GOP AWOL in Presidential ground game

Perhaps at some point during the early stages of this campaign for the GOP Presidential nomination you found yourself wondering whether any of these yahoos are actually serious. Are they just selling a book or supporting their TV show?

A previous post outlined a unique problem for this field – none of the candidates has sought the nomination before and, as a consequence, none of them has built an organization capable of supporting a national campaign. This is a particularly pressing problem if Donald Trump manages to lead in the primaries, since he will likely be unable to secure the pool of convention delegates that a potential victory would ordinarily yield.

Now we can start to see the outline of this problem on the ground. With about eight weeks left to secure signatures to land on the Illinois GOP primary ballot, only three Presidential campaigns have even started. Bush, Kasich and Rubio each have committed delegates in the process of collecting signatures, though Rubio still lacks a complete slate.

Remember, the primaries are merely a gateway to the nomination. The party’s nominee is not selected in a primary. They are selected at the national convention. Candidates who fail to recruit delegates face a very difficult road to the nomination, regardless of how well they poll in the primaries.

Interesting times.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with:
Posted in Election 2016
148 comments on “GOP AWOL in Presidential ground game
  1. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    April 2016: In a move that shakes up the political landscape in the US, presumptive Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton shocked her backers, her party, the GOP, and the media today by announcing Jeb Bush as her running mate in the 2016 election.

    In joint appearance, Bush noted that his positions of federal policy, conservative financial practices, and support for personal freedom and responsibility have not significantly changed, but he now realizes that those positions are better represented by the Democrat platform than the Republican platform. Bush said, “In the tradition of my father, I’m going to continue working for and advocating for the important goals of the American people, and I am going to work closely with Hillary, and I’m going to challenge Hillary, to achieve those goals.”

    President George H. W. Bush, the candidate’s father, appeared with Clinton and his son and told reporters, “The ideals of this country are too important to get bogged down in the chaos of pitting one political party in death match with the other political party.”

    • texan5142 says:

      Onion article?

      • 1mime says:

        More likely, Homer’s fertile, wonky imagination (-:

      • Tuttabella says:

        Careful what you wish for. One-party rule is not the solution.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Tutt…I’m not sure that having a party that represents the “mushy middle” of American politics exactly equates to one party rule.

        Jeb? is probably has more naturally in common with the right side of the Democrats than he does with Ted Cruz (or at least I would like to believe Jeb? has a rational side and his political positions are more pandering than real).

      • Griffin says:

        The Democratic Party already is the mushy middle of American politics it’s so big tent its basically a loose coalition of people who are scared of the Republican Party, if it became anymore big tent it would solely be a party of power. Don’t pull a Thomas Friedman on us I’m begging you.

      • 1mime says:

        I can only speak for myself, but I am in the “big tent” (Democrat) by choice, not by fear. My interests and values are aligned more closely with the blue team on any number of issues. Also, I’m not sure what you mean about “don’t pull a Thomas Friedman on us”? Personally, I find Friedman a man of great insight. Please explain your comment further.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Griffin, I think you are the person who disagreed with me that Ted Cruz could possibly appeal to low-informatioin Hispanics just because of his last name, because going to the polls takes time and energy, etc, and those who take the time and energy would necessarily be informed voters.

        I would still venture to say that some people would not be able to resist the opportunity to elect our nation’s first Hispanic president, or even in the case of Ben Carson, our nation’s second Black president, in a row. People who had never voted in their lives went out to vote for Barack Obama when they saw he had a real chance of winning. So it wasn’t just informed voters. And yes, I think many, many people voted for him just because he was Black. I am not criticizing them for that. This country had a need to do something historic with respect to Blacks, to get over that racial obstacle that said we would never have a Black president, at least “not in this lifetime” and to prove otherwise, and it had to be done NOW, or the opportunity of a lifetime would be lost.

        If Ted Cruz were to win the Republican nomination, he is opportunistic enough and savvy enough to suddenly try to appeal to Hispanics, to play up his Hispanic side, just to get the votes. Same with Ben Carson and Blacks.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        It’s for this reason that I think it’s actually MARCO RUBIO who among the Republicans has the best chance of being the winning candidate in the general election.

        He would appeal to Hispanics, both the informed and not-so-informed, he’s not so far out there, so he would be palatable to mainstream Republicans, plus he has somehow managed to become a “Tea Party favorite.”

      • 1mime says:

        Rubio needs more experience and time to grow and develop. He’s petulant and impatient, while likable. I would like to see him gain some practical governing experience by running for FL governor, then seek the presidency again. It will help ground him and offer invaluable experience in ways he can’t imagine right now. I believe that being a governor prior to seeking the presidency is very instructive. All of the republicans who criticized Obama for his lack of experience (a valid observation) would be jumping right back into the same paradigm, without O’s intelligence and in an even more difficult governing environment and tumultuous world. Rubio doesn’t seem mature enough yet for this office, altho, age alone doesn’t guarantee common sense or good judgement, nor does being a governor (Sam Brownback, KS) guarantee governing skill, nor does great intelligence equate to either wisdom or decency (Cruz).

      • tuttabellamia says:

        With regards to low-information voters, I guess the same would apply to Hillary Clinton. Some people would vote for her just to elect the first woman president of the US.

        I know that sounds simplistic, but that’s how a lot of people think. Even informed voters will sometimes vote based on emotion, or at least on vague factors such as whether they “trust” a candidate, or based on his looks or height, or other things that contribute to success in our society, that help a person get hired for a job, etc. It’s just hard for people to admit, even to themselves, to thinking that way.

      • Griffin says:

        Thomas Friedman has a reputation for, up until very recently, creating false equivalences betweent the parties, wanting a radical centrist party (without acknowledging that the Democrats are a centrist party) and basically being a kind of checklist for qualifying as a Very Serious Person. (This site has more details on that He’s not an ouright idiot, but he has some issues.

        The Democratic Party is pretty big tent. It’s a loose coalition of everyone ranging from European syled social democrats to centre/cenre-rightish people like the Clintons who would have been considered moderate Republicans half a cenury ago years ago to outright conservative Democrats (Blue Dogs). They aren’t unified on much and the main reason they stick together is to have overwhelming numbers against the Republicans higher voter turnout. I was saying it would be a mistake to make it even more big tent by shifting it even further right like Homer was suggesting, at that point it would stand for hardly any ideals apart from being a party of power.

        I was not the person you had that argument with but I suppose Cruz would do better than most Republicans on that front but he would still lose the Hispanic vote by a decent margin.

      • 1mime says:

        Griffin, not sure “who” I was having an argument with either? (-: I am definitely not a fan of Ted Cruz, and frankly, it wouldn’t make any difference to me if he were Dem or Repub. I just don’t like the guy.

        I have followed Thomas Friedman’s writing for years, read one his books, and generally hold him in high esteem as a deep thinker. Guess we will disagree on that opinion. As for the Dem tent being too large in that breadth limits focus, that’s probably a fair criticism, but it is also one of the strengths of the party…..inclusiveness which allows wide-ranging ideas and views. Tolerance is not a bad thing except if the group is unable to identify core values and develop a cohesive plan around them.

      • Griffin says:

        “He’s not an outright idiot”

        “It’s a loose coalition of everyone ranging from European syled social democrats to centre/cenre-rightish people like the Clintons who would have been considered moderate Republicans half a century ago”

        I really wish there was an edit button…

      • Griffin says:

        I should have been more specific. My last paragraph was a reply to tutt, who though I had an argument with him about Cruz when I didn’t.

    • Crogged says:

      Things Which Seem Significant In Elections But Are Usually Only Symbolic of Desperation or Overthinking No. 134:

      “Madam Chairman, for Vice Anonymous we nominate Mr/Ms Primary Loser Number 3 from the great state of It Don’t Matter!”

      Granted, selecting the part-time Governor of Alaska didn’t help McCain dismiss the smell of burning rubber from his campaign-but the genius Speaker of the House from Wisconsin didn’t help Romney one tiny bit.

  2. 1mime says:

    Well, this is kinda fun. Paul Ryan has just been upstaged in his announcement of acceptance as the new House Speaker by a ……runaway blimp! (of sorts)….The blimp is unguided and is slowly descending, but it is dragging a cable which is over a mile long, per TV, which is very dangerous due to electrical contact issues.

    Anywho, Paul Ryan must be chuckling over the ignominy of his announcement against the runaway blimp backdrop story.

    Related is a story regarding Sen. Mitch McConnell and his future given the recent turmoil in the House with the Speakership. It is said that he is viewed more negatively than positively in his legislative leadership role by rank and file Republicans who are looking for someone else to blame for failing to accomplish the conservative legislative agenda.

    *(For those who want to have a practice run at digging deep into survey results, scroll down to the link – “View survey methodology…..” Have fun!

  3. Griffin says:

    Nate Silver’s starting to get uneasy about his prediction that the Establishment candidates would win this race. Interestingly enough he still thinks Trump will lose but that Ted Cruz has a better shot than he normally would.

    • 1mime says:

      Griffin, that was a most interesting link! I loved the debate between theories since both are so plausible. The only sad part was the possibility of a Cruz nomination….at least for me. Sigh.
      Silver offers excellent background and interesting possibilities. As Lifer stated in an earlier post, once we get close to the big day, Nate Silver’s polling becomes extremely predictive. In the interim, Silver is putting some tantalizing ideas out there for those who are politic-phobic.

    • EJ says:

      Ladd, 10 November 2015: “There is a structural problem with the GOP which prevents them from presenting a moderate enough position to be electable.”

      Silver, 12 May 2015: “There is no structural problem, just a lack of votes.”

      Ladd, 30 May: “A wise man does not argue with Nate Silver on matters of maths.”

      Silver, 28 October: “Whoops, looks like there are actually structural problems after all.”

      Mr Ladd, you may now gloat.

    • johngalt says:

      A comment about the way these numbers are being reported: notice that they are giving the percentages out to 2 decimal places (Carson is the choice of 22.93%). This is a gimmick intended to make the poll seem more authoritative and persuasive than it is. Ooh, your brain goes, lots of significant digits – that must be really accurate. Nonsense. The 18-39 demographic for the GOP was likely a grand total of 30 voters – I’m not kidding, the math makes that almost certainly the right number (and what does that say about the GOP and/or polling method if they could find only 30 likely GOP voters in that age range in a randomly selected sample in Texas?).

      With a stated margin of error of 3% and likely, much higher due to the kind of systematic errors Silverman talks about, the only thing one can conclude is that Trump and Carson are leading and Bush, Cruz and Rubio are the second tier.

      Lies, damned lies, and statistics, as Mr. Twain wrote.

      • Crogged says:

        I’m .93 percent in favor of Carson-this poll is accurate!

      • 1mime says:

        Most people who are not politically attuned or in the business, don’t look at the very bottom (usually) of a survey/poll for detail. The questions are important in how they are phrased for the responses; the demographic detail – age, race, gender, party – show how “balanced” the survey is; the sample size, as you noted, is also important for validation of results… If the survey seems unusual in its result or you are simply a data-driven individual, read on. It will add a great deal more interest to the survey or relegate it to the “insignificant” pile. As we are rapidly approaching “poll mania”, be a smarter analyzer of the survey by looking at more than the singular reported results.

    • Sir Magpie De Crow says:

      I just saw something on the National Review website that made me think about the profound divisions in this country. I discovered a significant conversation while reading an article on the Confederate Flag and the murders committed by Dylann Roof.

      It goes beyond politics. The divisions extend to the complicated and often terrible facts of our history and sometimes to the very nature of reality. One commenter claimed that slavery was only the second worst episode in American History. Abortion in his view was number one. Another person then chimed in by saying that this abominable reading of history was an outstanding comment.

      These are “Holocaust denial” level delusions we are talking about.

      I don’t know if I should be befuddled or saddened by these kind of assertions… or if I should start throwing punches. It is people like this that makes it hard to explain to a particular segment of society why black people in the South Carolina who pose no discernible threat should not be shot in the back in broad daylight or body slammed in high school classrooms over a cell phone.

      How does anyone find common ground or understanding with people who have such a distorted understanding of some of the failings of the American experiment? It wouldn’t be so bad I guess if it wasn’t for the fact that this faction of voters will probably determine who will be the GOP nominee in 2016.

      • Griffin says:

        You can’t really govern with them them. You just have to keep things functional while trying to do the grinding job of getting them voted out of the House. Only when their very old, ultraconservative voters start literally dying off will they have to change their tune. That or the party will fracture before they even get that far.

        I think I’ve compared the GOP to old-styled Marxists before but that’s not really a fair comparison because at least old-styled Marxists had actual political positions and a clear (if utopian) end goal. The GOP today is more like the right-wing’s answer to the New Left of the late 1960’s, a bunch of post-empirical, angry, performence artists who know what they oppose but are mushy on which extreme views they think are the antidote to modern society. That’s why they care more about being a supposedly shocking “politically incorrect” prick like Trump than being a policymaker, it’s literally politics as performence art at this point and the government is their stage to perform it on.

      • 1mime says:

        Griffin, I know you live in CA, but here in TX, it’s not just the old WASP population hewing to a radical right position. There are many younger people…forties/fifties….who are pretty rabid in their views. This is the deep south, but the sense of entitlement and intolerance is pretty darn strong. And, it’s not just the guys. You can’t reason with these people. They aren’t interested in what anyone with an alternate idea has to say. It’s all “I, Me, Mine”.

      • 1mime says:

        There is no way for a rational person to appeal to this kind of irrationally driven thinking, Crow.

        One update that I was sad/glad to hear: the policeman who slammed the female student to the floor in a classroom has been fired. It shouldn’t take long for some of those irrational commentators you were reading to begin their rants…

        Let me note that if it weren’t for cell phone video, this police officer would still be employed and able to body-handle kids. Cell video may offer the greatest contribution in our generation to changing perception and response to inappropriate law enforcement behavior.

      • Crogged says:

        If a student ‘disturbs school’ in South Carolina they can be arrested, which means calling a cop to deal with a 16 year old. Or you (the school) can wait it out. There isn’t an individual failing here, just a whole lot of institutional failure.

      • 1mime says:

        The schools have largely abdicated their roles to bond with difficult students. However, it is important to understand how big a problem this is in many of our inner city schools. The problem is not simply institutional, it is familial, and societal. The dysfunctional backgrounds many of these difficult, troubled kids come from is scary and very sad. Their chances of succeeding in spite of socio-economic backgrounds are slim to none. This can be improved and if it isn’t, our schools and our neighborhoods become breeding grounds for violence and crime. It’s complicated, Crogged. I have been deep into this problem within schools in a previous life and it is hard. But, it is not an excuse to NOT take corrective action.

      • Crogged says:

        A girl didn’t give up her cell phone on command. You can; (1) warn that such action will have a consequence and say what the consequence is, up to and including suspension, and continue with your class or; (2) call in an officer who knows what to do physically with individuals who don’t comply with direct demands in a time frame they solely determine when trained to deal with dangerous adults. Which is also a false dilemma- in addition the teacher could be armed and merely brandish her authority in order to extinguish the terrible behavior. Or watch a Hollywood movie where a tough but fair principal blah blah blah.

        Student failure to comply with school policy is not a matter for the police. We can complicate the issue and worry about how to deal with educating all these heathens, or use our noggins.

  4. Crogged says:

    It’s that time of year when your guy/gal is gonna lose and the devil will win. These feelings will last until; (a) in October 2016 Nate Silver tells you, “You’re guy/gal is gonna lose” and you still get hope from your favorite columnist’s ‘evidence’ consisting of the number of lawn signs in her neighborhood or; (b) the surreptitiously recorded video of the devil telling his audience that hell ain’t for wimps is released to the media. In the meantime notice that everything you call ‘crazy’ is repeated by many people you know in real life-and you let it go, so maybe it ain’t. Maybe you are crazy. Katy Perry might symbolize something dark and you never knew, if only you kept reading to the end.

    • Griffin says:

      “your favorite columnist’s ‘evidence’”

      I’ve found H..A. Goodman of the Huffington Post to be rather annoying on this front. I like Sanders too but the guy boasts that based on “polling trajectory” Sanders will overtake Clinton nationally by Febuary 1st and that Sanders will easily crush Clinton. It’s just embarrassing.

    • Turtles Run says:

      Bobo – Compared to the rest of the crowd he does sound sane but he is as hard right on abortion and female health issues as any GOP candidate. From stripping Planned Parenthood of $1.4MM in funding, signed into law a bill with a provision that prevents state-funded rape counselors from referring women to abortion services, and his implementing a 20 week ban on abortions. He is far from a centrist.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        I’m actually OK with a general 20 week ban on abortions, with doctors being given wide latitude to make exceptions under special circumstances.

        I remember after my first son was born, my wife and I got pregnant almost immediately. We were not prepared mentally, physically, emotionally or financially for another child yet. It didn’t even take 20 seconds to make our decision. I can’t imagine this being a wishy washy thing, and I don’t know what you’d know at 25 weeks that you don’t at 15.

        I could be wrong, but for me, knowing whether you want to have a child is something that can be decided over a weekend of hard contemplation. Not sure why you’d NEED 30 weeks or more.

        As I said though, doctors should be given a ton of leeway to make exceptions for any reason they deem and have no fear of repercussions.

      • Crogged says:

        Yes, and in most circumstances I think it is a reasonable amount of time. YMMV and I’m chromosomal challenged, but further to the point-if a woman’s husband disagrees with her decision-he can’t do a thing about it. Paternalists fire in one, two, three……..

      • johngalt says:

        Provided there were medical exceptions built in, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over a 20 or 24-week ban either.

      • 1mime says:

        Reasonable people do agree with 20 weeks. The problem is, the true goal of the pro-life group is zero abortions for any reason. They advocate ” Life begins at conception” – though no one knows “when” that is – even scientists. I believe each person should have the right to make their own decision, but no right to tell me what I can and can’t do. Many members of congress advocate NO exceptions for any reason; state legislatures have passed laws stating NO exceptions – for ANY reason. I think this is wrong, and that is why PP is still needed.

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        I hear ya, Turles. I don’t vote for Republicans.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Less than 2% of abortions happen after 20 weeks, and they are almost always due to extraordinary circumstances.

        One reason a “sane woman” would wait until 20 weeks is because that is the time generally when the sonograms and tests occur that detect birth defects or other abnormalities. I’m going to prefer to let the woman, her family, and her doctor figure out what to do in those cases rather than some yahoos in Austin.

        You do mention some broad leeway in these situations, and that really would be necessary.

        I would note out that lots of women know pretty quickly about whether an abortion makes sense for them or not, but I would also bet that it is not so obvious a decision for lots of people and might require more than a weekend.

        Alternatively, think of the young (or not so young) pregnant person who was let go from a decent job at 15 weeks pregnancy, and faced with the prospect of limited income and limited insurance, might re-think some plans.

        Maybe that women took an hourly paying job with no maternity leave. The job doesn’t pay as much as she used to make, but she has to put food on the table for her other child. When she gives birth, she won’t be getting paid in that hourly job that has no maternity leave, so now all of the sudden, the pregnancy and child birth has all sorts of unplanned issues.

        Or the situation of the pregnant woman who just got accepted into the graduate program or residency program to which she was originally rejected or waitlisted. Does she try to swing the first year of that program while pregnant and giving birth?

        Again, this is a remarkably rare thing, but I’m not going to feel comfortable dictating to women what they should be doing at 20 weeks.

        The 20 week number is just a round, meaningless number. It is not a number associated with fetal pain or viability. It was pulled out of the air because it is a round number. Go with 25 weeks or even better, go with fetal viability, which will vary by fetus, and then the argument makes sense. However, these political arguments not medical arguments, so I don’t guess they have to make sense.

      • 1mime says:

        And, then, there’s contraception……….Make it affordable, accessible, and acceptable. Prevent unwanted pregnancy wherever possible. Helloooooo

      • Crogged says:

        This “20 weeks before we know anything is wrong” arguments are not going to be so true in the future. Soon we will know, PRIOR TO CONCEPTION, if birth defects will be occurring and technology will be able to detect problems sooner rather than later. Science and technology are not slowing down for our moral conundrums.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        JG – yes, VERY wide medical exceptions.

        I.e. there isn’t a list of approved conditions and the mother has to have one. I mean her doctor can make a decision based on whatever criteria she deems necessary, including mental health, and there is no review board they must answer too. The doc is the final arbiter.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Crogged – no doubt. I think the if the father is in the picture, the mother SHOULD at least inform and take into account his feelings. Thats the right thing to do.

        But under no circumstances whatsoever should the father have any legal veto power until the day doctors can transport that child to his abdomen.

      • unarmedandunafraid says:

        There is a solution to the abortion argument. Mandatory vasectomy of every male, pre-puberty up in age. Reversed temporarily only with written consent of the female partner.

      • 1mime says:

        I’m gonna pull a “Tutta” on ya, Unarmed, and state that vasectomies should be voluntary, just as birth control measures should be.

      • Crogged says:

        Such consent only withheld in a commercially reasonable manner………

      • 1mime says:

        Turtles, I don’t believe that ANY of the remaining GOP candidates support exceptions to abortion. By default, they will all work to eliminate PP, as well. If you want personal choice or exceptions on this issue, you are not going to find it anywhere on the red team.

    • Crogged says:

      I’m a crazy liberal but I have to say this. There are always tragic exceptions to the law-but any Dem that wanted to ‘solve’ the issue of abortion should take the 20 week ban and run with it. There are always the people only the funeral lobby and Hallmark will love by getting natural miscarriages to be treated as a ‘death’-but accepting a limit is how to get what you want. Ninety-nine percent of sane women can figure out in the first five months of their pregnancy if they want to carry to term. Accept this limit, work like hell to keep medical science moving forward with birth control protocols. Allow the moralists to preach the abstract, find a way for the woman to go to the doctor and the pharmacy in order to make her own decision in the first five months of her pregnancy. Finding a way for the individual to make their own way in life is what has been happening in our culture, we don’t need unions, Planned Parenthood, corporations building widgets and all these other granfalloons in order to insure individual rights.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Lol it looks like we said the same thing at the same time.

        20 weeks is an awfully long time.

      • E says:

        There is a reason why the 20 week bans are worth fighting.

        It’s not that women have not made up their minds. It’s that people seeking abortions after 20 weeks typically fall into one of the following three categories:

        1. Women who learn of fetal abnormalities. The vast majority of people who abort after 20 weeks do so because they discover severe fetal abnormalities that aren’t detectable before the 20-24 week mark. Spina bifida. Severe chromosomal abnormalities. Organs aren’t developing, virtually assuring the baby will die within minutes of birth. These babies are very much wanted, but won’t live, or will need lifelong 24/7 medical care.

        2. Poor women. What happens when you work a minimum wage job, the nearest clinic is a 12 hour bus ride away, and they require you to have two visits, a counseling visit and a 36 hour wait period before the procedure is performed? Do you think poor women are going to be able to make all that happen just on the drop of a hat? Save up hundreds of dollars for the procedure, for the travel time, for the time off of work? If abortions were actually easy and cheap to obtain, this would be less of a problem. But it’s definitely happening that abortions get pushed into the second trimester because of logistical reasons.

        3. Teenagers. Their brains don’t work like adult brains, and even if that wasn’t enough, the The trauma of being young and pregnant can cause them to go into a state of shock or denial. They will convince themselves they aren’t pregnant, and hide it until it can’t be hidden anymore. They may be covering up incest or abuse. They may fear abuse or abandonment if their parents find out. They may just be too immature or lack the knowledge and understanding of sex and procreation to understand what is really going on.

        People who fight the 20 week bans aren’t doing it so that women can just have a little teeny bit more time to make up their minds. They are doing it because of the unique and difficult situations that drive women to need an abortion that late in their pregnancies.

      • 1mime says:

        And, that’s exactly why the decision should belong to the individuals directly involved.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Good points all, E

      • Crogged says:

        E, 1 can grant (with the reservation I gave in another note that our science is only going to get better with detection), 2 and 3 ignore what I was saying. Make it 24 weeks then, right now-with the understanding that access is the issue. Yes, teens get pregnant-I was lucky as a parent, I had friends who weren’t. If I’m not mistaken and I don’t have time to google-haven’t teen birth rates been declining?

        Medical science isn’t working towards abortion as an intrusive medical procedure-we will have (and already do) have means other than scalpels to deal with this.

      • 1mime says:

        Instead of “birth rates”, I believe “pregnancy rates” is more relevant.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Crogged – The main issue I have with the 20 week ban is not that I think woman are waiting that long. My problem is that once the 20 week ban is instituted the next day as sure as the sun shines the far right will feel embolden to push 10 or 15 week bans and/or limit the exemptions to abortions as well.

        This 20 week ban fight is based purely on politics not science or even a concern for women’s health. That is why I cannot accept a 20 week ban on abortions.

    • johngalt says:

      Here’s a video (sorry about the ad at the front) of Kasich saying some of the same things at a campaign rally. What has happened to our party, indeed.

  5. Rob Ambrose says:

    I think theres a greater chance then most ppl think the budget deal doesn’t pass tmr. Not likely, but far from impossible.

    The lunatics seem to be losing their minds that government is functioning for a brief moment. The rhetoric is heavy.

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      Further to this point, anyone remember that the initial TARP bailout vote?

      It was widely expected to be inevitable. When it failed, the pundits covering the vote live on CNN and CNBC were flabbergasted.

      I saw a documentary and apparently the reason was that over the weekend before the vote, more people called into their congressmen then had ever before occurred. Ever (not sure if that record has since been broken). Almost all Republican congressman.

      It wouldn’t surprise me if the right wing radio complex whips up similar outrage among the rubes. Just my anecdotal evidence from perusing the internet, but it seems the shrill pearl clutching meter is off the charts on this one.

    • 1mime says:

      The Budget deal did pass the House with Democratic votes (all were on board, GOP – 60+). There was a last minute concession to those representing farming interests which will be interesting to see how that is paid for:

      “Farm state lawmakers furious over additional cuts to crop insurance that were included to help pay for the bill were ultimately won over after leaders promised to scrap those cuts in upcoming appropriations legislation.” (Politico)

  6. Griffin says:

    Michael Savage just went on a rant that SNL made fun of the Democratic debate to distract people from Sanders’ “Soviet-style politics” because they want Sharia Law. I’m not making this up.

    Please tell me this guy has no more than 50 listeners.

    • 1mime says:

      Fifty? They must be paid listeners…… The crazies are having to work hard to “out-crazy” each other……Jeez…..And, we wonder where these candidates are coming from? Look who’s supporting them!

    • goplifer says:

      Democrats, Soviets, Muslims…what about blacks Hispanics and vegans? A universal theory of tin hat paranoia remains elusive.

  7. unarmedandunafraid says:

    I remember 2010, the panic when I realized that it was a census year and an off year election. And the economy was still not recovered from a catastrophic shock. People were saying to themselves, I voted for a black man, what was I thinking? And the gloating of the conservatives at my workplace.

    So is there a silver lining to the many conservative wins at the state and local level? I think so. My State, Pennsylvania, dumped its conservative governor after 4 years. Usually the governor serves 8 years. Kansas is set up as the test kitchen for all the trickle down theories and the results are trickling in. Many states have loosened gun laws and we are starting to see the results. These are not what I would call silver linings, but it seems the only way to disprove an idea is to implement it.

    It seems to me that a real sin would be if we can’t get the results of these tests of policy to the public. And I don’t know how that will happen. Can we buy time on Fox?

    • Shiro17 says:

      The Republicans at the state level in many swing states were given a lot of rope after 2010, and they are not failing in hanging themselves with it. In Wisconsin, Walker and Co. just eliminated a lot of political ethics laws that will now make it much harder to investigate politicians in the state for bribery, corruption and campaign finance violations. Needless to say, the entire state is up in arms over this. In my home state of Florida, the hard righters in control of the House closed their session unconstitutionally early because the moderate Republicans in control of the Senate actually wanted to take care of their citizenry and accept the extra Medicaid funds from Obamacare. In Pennsylvania, the state has been operating without a budget since July due to fights over pensions. Yes, the Repubicans have a stranglehold on state legislatures, but I don’t know if that is a good thing for them or not.

      • 1mime says:

        Shiro, what was the outcome of the closure of the Legislature? Were there grounds for any legal action or simply frustration?

        As for changing state laws…..”He who has the gold, rules.” By the time the electorate has an opportunity at the polls, these changes become ingrained and are much more difficult to reverse. Dems have got to become more competitive on the local and state level in order to play a role in drawing election districts and in order to groom future candidates. They need more “seed corn”. The focus cannot just be on winning the presidency. I think the democratic process is best served when one party controls the presidency plus one house, preferably the Senate. Republicans figured out that what they couldn’t get past a Democratic President, they could accomplish at the state level. Smart, and with the highly gerrymandered districts, they’ve had little checks and balance from dems. That has to change.

      • Shiro17 says:

        The state senate sued the house and won, but the FLSC said that by the time they got a ruling in, the actual session was over, so they had no power to force the House to come back. The House had to come back about a month later to pass the budget, but they didn’t tackle any other issue.

        The real issue is of course about a 100 bills (the vast majority Republican bills since they have supermajorities in both houses) were just abruptly left on the table and forced to die. They were some pretty substantive bills: the budget, water distribution plans, prison reform, increased educational resources for special needs children, state ethics rules, etc. All of these died because the House closed early.

      • 1mime says:

        I will give Republicans their due: they know how to use every dirty trick out there to either achieve or avoid outcomes they don’t want. Surely, this maneuver is permanently etched n the minds of the people of FL and those lawmakers who were left standing. This issue will not go away. Scott has been a horrible governor. It is so sad that he was returned to office for a second term.

      • Shiro17 says:

        The reason Scott was elected to a second term is a perfect case study for your lament that the Dems have no “seed corn.” The Republicans control everything in Florida so there’s no real experienced Democrats that would have enough bare minimum experience to win. Case in point: Scott’s opponent was Charlie Crist, a former not-really-popular Republican governor who switched to the Dems. That’s apparently the best they could do. The only state-wide elected Democrat is Senator Bill Nelson who is pretty popular (and gets massive cool points for having gone into space!), but he’s 73 and suffering from heart issues.

      • goplifer says:

        And that GOP hold on Blue State legislatures probably crumbles starting next year. There are demographic problems with the narrow Republican coalitions that took control on the Obamacare wave. Basically, those voters are dying and they are not being replaced. The only thing keeping MI and WI lege’s red is the fact that those states are being drained to young people, a large % of them flowing out to Chicago and Columbus.

        PA is already showing serious buyers’ remorse. OH, VA and WI are likely to start wobbling next year. MI may stay in conservative hands for a while because of general population declines. The more rural and old a state becomes, the friendlier it is to racist politics and MI didn’t need much of a nudge.

        Most interesting cases are IA and CO. IA is suffering the same fate as MI, so it might continue to trend to the right for a few more years. CO can’t hope to hold. It’s growing and Denver is turning into an honest to God big city.

      • 1mime says:

        Denver is a neat city…….Still, some of the suburbs are very hard core Republican. We have good friends who live in Jefferson County, and they have to fight like hell to keep the right wingers from ruining everything from schools to fire districts, you name it. And these friends are smart, centrist (Democrats) and have been involved in politics a long time. They understand the process and they clearly understand the forces at work, but they are probably closer to the old Blue Dog Democrats in views.

      • Shiro17 says:

        “Surely, this maneuver is permanently etched in the minds of the people of FL and those lawmakers who were left standing. This issue will not go away.”

        Oh, it isn’t going away. It’s starting to enter full-on feud territory between the Senate and the House/Governor. The Senate President, Andy Gardiner, was not at all pleased with the fact that his pet project, the bill to increase funding for education and job opportunities for people with special needs, was not passed thanks to this maneuver by the House (his son has Down Syndrome, so….). Then, when he later managed to shoehorn it into the budget, it was vetoed by Rick Scott in an effort to balance costs (which he wouldn’t have had to do if he would accept the Medicaid grant money). A lot of other projects in his district (Orlando) were also vetoed to save money. The moderate Republicans are also bickering with the conservatives over the fact that twice now the federal Congressional re-districting plans have been struck down as unconstitutionally gerrymandered, and they now have to create a third map before next year’s elections, and they’re getting hammered in the media about it all.

        Governor Scott is actually getting caught in the middle of all this. While he definitely is backing the House in not accepting the Medicaid expansion, a lot of his bills were caught up in this as well and failed to pass. In particular, the water distribution bill was something he put a lot of effort into as part of his plan to update Florida’s infrastructure to make it more business friendly. As for the people of Florida, well, let’s just say that Gardiner is possibly the most popular Republican in the state right now, and the Orlando-Tampa corridor is probably the only real swing area in the state. Not at all politically smart to get those people mad at you.

      • 1mime says:

        Maybe it’s time for Gardiner to throw his hat in the gov’s race….How much longer is Scott’s term?

  8. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    I hate to say it, but my confidence in my overconfidence that Cruz could never be the nominee is starting to be shaken.

    I have felt the Jeb! assuredly will be the nominee, but man, he is really, really bad at running for President.

    I had thought Romney/Rubio might be formidable four years ago. Rubio was too young then, but he is still a bit of an empty suit.

    If forced to answer, I still say it is Jeb! with Rubio as the backup, but there is this creeping, insidious sense of foreboding that is corporeally manifested by Cruz.

    He is back there, lurking, letting all the theater play out around him, plodding along in the middle of the pack. Not so high that he gets media scrutiny, but not so low that he is in danger of falling out.

    I’ve deluded myself into thinking that Cruz wants to be king maker rather than king, but like any horror movie, there is the feeling that you just know something bad is going to happen.

    Despite lifer’s claim to a Blue Wall, I’m not nearly so confident about the election. No incumbent running, weak economy, and Hillary is remarkably disliked by huge chunks of folks.

    A bubble bursts or the economy otherwise takes a tumble in the spring/summer of 2016, a blogger in China or Russia shows up with a copy of a classified email from Hillary’s server in the summer, and all of the sudden, oh shit, Hillary is beatable.

    I’d rather that “oh shit, Hillary is beatable” not be in relation to Cruz.

    • 1mime says:

      “doomed to hell…..” Can you see if there is room for one more?

      • 1mime says:

        Sorry, this comment was in response to Griffen’s confession of being a liberal and therefore “doomed”

        I’m just gonna make one more comment about being in hell with all those liberals………it sure will be a lot more fun than being in heaven with all those conservatives (-:

    • 1mime says:

      The problem is that it matters so much that our nation be better served. It’s the hope that the American people will do the right thing for our country and our greatest fear that they won’t. It’s not about me, or you, or the democratic party or the GOP – it’s really all about our country.

      I am certain that our nation would survive a Ted Cruz as President, even if it was at great cost. But, oh, what a price!

      A couple of years ago I seem to recall TX had optioned some property in Belize…..How many acres you got there, TX? Room for a few more “doomed” liberals?

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      At this point, it kinda seems like EVERY nominee seems unlikely.

      CruZ/Trump/Carson to me still seem as unfathomable as they did months ago. But now Jeb seems just as unfathomable.

      SOMEone has to win it.

      • 1mime says:

        Kasich let it rip tonight…Jumped all over the Republican Party for saying”crazy” stuff….He made a lot of sense. Of all the GOP candidates, he has always seemed the most qualified and most reasonable….even as I recognize some of his far right positions, but relative to the rest of the crowd….he looks……sensible….

    • johngalt says:

      It’s not so much that Jeb is bad at running for president as he is facing a nearly insurmountable obstacle: nobody, but nobody, wants another Clinton-Bush campaign. We’ve had enough Bushes and we’re almost at the Clinton exhaustion level.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        JG…I hear this on here and somewhat on TV, but I don’t think I’ve met a single person in real life who has brought this up as an issue.

        It has been a decade and a half since Bill Clinton was in office. People who are 36 years old today were not old enough to vote in Bill Clinton’s last election (hard to believe).

        The last Clinton-Bush campaign was in 1992. I was in grad school way back then and have stronger memories of the Saturday Night Live spoofs of the Bush-Perot-Clinton debates than I do the actual campaigns.

        There might be some Bush fatigue in that W was just seven years ago (I can’t even believe it has been that long). It really seems only a few years ago that he was ducking shoes thrown at him.

        Hillary has somewhat always been around because of congress and Secretary of State, but we seem to be pretty far away from a monarchy.

  9. BigWilly says:

    I’m still a Republican, and subscribe in general to the party’s principals, even if every thing looks black. Hillary Clinton appeared at a rally in Iowa with Katy Perry. Do you think Katy Perry is “Iowa?” I sure don’t. Katy Perry might be L.A. and Anton LeVey, but she’s no Iowan.

    What kind of message is Hillary sending to us by featuring a performer who’s a little more than risqué, and peddles her wares to pre-teens?

    Are people even paying any attention yet? Barry Sanders want to explode Washington into a veritable Red Giant. You people really want behemoth? You’re stark, drooling, gibbering mad.

    • Griffin says:

      Of the many actual criticisms you could have made of Clinton, ranging from the apparent shadiness of her and Bill doing favors for donors to their foundation to her railing against the very organizations she takes millions from or growing close to Wall street executives and lobbyists who want insane deregulations or even her quasi-“backstabbing” Elizabeth Warren over a bankruptcy bill, of ALL of these criticisms and many others you could have made, you chose to use Katy Perry against her?

      Also on a funnier note in one paragraph you rail against Katy Perry for marketing an image to sell products (basic capitalism) and then red-bait Bernie Sanders. What system of economics DO you support?

      • BigWilly says:

        Basic capitalism is not Luciferianism. Making a buck any way you can is not part of basic capitalism. Capitalism, in and of itself, is not evil any more so than reason is. However, what Katy Perry is pitching to preteens is bad news, bro.

        We’re headed down the road to feudalism, albeit a happily stupid one.

      • Griffin says:

        “Making a buck any way you can is not part of basic capitalism.”

        That’s practically the entire point of capitalism, especially in its unregulated forms. The entire idea is to make a profit by selling whatever is in demand, morals don’t really come into it (though I’ll take my chances that society can survive Katy Perry).

      • BigWilly says:

        In my opinion there is a moral component to capitalism, and you want that.

        OTOH there are two reasons to perform Satanic rituals 1) You honestly want Satan to be a part of the ritual or 2) You really want to anger religious people.

        Either way I wouldn’t recommend it.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Sure BW in a perfect world.

        But in practice, that morality is almost never inserted willingly. It needs to be regulated in. But that requires the *gasp* government.

      • 1mime says:

        Maybe we could focus our attention on a BIG problem – one that is threatening our very Democracy..Citizens United has irresponsibly opened the floodgates for massive, anonymous PACs and wealthy individuals to dominate the election with big, big money – and campaign finance rules be damned. From the minds and hearts of two fine men, Jon Huntsman and Tim Roemer…….

      • johngalt says:

        I have pre-teen kids and so I hear more Katy Perry and Taylor Swift than I’d care to. Swift wins the Grammies but, Perry’s “California Gurl” reputation notwithstanding, if you actually listen to the lyrics, I would rather my daughter listen to Perry than the hot mess that Swift sings about, which is mostly how she is going to go psycho and destroy whatever shallow, appearance-based relationship she is having with male fashion models. If there is any kernel of truth to the tabloids,she’s singing about what she knows. Perry has some strong woman themes in at least a few of her songs.

        That said, I wouldn’t take either of them to campaign with me in Iowa. Loretta Lynn was not available?

      • Crogged says:

        Katy Perry and Satan-isn’t that a South Park episode?

    • easyfortytwo says:

      Well, Barry did win the Heisman when he was at Oklahoma St, but I don’t think we’re ready for a black president.

      • Hi Big Willy
        (does that mean the same in the USA??)
        “In my opinion there is a moral component to capitalism”
        There used to be but back in the 70’s it was decided that companies (in the USA) have a legal requirement to treat shareholders as the alpha and omega
        If you operate your company with a “moral component” you are breaking the law and can be jailed

    • Cpl. Cam says:

      Like all religions there is a moral component to capitalism. In capitalism it’s called “the invisible hand” and, unfortunately, you have to be a Martin Shkreli level asshole to even be noticed by it anymore…

  10. Griffin says:

    This nomination is such a wonderful mess. It’s like a kind of perfect set up for a satirical movie mocking the GOP with caricatures of their candidates but actually happening in real life. It’s almost surreal.

    BTW am I the only one who actually enjoys watching Ted Cruz? He’s like a cartoon villain come to life I mean seriously he’s a more over-the-top cynical, unscrupulous candidate than freaking president Lex Luthor from the DC universe.

    • 1mime says:

      You can have the whole Cruz theater to yourself, Griffin. He’s a seriously demented person and I not only don’t watch him, I cannot stand to hear his nasal twine. Knock yourself out! Glad you can find some humor in the effort….I can’t. It matters too much to me….even the remote possibility that someone of his ilk could ever be President of our country.

  11. 1mime says:

    Another point of confusion for me is your statement that “none of the candidates has sought the nomination before … ” Unless I am misunderstanding the thrust of your remark, Santorum and Rick Perry were candidates in ’12. They weren’t the last men standing, that’s for sure, but they were candidates.

    • goplifer says:

      None of them has run a credible national campaign before. Yes, Santorum and Perry were in the race and Santorum was still technically a candidate at the end. None of them have ever built a campaign before. Santorum, by the way, failed to even appear on the ballot in the Illinois primary because he had no campaign organization.

      Compare that situation to ’08, ’00, ’96, ’92, ’88 and so on. The front-runner (and second-runner) had his campaigned staffed and legally squared away by the spring of the year prior to the election.

      We don’t choose our nominees (in either party) via primaries. We choose them through a convention. We haven’t had a brokered convention in fifty years because until now the candidates were all smart enough and serious enough to understand that and put in the necessary work.

      Now we have a slate of candidates almost all of whom are random nutjobs or political tourists.

      • Pseudoperson Randomian says:

        Eh, could it be that they’re really really trying to save money.

        I read an article recently that most Republican candidates are doing pretty badly on cash in campaign coffers (not counting SuperPACs)

        Are we going to see a sudden rash of dropouts if trump doesn’t suddenly go away?

    • Bart-1 says:

      “sought the nomination before” is synonymous with “run a credible campaign”. I count three in the GOP (Huckabee as well) and only one in the Democratic party. But don’t let that bother you.

  12. Bart-1 says:

    “none of the candidates has sought the nomination before and, as a consequence, none of them has built an organization capable of supporting a national campaign. ” Seriously?

  13. E says:

    Did you see this in Politico this morning?

    The article is good but it really left out how little his opponents seem to be doing. It’s not just that Cruz is running an impressive operation, it’s that it is leaps and bounds ahead of his competition.

    This really seems to be the missing story in this election. Why is this not getting more attention?

    Carson has tons of money, but does he have delegates anywhere? Same goes for Trump.

    It seems there’s only two candidates who seem to have both money and organization, and that’s Jeb and Ted Cruz.

    Rubio is the latest darling of the press, but he has no money or operations beyond the early states. Even if the establishment congregates around him as Jeb continues his decline, is there even time for him to build a national campaign?

    • goplifer says:

      Reason no. 689 why Cruz should be regarded as the frontrunner.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Cruz will also probably do well among people who will vote for him just because he has a Hispanic last name, without knowing much about his views.

        Not everyone is as well-informed as the people on this blog.

      • 1mime says:

        And that thought absolutely makes me sick.

      • 1mime says:

        My comment below was directed at your Reason #689, Lifer. Do you feel good about Cruz as the GOP nominee?

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cruz will fail at getting the Hispanic vote. Only 35% of Texas Hispanics supported him in his bid for the Senate. I am sure that many of those 35% voted based on the name but after a few years in office it has become quite apparent to most Hispanics that he does not support the same issues they care about and it is quite evident he does not care what Hispanics think of him.

        He will never be considered Raza

        Lack of Hispanic support

        In case you are wondering. Hillary polls head over heels over her GOP rivals with Hispanics.

      • goplifer says:

        Cruz is probably a 35-39-state loser. He might actually poll lower than Trump. He’s not merely a stick-up-his-ass moral authoritarian, he’s hard to like on almost any level.

      • 1mime says:

        I am so relieved to read that you share my utter disgust with Cruz. Frankly, on any level, I find him an appalling human being. Does a candidate like Cruz still gotv among the conservative base in your opinion? Does GOP establishment, seeing that the two viable candidates pull out all stops to support Jeb! more as a recognition of how much damage a Cruz would do vs what abilities a Jeb! offers in contrast?

      • Turtles Run says:

        I visit a Virginia blog called Bearing Drift that is run by Republicans within the state. They agree on few thing but the one thing that unites them is their hatred of Ted Cruz.

      • E says:

        I actually think in some respects, Cruz winning the nomination and losing in an epic sweep would be the best outcome of this cluster*ck. It seems there’s a huge contingent who believes the GOP loses because the party just is not far right enough. Perhaps if they follow through on that experiment, and see how badly it fails, the party may have its day of reckoning.

        Perhaps that is optimistic.

      • 1mime says:

        If Cruz were to win the nomination and lose demonstrably, that would simply reinforce what the establishment GOP already believed. I doubt more rational lessons would be learned. As I see it, the establishment is flailing…..possibly because they can’t come to grips with what is happening around them. The party of “control” is, well, bamboozled.

        I am wondering if this effort by Boehner to corral a rational end to the myriad serious issues facing government (budget deal) is an attempt to calm the waters before the crazies take control and screw everything up.

        Boehner’s golf handicap just got better.

      • Turtles Run says:

        “It seems there’s a huge contingent who believes the GOP loses because the party just is not far right enough. ”

        Chris actually wrote a blog post addressing that issue. I believe he was expressing his frustration with the GOP base that constantly harps this point.

      • goplifer says:

        One really depressing thing has become clear to me. The guy that loses to Clinton next year, whether Bush or Trump or Cruz or whoever, will fail because he was a RINO. No matter how obvious the situation becomes to everyone else, those who believe the Fox News propaganda will remain convinced that the next Republican President will be the guy who is finally ideologically pure. Failure can only be explained by poor fidelity to principles.

      • 1mime says:

        Perfect timing for a Paul Ryan for President…………

      • Griffin says:

        I don’t think even the Fox News/AM radio kool-aid drinkers could convince themselves that Ted Cruz lost because he was a RINO. I’m trying to think of ways you could be more extreme than Cruz without being an overt Fascist and I can’t come up with any.

      • goplifer says:

        You obviously don’t believe hard enough. Someone has Hell in their future…

      • Griffin says:

        I’ve been a Californian “liberal” for most of my life so I’ve been doomed to hell for a while now. Even if I repented right now and sent my future life earnings to random conservative super pacs I don’t think it would be enough to save me.

        Considering 90% of your predictions about the GOP have been correct so far and 90% of my little guesses have been wrong you’re probably right. I should read more Breitbart to get a better handle on this movement but whenever I try to do that I either can’t stomach reading the full article or am too busy laughing throughout it to properly analyze it.

      • Turtles Run says:

        “I don’t think even the Fox News/AM radio kool-aid drinkers could convince themselves that Ted Cruz lost because he was a RINO.”

        This is the same group that justified the murder of a 12 year old child by the police. Never underestimate the cognitive dissonance of this group

      • objv says:

        Hmmm, Turtles, is that the sort cognitive dissonance Democrats have about Hillary smearing a 12-year-old rape victim, getting one of the rapists off with a one year sentence and laughing about it afterwards?

        “In her interview with The Daily Beast, she [the victim] recounted the details of her attack in 1975 at age 12 and the consequences it had for both her childhood and adult life. A virgin before the assault, she spent five days afterwards in a coma, months recovering from the beating that accompanied the rape, and over 10 years in therapy. The doctors told her she would probably never be able to have children.”

      • 1mime says:

        Ob, I read the court proceedings and Clinton’s defendent pled guilty to a lesser crime and was sentenced to five years in jail. I haven’t researched this beyond your article from “The Daily Beast”, but these are actual court proceedings……….What is your point?

      • Griffin says:

        Objv, the difference being that most Democrats don’t know about a relatively obscure case that’s gotten little attention. If it’s true then maybe the Republicans should use that against her instead of screaming “BENGHAZI” all day, it would bring it to attention.

      • objv says:

        Mime and Griffin,

        Turtles wrote: “This is the same group that justified the murder of a 12 year old child by the police. Never underestimate the cognitive dissonance of this group.”

        How do you justify Clinton going to great lengths to smear a 12-year-old with lies about her character when she had been violently raped? Democrats are supposedly pro-women and Clinton is running on issues dear to the heart of liberal women. How does lying and laughing about a twelve-year-old’s rape fit into that strategy? Cognitive dissonance?

      • 1mime says:

        More “gotcha”, Ob? I not only read all the pleadings, I listened to the entire audio of the Clinton interview. Bear in mind that this is only one part of the interview, which touched upon many areas. (see archives) As tragic as it is for a victim of rape to NOT receive justice (something new, right? but with a child, worse), the prosecutor is the one who reduced the charge as their forensics division LOST the evidence which provided all the verification of semen, etc. I’m sure this scarred this young woman for life even if she had the world’s best defense. Clinton was asked to take the case for the court and her job, as sad and unpleasant as it was, was to defend the client to the fullest extent of the law. He did plead guilty to a lessor crime (fondling which is all the prosecution could prove), and was released for time served, which is a damn shame.

        But to hang this around Hillary Clinton’s neck because the prosecution was derelict is ridiculous. She did her job, as sordid as it was. The law requires counsel to defend the client to the best of their ability. Hillary even took the remaining piece of the evidence to an expert in NYC who could have verified the defendant as the source of semen and blood. He could not do so with the remnant of the pants that remained.

        Wanting something to be a certain way does not make it so. I am certain this will make the rounds, and, like Griffen, if there is more to it than the pleadings and audio offer, I’m sure you will apprise us.

      • 1mime says:

        You know, Ob, it is hard to accept negative commentary/events about people we respect. However, if one presents such commentary without full research of a “smoking gun” accusation on an issue of such magnitude as a 12 year old rape victim, that really bothers me. I hope you did as I did and listened to all the audio, read all the pleadings, then bothered to look further out to see if your source could be verified. Because, if you had, you would have learned a great deal more about this case then you impugned.

        and this, from politifact:

        One of the “nice” things you could have noted for the record was that Clinton who was new to the South (was trying) to establish the University of Arkansas’ fledgling legal aid clinic…” A rather noble thing, wouldn’t you say? If you say anything positive about Hillary?

      • Griffin says:

        I didn’t justify it, I said that if it’s true than it should be brought up and she should answer for it. But you wondering why most voters (both Democratic and Republican) don’t know much about an obscure forty year old court case that’s barely been reported on or brought up by even the Republicans is a bit baffling in and of itself. You do know you can’t just deflect everything the Republicans generally do today by digging up old dirt on literally any Democrat?

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Also: I’ve heard he plans on deregulating the Machine Gun Bacon market.


      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Tutta I just don’t see that as likely. I didn’t buy it when they said people voted for Obama just because of his skin color and I don’t buy it now.

        Voting requires effort. Not a lot, mind you, but you need to make plans to get to the station. You need to drive there and then drive back. It requires at least a modicum of civil responsibility, and the type of person who would vote for somebody based upon n something so irrelevant is not going to be the type to expend even that small amount of energy to vote.

        How many Obama 2012 voters do you think would vote Carson 2016? I’m guessing not many.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Obvj – that just shows a basic lack of understanding about how lawyers practice law. They don’t think like normal people in that regard. Theyre TRAINED not too. The basic assumption that EVERYone is entitled to a defence is drilled into them from day 1, and it would reflect poorer on her character if she took the case and then purposefully bungled it.

        In the real world, that would be a good thing. The legal world is different, by necessity. Its part of why lawyers are hated so much. But its essential that lawyer think like that.

      • objv says:

        Mime and Rob, I have no problem with a lawyer representing a rapist. I realize that people who are accused deserve a defense. I also concede that others in the case made grave errors. However, I DO have a problem with Clinton lying and trying to smear the character of a twelve-year-old rape victim. I DO have a problem with Clinton laughing about an aspect of the case.

        “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing,” Clinton, then named Hillary D. Rodham, wrote in the affidavit. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.” These accusations were false. For crying out loud, the girl was only twelve! In no way was she responsible for the rape.

      • 1mime says:

        From your source, The Daily Beast: ” The victim told Thrush in 2008 and the Daily Beast that Clinton made that up. But investigators in the case also found inconsistencies in the victim’s story, according to Thrush’s reporting.”

        I’ve spent all the time I intend to on refuting your position on this issue. Hillary Clinton was 27 years old, took the case as assigned, defended it to the best of her ability, and the defendant pled guilty, served one year in jail and 4 years on probation. Could she have done a better job (on her first criminal case by jury?), certainly, but she did what the law required her to do.
        Case closed.

        I’m satisfied with the research I’ve done and will not engage on this further.

      • objv says:

        Mime, I read your two links. Nothing justifies Clinton’s attacks on the character of the twelve-year-old. To suggest that the girl asked for a rape and beating that left her in a coma for five days is beyond comprehension. What if that had been your daughter or granddaughter? Would you have thought it justified for a lawyer to assert that your loved one was “emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing” and that her vulnerability would in any way excuse the rapist’s actions?

        I realize that you may have tired of the subject and I don’t expect you to answer.

      • 1mime says:

        If my grand daughter had a promiscuous reputation, I wouldn’t have like to hear it in court, but it would have been appropriate for dfense counsel to point out.

        Let’s give it a rest, OB. I don’t agree with you and cannot convince you with the information I’ve provided, so we are at a dead end. When your own source rebuts what you are saying. I will not comment further as it is useless. Spin on….

      • objv says:

        Mime, as I’ve said, I realize that you may not respond. That is OK with me. No need to answer if you don’t want to.

        Clinton seems to have made the assertions about the girl’s character with no basis in fact. No source of information was listed. Even if the girl had been promiscuous, it should not have mattered in this case. She was only twelve and below the age of consent. You may be fine with having a granddaughter accused of promiscuity, but I have grave reservations about ANY twelve-year-old being accused of contributing to her own rape no matter what.

        Remember, the furor over “legitimate rape”? Here Clinton was implying that the rape was not a legitimate one since the twelve-year-old may have had a preference for seeking out older men and caused the rape by her actions.

        There is no doubt the rape had occurred and that the girl had severe injuries. For Clinton to try to get her client a lighter sentence by laying some of the blame on the pre-teen girl is beyond despicable.

        I see no evidence that Hillary Clinton is defender of women except when it is politically expedient. In many ways, she enabled Bill’s behavior by attacking the women who accused him of sexual advances.

        Hillary has two methods. She either tries to cover up improprieties or attacks the victim. Is that really what we’re looking for in a President?

      • Griffin says:

        “If my grand daughter had a promiscuous reputation, I wouldn’t have like to hear it in court, but it would have been appropriate for dfense counsel to point out.”

        No it would not be, whether the girl is a virgin or a nymphomaniac makes no difference to me and it should make no difference to a jury, all that would do is make targets of women who are thought to be “promiscuous”. Objv would be correct that if Clinton did this to the extent she says she did than that’s wrong.

        I read the article and Objv is exaggerating some of it (Clinton was not laughing at the victim but at the unreliablilty of polygraphs) and not accounting for it having been Clinton’s job to use as many resources as she could as at her disposal but I would be lying if I said part of what Clinton wrote didn’t make me uncomfortable even if it’s more the fault of our system of law than anything. I don’t think it would be a bad idea to grill her a bit on it, as long as they don’t blow it out of proportion (which, knowing the GOP, they would/will).

        Mime do a thought experiment where you imagine that Ted Cruz had written what Clinton wrote about the girl. Would you still feel the same about it? Objv stop exaggerating parts of it and deflecting from the GOP by bringing up obscure red herrings about the Democrats.

      • 1mime says:

        Griffin, my choice of the word “appropriate” was poor. What I should have said was “expected in legal defense”. Defense counsel will bring up promiscuity if verifiable, however vicious and inappropriate it is.. The investigators who reviewed the case did corroborate this aspect of the girl’s history but let me be clear: that never justified rape. The man was an adult and the girl was twelve. It happened and Clinton was required by the judge to defend the man despite her request to be removed as legal counsel. She was young, had no experience in criminal litigation and probably could have done things better. Differently? I don’t know. I am not an attorney. Those with legal expertise can weigh in on whether Clinton’s defense was wrong while the rest of us are entitled to our feelings, whatever they are.

        Presidential candidates’ pasts are fair game and Hillary Clinton likely will have to respond to questions about this case again. As for juxtaposing Cruz in place of Hillary as defense counsel as an exercise in impartiality – There’s no telling what he would have done. There is little about Ted Cruz that I find admirable; whereas, even with her flaws, I find much to admire about Hillary Clinton. That doesn’t make me oblivious to her flaws or one particular incident in her life. It is my opinion that Hillary Clinton is a good person, responsible, and extremely capable. She is not perfect.

    • 1mime says:

      From the article, Cruz’ campaign director, Roe (how ironic, the name…):

      ““If you tried to create the perfect constitutional conservative, you would make them like Ted Cruz,” Roe said. “You would have them be the son of an immigrant. You would have them memorize the Constitution in their teenage years. You would have them go to the best colleges in the world. You would have them study and apprentice under the best conservative jurists. Then have them run a campaign where they had to run against the moderate establishment and beat them. Like, that’s what it would be. And that’s exactly what it is.”

      Anyone recall the Lifer’s post on robotics? Cruz is a great example – programmed perfectly, but lacking the one thing that is vital to the job………. a soul.

    • Griffin says:

      Plus Jeb! is already going down in flames as he cuts his staffers and the Establishment donors are backing away from him. His campaign is basically over at this point, it’s just a matter of how much longer the Establishment tolerates him until they tell him to drop out so they can all put their support behind Marco “No really I’m not an empty suit” Rubio.

      Lifer really called Jeb losing the nomination, though I’m not sure if even he knew it would be over this quickly. I mean really you’d think the Establishment would put up more of a fight, this is just one-sided at this point.

  14. Creigh says:

    I’m sure the base is completely missing this. It’ll be interesting to see their reaction when realization hits.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 454 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: