as her honorary guests, and that her segment began by depicting her backup dancers as angelic figures shot dead one at a time by cops. 

“I ran the largest and best police department in the world, the New York City Police Department,” Giuliani opined. “I saved more black lives than any of those people you saw on stage.”

He didn’t actually run the police department, but whatever. More importantly, he hasn’t held public office in 15 years and as far as I know he isn’t running for one now. So why in the hell is he constantly on TV talking about his resume? He’s supposed to be talking up his buddy Donald Trump.

If I didn’t know better I’d think he was jealous.

Also, he’s full of it. His tenure was horrible:

When he was reelected to his second mayoral term in November 1997, New York’s Rudy Giuliani stood before the television cameras on election night and, Nixonesque, his arms making a “V” in the air, exalted, “I am the king of the world.,” By the following spring, however it was not royalty but a fascist dictator to which Giuliani was being openly compared. Jokes about Benito Giuliani swept through city streets and tabloid newsprint faster than fires through Florida. The governor’s office joined in. Even the congenitally sober New York Times asked on the front page of its Metro section whether Giuliani was the Mussolini of Manhattan. Little Hitler jokes were just as liberally sprinkled in especillyt after the mayor announced that he had earmarked $15.1 million of the city budget to build himself a bunker — a bombproof “emergency control center” — on the twenty-third floor of a World Trade center building.

There weren’t very many African American and Latino New Yorkers thanking him.

.

QOTD: Rush

QOTD: Rush

by digby

On Huma Abedin:

“She’s presumably she’s going to be Hillary’s chief of staff. But she has not been chief of her husband’s staff.”

If she’d have kept her man happy this wouldn’t have happened, amirite?