So Much For Family Ties

"You're not going to be able to insult your way to the presidency."






So asserted John Ellis Bush to Donald Trump last December.  George Prescott Bush (among others) is out to prove him wrong.

At the end of May, Texas land commissioner George P. Bush, son of John Ellis Bush, was already someone of questionable ethics. He then  was named as the GOP's 2016 Victory chairperson with the assignment, reported the Austin American-Statesman, of "raising money and running the statewide campaign to 'annihilate the Democrats up-and-down the ballot this November.'"

This ordinarily is not a difficult task in the State of Texas. The state's voters elect the 15 members of the State Board of Education, of whom ten are Republicans; eighteen judges, of whom 17 are Republican, and nine other important officials, all of whom belong to the GOP.  Texas invariably votes for the GOP presidential nominee, boasts a state legislature dominated by Republicans, and has two Republican Senators as well as a U.S. House delegation which is predominately Republican.

This shouldn't be a difficult job either for George P., whom we now find is strategically unbothered by family loyalty.  So while dad, uncle George, and grandfather George (as well as their wives) have refused to endorse GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump- who repeatedly taunted and trolled JEB during the campaign-  George P. feels no such compunction and

Addressing state GOP activists Saturday, Bush said it was time to put aside any lingering animosity from the primaries — where Trump defeated Bush's dad, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, among others — and get behind Trump. 

"From Team Bush, it's a bitter pill to swallow, but you know what? You get back up and you help the man that won, and you make sure that we stop Hillary Clinton," Bush said, according to video of the remarks provided by an audience member.

This "Team Bush," thanks to George P.,  now seems far more like the Cleveland Browns than the Cleveland Cavaliers.

Having turned the General Land Office into (as his GOP predecessor described it) "an agency where demoralized employees are hunkered down waiting to be summarily fired and walked out of the building with a cardboard box containing a few personal belongings," George P. is now walking out on his family to preserve his political ambition.   Salon's Gary Legum believes after Trump loses

if, as seems likely, the party is going to go through a period of struggle and confusion at both the national level and in at least some states, there will be a need for rising stars to lead it when it comes out on the other side in whatever form it is going to take.

If Bush has any national ambitions, at that time he will be able to point to his actions in encouraging activists who were otherwise loathe to embrace Trump to work for the greater good of the party. He will be able to sell himself as a peacemaker of sorts, a loyal soldier dedicated to the Republican brand even in its lowest moments who still fought to keep Congress and the state legislature dominated by conservative politicians.

He is doing this by turning his back on his father, famously called a "total stiff," a "spoiled child," a "sad sack," a "lightweight," "clueless," "too soft," and "low energy" by the guy the son now has endorsed for President of the United States.  Bush did not take the job years, or even several months, ago. He grabbed it weeks after Ted Cruz and John Kasich had dropped out of the race, leavingTrump the presumptive nominee.  Though Bush could have declined the position, his political future beckoned.

Legum argues he played "rather cunningly" this awkward situation." But maybe it wasn't an awkward situation for George P. Bush, after all.

















Share |

And It's A Big One, Too

You have to hand it to John Ellis Bush. Or at least, as Will Bunch puts it, "Hey, maybe you can’t blame the former Florida governor — whose very manhood has been under attack from Republican frontrunner Donald Trump out on the campaign trail for months — for, um, overcompensating with his shiny, 5.3-inch new toy."

After he appeared on Tuesday at high-security firearm company FN Manufacturing, Bush tweeted a picture of an FNX-45 pistol emblazoned with "Gov. Jeb Bush," though later (according to CNN) he "said he didn't know about the tweet but said it was a tribute to his appearance at the company.

Until the media fell in love with the Senator who is his fellow Floridian, Bush had been hailed as a moderate, and until the town hall in South Carolina Tuesday had been the only GOP presidential candidate without a firearm. Hence, his tweet illustrated as well as almost anything could have the validity of Barack Obama's remarks Tuesday- ostensibly about Donald Trump- when the President noted

This is not just Mr. Trump. Everyone's focusing on Trump because he says it in a more interesting way. He may up the ante in anti-Muslim sentiment, but if you look at what the other Republican candidates have said, that's pretty troubling, too. They're all denying climate change and that's troubling to the scientific community.

It seems, further, that the curiously named "FN America" is not even American-owned. Bunch points out that The Washington Post found (as reported in an article behind a paywall) that FN America is owned by a Belgian company "that was requisitioned during World War II to make firearms for Nazis as well as the Allies."

Still, it was quite a coup by the ex-governor, one which says much about both the GOP base to which the candidate was pandering and the abysmal quality of the Republican "bench," celebrated by the media until we actually got to see it in action.   It's not only Trump, and it's not only anti-Muslim sentiment and climate change. In a field which includes Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco "the World Trade Center came down because (of) Bill Clinton" Rubio, it really is everyone.









Share |

When Donald Trump Is The Realist, There Is A Real Problem

Admittedly, it was a little silly when Donald Trump, attacking John Ellis Bush during the debate in Greenville, South Carolina on Saturday, charged "Two days ago, he said he would take his pants off and moon everybody. And that's fine- nobody reports that. He gets up and says that. And then he tells me that, oh, my language was a little bit rough."

Trump was severely distorting (not "severely conservative") a statement made by Bush complaining about the alleged lack of coverage of his campaign.  Still, an exchange Trump had with a media-designated moderate, Young Marco, demonstrated yet again that a Trump Administration probably would be less devastating than any led by one of his rivals.

It started when Senator Rubio used terrorism as an excuse to invoke God. "I just want to say," Rubio remarked "at least on behalf of me and my family, I thank God all the time it was George W. Bush in the White House on 9/11 and not Al Gore."  He added of President 43 "I think you can look back in hindsight and say a couple of things, but he kept us safe" (photograph via CNN of President Bush keeping "us safe," below).

Less of a politician than most of the media have come to believe, Trump (after Rubio made a couple of more comments) failed to begin his response with "it's personal with me," a sure-fire hit from any Republican, Democrat, or celebrity. However, he did counter with

How did he keep us safe when the World Trade Center -- the World -- excuse me. I lost hundreds of friends. The World Trade Center came down during the reign of George Bush. He kept us safe? That is not safe. That is not safe, Marco. That is not safe.

Pointing out that presiding over the largest terrorist attack in world history does not constitute keeping the nation safe did not sit well with the Republican National Committee's largely hand-picked audience of Bush and Rubio supporters.  However, the party officials and donors who packed the Peace Center did show their appreciation with Marco Rubio when he responded  "The World Trade Center came down because Bill Clinton didn't kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance to kill him."

Marco Rubio will never be a history professor.  Though President Clinton's effort to kill Osama bin Laden and destroy Al Qaeda's camps were insufficient, they were far more strenuous than those of the guy Rubio is happy kept the White House from Al Gore. On Meet The Press in 2004 Richard Clarke, who had served both Clinton 42 and Bush 43 as counter-terrorism chief, put it into perspective when he explained

We began looking with the CIA and Delta Force at options to snatch bin Laden in 1996, 1997, 1998, and they were unable do so.  And this is one of the things I talk about in the book, the need to strengthen our intelligence and military capability so that we can do things like that.

What else did Clinton do, however?  We had Iraqi-sponsored terrorism against the United States; he used military force, and they stopped.  We had Iranian-sponsored terrorism against the United States; he used covert action against them, and they stopped.  We had al-Qaeda attempts to blow up things in the United States during the millennium period, attempts to blow up embassies around the world, attempts to take over Bosnia during the jihad in Bosnia. And all of those attempts were thwarted.

Now, that doesn't mean that he did everything he should have done, but the president of the United States was active on these issues in the Clinton administration.  The president of the United States was not active on these issues prior to 9/11 in the Bush administration.

In Marco Rubio's imagination, Bill Clinton was responsible for Osama bin Laden being able to blow up the World Trade Center. And then, praise be to God (or as Islamists would put it, "praise be to Allah"), George W. Bush was around to invade Iraq to get back at terrorists, who were sheltered in Afghanistan and most of whom were ethnic Saudis.   Or as Clarke advised officials shortly after the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, "invading Iraq after 9/11 is like invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor."

"It's not Trump, boys," Charlie Pierce observes of "a debate in which Donald J. Trump was on the side of empirical reality, so much the worse for empirical reality." Still, given the announcement only a few hours before the debate of the sudden death of a Supreme Court Justice: Marco Rubio could have remarked "I thank God all the time it was George W. Bush who was selected for the White House instead of Al Gore."









Share |

A Comparatively Petty Argument

In their November 14, 2015 debate, Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton all emphatically refused to use the term "radical Islam" when asked about the term by moderator John Dickerson.   O'Malley contended "radical Jihadis" is "calling it what it is" while Sanders insisted "I don't think the term is what's important." Clinton would concede only "We are at war with violent extremism. We are at war with people who use their religion for purposes of power and oppression. And, yes, we are at war with those people. But I don't want us to be painting with too broad a brush."

Rick Santorum was not amused and tweeted "Yes @Hillary Clinton we are at war with radical Islam! You are not qualified to serve if you cannot even define our enemy!"  Similarly, John Ellis Bush, imagining a declaration of war, tweeted "Yes, we are at war with radical Islamic terrorism."
Appropriately amused, however, Mike Huckabee tweeted "You're all grown up now. You can do it. Three words. Ten syllables. Say it with me: "Radical Islamic terrorism.'"

Carefully avoiding the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" or "Islamic terrorism" is, as Huckabee infers, more humorous than dangerous.   Hillary Clinton, for her part, at least noted that Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, and Jordan are among the countries which "are going to have to take on ISIS."

More appalling than failing to acknowledge the obvious- that Islamic terrorism is destabilizing the Middle East and  poses a grave threat to world peace- is the utter hypocrisy of many GOP presidential contenders.  Observing the last Republican debate, David Masciotra  explains that several candidates

openly used the phrase “World War Three,” while others discussed the group of evil barbarians as if they had invaded New York and were marching toward D.C. as they spoke. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are not exactly the equivalent of Winston Churchill, and the American people, who panic on command, are not particularly resilient. Ernest Hemingway defined courage as “grace under pressure.” American politicians, and the Americans who empower them, are currently failing to act with grace while under no pressure. One could only imagine the nightmare of chaos and hysterics that awaits should ISIS actually attack.

Senator Ted Cruz left no room for interpretation when he pounded the podium to announce that the “biggest threat we face is radical Islamic terrorism.” Fear of terrorism dominates the discourse.

Any time a conversation about terrorism begins in a political debate or on cable news, there is not an elephant, but an unacknowledged gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle in the room that exposes the utter hypocrisy and insincerity of America’s declaration of war on “radical Islam.”

One of America’s closest allies is Saudi Arabia. The alliance is mostly a one-way relationship in which the United States is subservient and obsequious – essentially a harem to the Saudi royal family, who collect all the benefits and rewards.

Saudi Arabia is the country most responsible for the rise of radical Islam, and the largest benefactor to Islamic terrorist organizations. According to multiple sources of American intelligence and Indian intelligence, the Saudis have spent billions to build mosques, madrasas and cultural centers dedicated to the promotion of Wahhabism – the small but growing sect of Islam insistent on literal interpretation of the Quran, and violent jihad.

The Kingdom also may have been the "principal financier," as former Senator Bob Graham (D-Fl) puts it, behind the attacks of 9/11/01. Graham and Representative Walter Jones (R-NC) are among the current and former members of Congress who have read the 28 pages redacted from the report issued by a joint Senate and House report on "intelligence community activities" before and after 9/11/01.  The section, entitled "potential sources of foreign support for the September 11 hijackers," was classified by the Bush Administration and efforts to have its 28 pages released have been stonewalled by the Obama Administration (CNN report from 9/14, below).

"The information contained in the redacted pages is critical to our foreign policy moving forward and should thus be available to the American public," Jones maintains. It also is crucial to the understanding that the debate over the use of the term "Islamic terrorism" pales in comparison to the importance of assessing the role of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism.

Share |

The Actions Which Don't Match The Rhetoric

It has been two days since the convention of the Republican Jewish Coalition, thus two days since Donald Trump was asked whether Jerusalem should remain undivided and the capital of Israel. He is said to have remarked "I don't know that Israel has the commitment to make it," spurring Zeke Miller to observe "you can hear a pin drop."

Context is everything, or at least a lot, so it's difficult to determine whether the crowd believed that Trump wanted Israel's confidence to flag or that he merely expected it to occur.  However, the thought process was clearer and less complicated when, as Scott Eric Kaufman wrote

Trump spoke about the infamous $43 million gas station in Afghanistan, asking the crowd, “How many of you think you could have done it for less?” His question was greeted with silence, so he moved on. “I’m a negotiator, like you folks,” he said while discussing what he considers to be the failures of the recent nuclear deal struck with Iran.






Rarely does a politician so explicitly reveal anti-Semitism (video, above), but then part of Trump's appeal always has been that of someone not a career politician.  Further, Jews in the USA do not face the constant danger that the State of Israel does, nor do they- unlike Israel- confront forces determined to annihilate them.

The GOP candidates have kept silent about Trump's lukewarm remarks about Israel before the RJC., odd given that their comments about President Obama's policy in the region have included (from the first, second, and fourth debates respectively):



The president can’t tell you what we got. I’ll tell you what the world got. The world has a burgeoning nuclear power that didn’t, as the Soviets, say “we might defend ourselves in a war.”

What the Iranians have said is, “we will wipe Israel off the face of the map, and we will bring death to America.” When someone points a gun at your head and loads it, by God, you ought to take them seriously, and we need to take that seriously. (M. Huckabee)

You know, we turned our back on Israel, our ally. You know, and a situation like that, of course Obama’s not going to be able to do anything. I would shore up our military first, because if you don’t get the military right, nothing else is going to work. (B. Carson)

The next thing I intend to do is instruct the Department of Justice and the IRS to start (sic) persecuting religious liberty, and then intend to cancel the Iran deal, and finally move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. (T. Cruz)

***********

As it relates to Iran, it’s not a strategy to tear up an agreement. A strategy would be how do we confront Iran? And, the first thing that we need to do is to establish our commitment to Israel which has been altered by this administration. And, make sure that they have the most sophisticated weapons to send a signal to Iran that we have Israel’s back. (JEB!)

If they don’t go with us, we slap the sanctions on anyway. If they fund these radical groups that threaten Israel and all of the West, then we should rip up the deal and put the sanctions back on. (J. Kasich)

On day one in the Oval Office, I will make two phone calls, the first to my good friend to Bibi Netanyahu to reassure him we will stand with the state of Israel. (C. Fiorina)

***********

In the groups — in the countries of the Gulf states of Bahrain, the Cleveland Clinic is opening an operation. Clearly we see the same with them. And in Israel, we have no better ally in the world, and no more criticizing them in public, we should support them. (J. Kasich)

His calculation in the Middle East is that he has seen what this president has done, which is nothing, the president has no strategy, our allies in the region do not trust us. For goodness sake, there is only one pro-American free enterprise democracy in the Middle East, it is the state of Israel.

And we have a president that treats the prime minister of Israel with less respect than what he gives the ayatollah in Iran. And so our allies in the region don’t trust us. (M. Rubio)



However, it seems that when it comes to action, support for the tiny nation flags, inasmuch as

Democrats say there’s only one reason that pro-Israel language is not included in the revival of the Export-Import Bank: Mitch McConnell.

The Senate majority leader has been wary of Democratic maneuvering around Israeli politics, and he's recently warned that the minority party might attempt to “get well” with the Jewish community after they backed the nuclear accord with Iran.

Now, senators and Democratic leadership sources say McConnell is taking out his frustrations by rejecting a popular provision that would express the Senate’s support for Israel’s economy and undercut the pro-Palestine Boycott, Divestiture and Sanctions campaign. The provision, which has bipartisan support, had been targeted for inclusion in a larger transportation bill.

The news was delivered to Reid in a meeting with McConnell on Monday to game out the end of the year. Reid was furious upon learning that the pro-Israel language was being jettisoned, people close to him said.

The McConnell camp denies the accusation but

Two other Democratic senators blamed McConnell for blocking the language, which would require the Ex-Im Bank to consider whether applicants for loans oppose “policies and actions that are politically motivated" and meant to inhibit "commercial relations specifically with citizens or residents of Israel."

GOP candidates frequently use questions about Iran, Syria, or ISIL to declare their undying love for Israel.  Of course, the uncompromising prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself probably is the object of their affection but the nation itself also garners their unequivocal support in public. That is, until Republican leadership has the opportunity to erode support for a rabidly anti-Zionist, (barely) arguably anti-Semitic, movement.   They then go silent, demonstrating yet again there is little substantial difference between Donald Trump and the rest of the pathetic GOP presidential field.








Share |

Declaring War

John Ellis Bush has laid down the gauntlet... thrown a hail Mary pass... gone for the gold.

Submit your own cliche.  The man who calls himself JEB! has done what no other Republican (or of course, Democratic) presidential candidate has done.  Responding to the terrorist attacks in Paris, Lindsey Graham stated "I'm trying to protect America from another 9/11, and without American boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, we're gonna get hit here at home.  And if you don't understand that, you're not ready to be commander-in-chief in my view."

Graham had already called for American ground troops in the Mideast but even on Sunday he didn't go as far as Bush did.  To be sure, the former Florida governor took no risk when on Sunday's Meet the Press he contended that President Obama should

Declare a no-fly zone over Syria. Directly arm the Peshmerga forces in Iraq. Re-engage with the Sunni tribal leaders. Embed with the Iraqi military. Be able to create safe zones in Syria. Garner the support of our European allies and the tradition Arab states. Lead. That's what I want him to do. I want him to lead.

A moment earlier, however, he had gone where no other man (or woman) had gone when he declared

You don't see ISIS and Assad fighting each other. What they, the fight is with the remnants of the Syrian Free Army, we need to build that force up, which is not what's happening. This is viewed as a law enforcement exercise by the Obama administration.

We should declare war and harness all of the power that the United States can bring to bear both diplomatic and military, of course, to be able to take out ISIS. We have the capabilities of doing this, we just haven't shown the will. 

Whoa! Mr. Bush has recommended the United Staes of America declare war on ISIL (at beginning of video below).  That is a bold statement, one which probably will garner him little support- among politicians, the public, or (especially) the Pentagon.  It's safer, as all of the GOP candidates (except Rand Paul) who have addressed the issue have done, to flex muscles, blame President Obama for everything, and let the testosterone flow.

So give John Ellis Bush credit. Don't, however, give him a pass.  Don't let him slide by for declaring at a mid-August forum in Iowa “I’ll tell you, taking out Saddam Hussein turned out to be a pretty good deal" or for arguing at the first GOP debate  "As it relates to my brother, there's one thing I know for sure: He kept us safe. I don't know if you remember, Donald -- you remember the rubble? You remember the firefighter with his arms around him? He sent a clear signal that the United States would be strong and fight Islamic terrorism, and he did keep us safe."

Even John Ellis Bush, the man who forgot about the Twin Towers attack fourteen years ago when he contended he knew his brother "kept us safe," should have remembered that same brother ordered the invasion of Afghanistan and of Iraq without a declaration of war.

For another cliche: Bush has opened Pandora's Box.  If his GOP rivals and the presumptive Democratic nominee don't slam it in his face, it will be only because they have decided he has become irrelevant.

Share |

Hardly A Dime's Worth Of Difference

Jack Mirkinson believes the appearance Saturday night of Donald Trump on Saturday Night Live is "a notable and rather strange intervention by 'SNL'" because politicians (aside from the hapless Al Sharpton in early 2003) have hosted the NBC program only between campaigns.  Writing before the show aired, Mirkinson argued Trump's campaign "long since crossed the line from entertainment into serious reality."  He cites the candidate's "toxic" comments about Latinos, "tacit acceptance of anti-Muslim racism," and "openly bigoted birther crusade."

Although aimed at SNL, Mirkinson's piece is only one which has implied that the presidential candidate and his philosophy are significantly more malignant as those we have recently witnessed from mainstream Republican conservatism.

The difference, however, is les than meets the eye.  One does not have to recall Mitt Romney's infamous "47%" comment to recognize that most American presidential elections, traditionally, have been decided less on a cultural or foreign policy basis than on an economic one, defined broadly. After considering the analysis by the "left-leaning but independent" Citizens for Tax Justice and the conservative Tax Foundation of the tax proposal of the mainstream and most likely GOP nominee, Jonathan Cohn summarizes

Estimates have suggested that Rubio’s tax cut would increase deficits by anywhere from $4 trillion to $12 trillion over 10 years, depending on how you count. Either way, it’d be a staggering amount of money -- so staggering that even prominent conservatives have blanched at the price tag. But according to the CTJ analysis, the poorest one-fifth of the country would keep just 6 percent of the money while the bottom 60 percent, as a whole, would get just 22 percent. By contrast, the richest 5 percent of Americans would pocket nearly half of the tax cut while the richest 1 percent alone would receive more than one-third. 

Keep in mind that, in the real world, the poor’s share of the tax cut would probably be smaller than either the CTJ or Tax Foundation analysis suggests. That’s because Rubio campaign officials have said they would limit the refundable tax break to people who are working....

Whatever the details of the refundable credit, the bottom line is clear. If enacted, the bulk of the money in Rubio's tax cut would go to the affluent and a huge chunk would go to the very richest of the rich. Meanwhile, the loss of so much revenue would require some combination of higher deficits and deep cuts to government programs, most of which disproportionately benefit the poor and middle class.

According to CTJ's numbers (graphs below via Dylan Matthews of Vox), the cuts proposed by Trump and John Ellis Bush would jack up the deficit only slightly less than those proposed by the Florida senator. Rubio's plan would deliver more handouts to the very wealthy, slightly more for the poor, and less for middle-income taxpayers.

Tweedle-dee, tweedle-dum.   Two and a half months ago, Salon's Conor Lynch concluded "the scary thing is that America would probably be better off with a president Trump than any of the other major GOP contenders, who are either puppets for their corporate masters or wholly controlled by their dogma (i.e. Mike Huckabee’s Christian chauvinism)."

And then there is the current leader- Dr. Ben Carson- in national and Iowa polls. He wants to eliminate Medicare (video, below). Three days ago, Charlie Pierce described how as Mannatech Corporation's most famous shill, Carsib is in a long line of  of snake-oil salesman in the USA. Politically

The process began with Ronald Reagan, the greatest patent-medicine salesman of them all. It was he who marketed the economic snake-oil with a wink and a smile. It was he who taught them how to flex and pose – fiercely denouncing terrorism while selling missiles to the mullahs. It was he who gulled the country with tales of Sandinistas driving jeeps across the Rio Grande, and dangerous Cuban adventurism in Grenada, while Marines were being slaughtered in their barracks. He was the best show in town. The starstruck rubes flocked to see him. The country swallowed the swamproot whole.









Donald Trump at least at one time opposed the Iraq War, opposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and supported universal healthcare.  Having taken in with the wrong crowd, he now competes with the rest of the GOP field to prove he is the most extreme of them all. He has a lot of people convinced, but he really is just of a piece of what the Republican Party has become nationally.








Share |

Jebberish

Think Progress' Judd Legum swears George W. Bush was sworn in as President of the United States on January 20, 2001.  "Contemporaneous reports," he argues, "suggest that America’s arcane election rules and a favorable Supreme Court ruling handed the election to Bush, even though he lacked popular support."

Legum even displays a 2001 calendar (below) which indicates that early September of 2001 came about some 7-8 months after Bush allegedly took the oath of office (photo below) in Washington, D.C. that January.  Additionally, he contends, there is evidence that Mr. Bush during that period routinely received the Presidential Daily Brief, which in one case was titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."  "Taking into account all the evidence," he contends,"it seems more likely than not that George W. Bush was president on September 11, 2001."

It shouldn't be necessary to explain all that. But it is if you're the guy Florida voters were daft enough to have elected their chief executive in November, 1999 and re-elected four years later.  At the second presidential debate, following criticism of President George W. Bush by Donald Trump, John Ellis Bush responded "You know what? As it relates to my brother, there is one thing I know for sure, he kept us safe."

There is, as was pointed out afterward, that slight complication of "9/11."  The younger Bush, attempting to follow the footsteps of the President who thought that PDB was no big deal ("All right. You've covered your ass, now"), may not fully comprehend the enormity of the terrorist attack which killed north of 2900 Americans. However, he should remember "9/11," which has become part of the American lexicon. (Perhaps he thinks it is a competitor of 7-11, but two hours later.)

Last Friday, Donald Trump- without even having read Legum's piece- made the outrageous claim "When you talk about George Bush — I mean, say what you want, the World Trade Center came down during his time.  Blame him or don’t blame him, but he was president. The World Trade Center came down during his reign.” He added "I’m not blaming George Bush. But I don’t want Jeb Bush to say, ‘My brother kept us safe,’ because September 11th was one of the worst days in the history of this country."

On Monday, Trump went a little further, maintaining 

They knew an attack was coming.  George Tenet, the CIA director, knew there would be an attack, and he said so to the president and said so to everybody else that would listen....

The FBI, the NSA and the CIA weren’t talking to each other.  They weren’t talking because they didn’t like each other. They had a lot of problems getting along — and that’s leadership. You know, you have to get your three main agencies to talk to each other.

Nero-like, George W. Bush fiddled while Rome burned- or, rather, cut down brush at his ranch while he knew a major terrorist attack was likely to be launched against the nation he had been almost elected to lead.   Nonetheless,  brother John wrote "In the latest episode of the reality show that is Donald Trump’s campaign, he has blamed my brother for the 9/11 terrorist attacks on our nation. That Trump echoes the attacks of Michael Moore and the fringe Left against my brother is yet another example of his dangerous views on national-security issues."

Oh, he is so losing this fight, as well as the nomination he thought he was entitled to. It is, though, too easy merely to criticize Mr. Bush because he ignores the most deadly terrorist attack ever upon the country. Unfortunately, if John had limited support of his brother to the notion of having kept the USA safe following the attack of September, 2001, he might have gotten a pass, unjustifiably, from the media and even the leading GOP presidential contender.  On All In with Chris Hayes Friday, Josh Barro explained

And I think what Jeb means when he says he kept us safe, I think it`s related to the sort of deranged approach that a lot of Americans on all parts of the political spectrum have had to terrorism in the wake of September 11th, which is there came this idea that terrorism is common and is a leading source of mortal threat to Americans. 

And the fact that we have not had another major terrorist attack since September 11th is therefore a demonstration of extraordinary effort by the government to prevent such attacks. 

In fact, attacks like this are extremely rare. It was not a normal thing there would be an attack like this and the fact that there was not another attack like that during his presidency or during President Obama`s presidency is not a demonstration that something materially changed in how good we were preventing these things. 

But a lot of people do think that. They think it was extraordinary that there were no further similar terrorist attacks on American soil.

So maybe we should be grateful that John Ellis Bush, ignorant of recent American history, overprotective of big brother, or flat-out lying, went overboard in defending Bush 43. Ultimately, he has a right to read history. He has a right to interpret history or even to erase it from memory. But he has no right to re-write history, even if he is from the House of Bush.






Share |

Undignified Death To A Campaign

Salon's Gary Legum says it's time for John Ellis Bush to throw in the towel or shuffle off to Buffalo (not a bad town, if you discount the snow and the wind) because his presidential ambitions "are off the twig, they have kicked the bucket, shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible." He notes

It’s possible that something unforeseen could happen, that Donald Trump and Ben Carson could implode and Bush will pick up enough of their supporters to make himself viable again. So he’ll keep going, out of stubbornness, delusion or both. But as the race stands now, there is nothing left for him to do but make his concession speech. Or, seeing as how he can’t open his mouth without gibberish pouring out of it, have someone else do it for him.

It is even bleaker for Bush because if Trump and Carson were to implode, Ted Cruz would be ready to pick up the pieces and challenge Marco Rubio.

It's over for Bush, and there should be no dry eyes.  Early this year, Michael Kruse talked to Michael Schiavo about the 1990 effort by then-Florida governor Bush to defy the courts and Terri Schiavo's wish for dignity in death,  He wrote

I hope George W. Bush is president some day,” former Republican Party chairman Rich Bond told the late Marjorie Williams, writing for Talk magazine in September 2000. “I know Jeb will be.”

“I want to be able to look my father in the eye and say, ‘I continued the legacy,’” he told the  Miami Herald in 1994.

John Ellis Bush wanted to be able to say he "continued the legacy" like you or your neighbor might hope to get down to Home Depot, Loews, Safeway, or the neighborhood  drugstore.   Not to keep America safe, help restore the middle class, do what he can for veterans, the disabled, or children who might grow up in poverty, but continue the legacy. The presidency of the United States was to be used to satisfy some inner need of the son. The behavioral psychologists can sort it all out.

There was to be no stopping the dynasty, and in fact we did get the calamitous presidency of John Ellis' older brother.  But Republican voters are not yearning for another Bush and no tears should be shed.   Kruse recognizes John Ellis' "unartful comments on a handful of subjects suggest a man either saddled with a patrician’s tin ear, or a guy trying on the persona of a hard-right Washington hater and failing miserably."

Maybe both - sometimes on the same issue, as convenience dictates (video from The Young Turks below).  Bush certainly possesses a patrician's tin ear. And as Kruse noted in his article, "he ran for governor of Florida— as an ultra-conservative, a 'head-banging conservative,' as he put it —and lost. In 1998, he ran again, sanding those hard-right edges— and won." Throughout his career, John Ellis Bush has alternately put on the cloak of hard-right conservative and sensible moderate.   Neither has worked because, in the end, he has his family's name, incomparable access to big money, and nothing else.













Share |

There's Something About Ben

"Unless," The Daily Show's Trevor Noah says (video below), "slow,languid pace, dead eyes. loves brains. Oh my God, this explains everything. Ben Carson is a zombie!" Though meant primarily in humor, that was no less insightful, no less likely, than Noah's notion "It's just shocking that such a smart man, a brain surgeon, could have this kind of perspective- rushing a gunman" or that "a body with bullet holes" is no "more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away."

It's not that Carson's various commenting about firearms are so ridiculous.  He says people should charge a gunman threatening them because at least not all the individuals would be shot and killed ("after you, Dr."). When he himself was faced with a robber at a Popeyes restaurant, Carson claimed, he "directed him, he went to the cashier, the cashier gave him the money, and he ran out of the store."

It seems a little strange that a presidential candidate would voluntarily remark that he offered up someone else in his place to be possibly killed. The incident itself  has been called into question, with one blogger (or headline writer) remarking "Ben Carson should produce his long-form Popeyes receipt" (which, oddly, is funnier than anything Noah's writers could come up with).

Arguing also that Jews in Nazi Germany would have been better off armed, Carson contended “I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed … I’m telling you that there is a reason that these dictatorial people take the guns first."   Carson's fantasy aside, there were at least ten major instances of Jewish resistance during the Holocaust.   It took, further, powerful nations and one heck of a winter in Russia before the Nazi regime was defeated. Oh, and comparing something to Nazi Germany is never a good thing.

But Carson's bizarre statements are no less ridiculous than Marco Rubio claiming he can create a budget surplus by cutting taxes by trillions of dollars. They are less arrogant than John Ellis Bush almost casually stating that his brother kept the nation safe from terrorism. Nor are they more appalling than Carly Fiorina lying about Planned Parenthood- repeatedly- or her record at Hewlett-Packard, or imagining a hardscrabble background. (Give her enough time and Fiorina would vehemently deny she ever worked at HP.)  And then there is Donald Trump- where would we begin?

Unlike with Rubio, Bush, Fiorina, and Trump, Carson appears actually to believe what he is saying. He's probably not an actual zombie, though the odds of him being so are roughly equal to those of Carly Fiorina getting through the next GOP debate without fabrication.

Perhaps Dr. Carson simply is an evil genius, offending Jews, victims of violence, and other people in some nefarious scheme to obtain the GOP nomination.   "The key to success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made," a famous talk-show host once quipped, and maybe that's Carson's M.O.

But it's more likely that Trevor Noah is naive to believe that such an esteemed, successful individual in the highly-technical field of brain surgery could be so devoid of intellectual heft in another subject area.  Ben Carson might be the brilliant doctor we always hear he is and may have made greater contributions to mankind than the vast majority of human beings. Knowledge and understanding are not always transferrable to another field of study.

Politics, foreign affairs, economics, history, and everything else not labeled "medical science" are not medical science. And when it comes to most of those subject areas in which a president must exhibit some rudimentary knowledge and have the ability to acquire further understanding, the good doctor may be out to lunch.













Share |

No Politics Here

On Thursday, Ed Morrissey of the influential conservative Hot Air wrote

In the last 24 hours, we’ve seen Democrats screaming about the politicization of four Americans killed more than three years ago in a woefully unprotected consulate in the middle of a failed state created by the policies of a Democratic president and their leading presidential contender, and at almost the same time the leader of the Democratic Party demanding we politicize a shooting that just ended without bothering to wait for any facts at all.

Morrissey is appalled that Democrats would be critical because the second leading GOP member of the House and favorite to become the next Speaker told Sean Hannity "everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi Special Committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.”

Mission accomplished.   Four months ago, Kevin Drum asked "How many metric tons of evidence does it take for them to admit that it was a tragedy but not an act of treason?"  We now know evidence was the last thing concerning the GOP, but it has succeeded in sowing considerable doubt about the Democratic presidential front-runner, whose favorability numbers have been tumbling.

Politics is what politicians do.  Responding to the mass shooting, Dr. Donald Trump, PsyD., who has examined Christoper Harper-Mercer three times fewer than three, explained  "absolutely a terrible day... it sounds like another mental health problem."

That was only GOP boilerplate, however, virtually a knee-jerk reaction until congressional Republicans can go back to threatening to shut down the government, blocking appropriations for, among other things, mental health centers.  By contrast, the response of John Ellis Bush was quite intriguing.  When he was asked to clarify his comment "Things happen all the time. Things. Is that better?" Bush remarked

Tragedies.  A child drowned in a pool and the impulse is to pass a law that puts fencing around pools. Well it may not change it. Or you have a car accident and the impulse is to pass a law that deals with that unique event. And the cumulative effect of this is, in some cases, you don’t solve the problem by passing the law, and you’re imposing on large numbers of people burdens that make it harder for our economy to grow, make it harder to protect liberty.

A swipe at regulation might have been a slick comment for a Republican primary, yet another nod to the Party's corporate wing by a candidate who was (initially) its favorite. But not for John Ellis Bush, for it turns out

as governor of Florida in 2000, the now-White House hopeful had signed a bill into law that imposed penalties for residents who did not add extra safeguards when installing pools.

"The new law requires Floridians who install pools or hot tubs after Sept. 30 to install one of four safety measures: fencing directly around the pool, safety covers, door alarms or self-latching doors. Failure to comply could carry a 60-day jail term or a $500 fine," the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported at the time.

The law was named the Preston de Ibern/McKenzie Merriam Residential Swimming Pool Safety Act. De Ibern hit his head and fell unconscious into a pool while Merriam drowned in her family's pool, the Sentinel reported. Both were young children.

What Carly Fiorina is to lying, John Ellis Bush may be to hypocrisy, although Fiorina's self-righteous dishonesty represents an exceedingly high bar.  For sheer pandering- firearm division, John Kasich is a formidable competitor. Informed in an interview of the incident in Oregon, the Ohio governor was asked "you have an 'F' rating from the NRA because you support gun control. How come we can't break this and find some change?"

He could have said "You have just told me about this horrible tragedy, so it wouldn't be right for me to comment" or "let's not rush into anything in haste and instead carefully consider the facts and arguments." But having failed to receive the "let's not say or do anything impulsive"memo from Morrissey and other conservatives, Kasich replied

I've always received an "A: rating since I've been governor because, look, one thing you can learn is you can strip all the guns away but the people who commit crimes or have problems are always going to have the guns. And I think more and more people are thinking "I'd like to protect myself."









Kasich forgot one of the golden rule of politics: don't let on that it's all about yourself when you can invoke "family" as in "And I think more and more people are thinking 'I'd like to protect my wife and children.'  But he was deft enough, as the video above indicates, to waste no more than 2.5 seconds to assert his pro-gun credentials.

President Obama has challenged news organizations to "tally up the number of Americans who've been killed through terrorist attacks in the last decade, and the number of Americans who've been killed by gun violence, and post those side by side on your news reports."  But the appeal gather information and to reason does not hold a candle to the pandering , disingenuousness, or ignorance required for a Republican presidential nomination.






Share |

A Sorry Sight

On his last post of the week, usually on a Friday, Esquire's Charlie Pierce often sneaks in "Yeah, I pretty much still love New Orleans."

In the same vein, as demonstrated at last night's GOP presidential debate (transcript here): yeah, John Ellis Bush is pretty much still a weasel- at least as described in the Urban Dictionary. On Wednesday night, he stated

As it relates to Iran, it’s not a strategy to tear up an agreement. A strategy would be how do we confront Iran? And, the first thing that we need to do is to establish our commitment to Israel which has been altered by this administration. And, make sure that they have the most sophisticated weapons to send a signal to Iran that we have Israel’s back.

A presidential candidate is allowed to profess love for Israel, even if one of his foreign policy advisers once declared "Fuck the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway," which kind of summed up James Baker's approach to the Palestinian Arab/Palestinian Jewish issue.

Later turning his attention to Kentucky, Jake Tapper asked (video below).

Well, I’m not telling you that, Governor. But Governor Bush is, because he — because he disagrees. He thinks that Kim Davis swore to uphold the law.

You disagree? You’re not — you don’t…

Bush replied "I don’t think — you’re not stating my views right."

By "right," he must have meant "favorably" because after Ms. Davis refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple, the former governor commented

She is sworn to uphold the law, and it seems to me that there ought to be common ground, there ought to be big enough space for her to act on her conscience and — now that the law is the law of the land — for a gay couple to be married in whatever jurisdiction that is,

But Tapper, representing a network afraid to offend the GOP, asked Bush to continue, whereupon the candidate said

I think there needs to be accommodation for someone acting on faith. Religious conscience is — is — is a first freedom. It’s — it’s a powerful part of our — of our Bill of Rights.

And, in a big, tolerant country, we should respect the rule of law, allow people in — in — in this country — I’m a — I was opposed to the decision, but we — you can’t just say, “well, they — gays can’t get married now.”

But this woman, there should be some accommodation for her conscience, just as there should be for people that are florists that don’t want to participate in weddings, or bakers. A great country like us should find a way to have accommodations for people so that we can solve the problem in the right way. This should be solved at the local level…






Of course, Davis' actions had nothing to do with religious conscience, but with her job duties.    Bush believes "there should be some accommodation for her  conscience," which is in stark contrast to his July opinion "I don’t think you should be discriminated [against] because of your sexual orientation. Period. Over and out. I think this should be done state-by-state. I totally agree with that."

However, that was at a technology company in San Francisco, a whole lot different crowd than he faced at the Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6) library. Way to pander, John Ellis.

And then there was the one about his wife. If the last refuge of a scoundrel is to fly the flag, the second-to-last is to invoke family, as demonstrated below:

BASH: Governor Bush, Mr. Trump has suggested that your views on immigration are influenced by your Mexican born wife. He said that, quote, “If my wife were from Mexico, I think I would have a soft spot for people from Mexico.” Did Mr. Trump go to far in invoking your wife?

BUSH: He did, he did. You’re proud of your family, just as I am.

TRUMP: Correct.

BUSH: To subject my wife into the middle of a raucous political conversation was completely inappropriate, and I hope you apologize for that, Donald.

This is precious. On August 25, Bush responded to his use of the term "anchor babies" by contending "My record is pretty clear. I'm married to a Mexican-American United States citizen. I'm immersed in the culture, I'm bilingual. I feel like I'm bicultural. I'm proud of the diversity of my own family." He added "It's going to be really hard for me to be lectured to about the politics of immigration."

So now it's Trump who has injected his wife into a political controversy and Trump who has to apologize.  Bush noted his wife was in the audience and stated "And why don't you apologize to her right now."  Trump, thankfully refused, because- as he accurately noted- "I've said nothing wrong."

Bush says he doesn't want to be lectured about immigration because he's immersed in the Mexican culture because his wife is Mexican-American.  Then, he is shocked- shocked, I tell you- when somebody says that's why he condones illegal immigration. Jews call that "chutzpah" (sorry, Mr. Baker).

Most extraordinary, though, was when Bush, responding to Senator Paul's criticism of President George W. Bush, claimed "You know what? As it relates to my brother, there’s one thing I know for sure. He kept us safe. I don’t know if you remember…"

Emboldened by an outpouring of applause, Bush added "you remember the- rumble? You remember the fire fighter with is arms around it? He sent a clear signal that the United States would be strong and fight Islamic terrorism, and he did keep us safe."

Yes, Al-Qaeda terrorists are truly intimidated by a picture of a fellow with his arm around another guy.  In drawing a parallel between the ex-President's brother and Ted Cruz, who boasted about leading "the fight in the United States to protect our right to keep and bear arms," Pierce notes

I was struck by how proud Ted Cruz was to have thwarted even limited gun-control laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. Which seemed of a piece with Bush's invocation of The Great Mulligan, which is about where the whole debate left the earthly plane and ascended to the rarefied air of the top of the conservative information bubble. You have to forget a considerable amount of history to maintain belief in The Great Mulligan. In both cases, in lower Manhattan and in Newtown, it helps to be completely deaf to the cries of the dead. That's takes a special kind of person. It truly does.

Share |

It Could Be Worse

In the Huffington Post, journalist/producer Joe Seidner writes

There is one question it would be wonderful for someone to ask Donald Trump at the Republican debate on Sept. 16:

What is wrong with you?

Seriously. Many of us want to know. It doesn't matter whether it is asked by one of the journalists or a fellow candidate or a heckler in the audience. It just needs to be asked.

Trump is a serial exaggerator, as Seidner notes, who is wont "to call everything about him the best, and to deem everyone who disagrees with him the worst" and  is "a sucker puncher who initiates attacks, a low blow artist, who divides the world into those who agree that he is great and everyone else who will be flattened."  Seidner wants the candidate to

Tell us in his own words. Ask him the question. Directly. What would he say? No doubt, "Nothing's wrong with me. I'm almost perfect." Or, "I'm rich, have a beautiful wife, fabulous children, a great life. What's wrong with you?" But it would be interesting to ask.

Oh sure, Trump is the egomaniacal,  insufferable braggart Seidner paints him as.   But the question of "What's going on inside the mind of someone who...." is a rhetorical question which can almost as easily be asked of the other candidate most Republicans think have a realistic chance of being their party's nominee. Ed O'Keefe of The Washington Post on Friday reported

Jeb Bush was the only announced presidential candidate to participate actively Friday in an event commemorating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- and he spent a few brief moments noting the work of a certain previous president.

Joining local military veterans and high school students in the town square here, Bush read the names of several dozen people killed in the terrorist attacks at New York's World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in Shanksville, Pa., but only after pausing to reflect on his brother George W. Bush.

"I'm proud of the president of the United States at the time, who unified our country in a way that was desperately needed and created a strategy to keep us safe," Jeb Bush said before reading several pages of names.

John Ellis Bush isn't the only Republican, not by a long shot, to claim President George W. Bush kept the nation "safe" from terrorism. However, other than perhaps Dick Cheney, he is the most prominent one, is running for President, and now has done so at an event honoring the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks.  The occasion commemorated the event which was the ultimate in endangering the United States- and President Bush's inability and/or unwillingness to do anything to prevent it. John might have noticed that, were he not delusional, dishonest, or crassly political.

Following Bush's decision to launch a war against Iraq while falsely implying Baghdad had something to do with the terrorist attacks, Bush did- briefly- help unify the nation.   Nonetheless, as events in the Mideast unfolded and the region became more unstable, that unity not only evaporated but reversed, leaving a fractured, disillusioned country.

So we can condemn Donald Trump all we wish, even consider him entertainment sideshow as unfortunately the Huffington Post has.  However, as Conor Lynch has observed,

That being said, if we take a look at Trump, beyond all of the controversial remarks from him and his supporters (i.e. “Go back to your country!”) and the despicable attack on immigrants, it becomes quite clear that a president Trump would actually be less dangerous than, say, a president Walker. In fact, just about every other major GOP candidate is probably more threatening to progress than Trump.

That is especially true of Scott Walker, whose campaign appears to be imploding, but also of John Ellis, still a clear and present danger (photo from AP/Jim Cole).

This blog will be on hiatus for a few days. Please come back late Thursday or early Friday.





Share |

Or Maybe He's Just A Fraud

On August 14 at the Wing Ding Dinner in Des Moines, Hillary Clinton declared "Don't let the circus distract you. If you look at their policies, most of the other candidates are just Trump without the pizzazz or the hair."

She was right about immigration, as the video below demonstrates, about abortion and a few other issues, but on at least one thing John Ellis Bush stands apart from the rest of the GOP presidential field: he shows evidence of being delusional.








When it was discovered earlier this year that he had listed himself as Hispanic on a 2009 voter registration application in Miami-Dade County, John Ellis Bush tweeted "My mistake! Don't think I've fooled anyone." His son, named John Ellis Bush Jr. (because dad is so immersed in Latino culture), agreed, tweeting "come on, dad, think you checked the wrong box."

Just this past Monday, upon being criticized for using the term "anchor baby," Bush maintained "My background, my life, the fact that I’m immersed in the immigrant experience — this is ludicrous for the Clinton campaign and others to suggest that somehow I’m using a derogatory term..."

The John Ellis Bush who is "immersed in the immigrant experience" was born in Midland, Texas, approximately 107 years after Texas was admitted to the Union. He is not a naturalized citizen; he was born in the actual United States of America.

Bush wasn't confused only for that moment in 2009. In November, 2013 he stated (video below)

I’m bicultural—maybe that’s more important than bilingual. For those who have those kinds of marriages, appreciating the culture of your spouse is the most powerful part of the relationship. Being able to share that culture and live in it has been one of the great joys of my life. We chose Miami to live because it is a bicultural city. It’s as American as any, but it has a flair to it that is related to this bicultural feeling. I wanted my children to grow up in a bicultural way.









Of course, John Ellis was being interviewed at Manhattan's 92nd Street Y, likely in front of an audience which would be much more amenable to someone bicultural than someone proud of a WASP background, whose family includes a governor, two US Senators, a Supreme Court Justice and two bad Presidents. and whose family tree "includes the Spencer family that produced Diana, Princess of Wales."

John Ellis Bush is married to the former Colomba Garnica Gallo, with whom he lives in a "classically inspired townhouse" bought for $1.3 million in 2008 in "the sumptuous Almeria Row development that has won numerous architectural awards."  But being married to a woman from Mexico, being bi-lingual, and having lived a few years in Venezuela does not make a Bush "immersed in the immigrant experience."  He is very knowledgeable about, and perhaps fond of, the immigrant experience. He is not immersed in it.

The immigrant lifestyle claimed by John Ellis Bush  has not, through PACs, SuperPacs, and his own effort, brought in $120.0 million to his campaign as of August 1, more than twice as much as raised by any of his rivals.  It is because he is a Bush, heir to an extraordinary business and political tradition of his white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant family.  His familial background is not something he emphasizes (except when convenient), nor need he.    The idea that he is some sort of super ethnic could be considered delusional. However, as a Bush, he less likely is delusional than singularly opportunistic.

Share |

Two Remarkable Comments

A Daily Kos blogger weekly hosts a poll asking "Who won the week?" It is often won by President Obama, and includes a wide array of legitimate options. For this week, the results were

The Connecticut Supreme Court, for ruling the state's death penalty unconstitutional, sparing 11 inmates on death row   12%, 393 votes

James Tracy, Mike East and Larry Morris, the retired Marines who lowered the American flag at the U.S. Embassy in Havana in 1961…and helped raise it there again today, 54 years later  11%, 371 votes

The Black Lives Matter movement, which is effectively getting its message out and insisting that people pay attention  8% , 280 votes

Astronaut Scott Kelly, who chowed down on the lettuce he grew at the International Space Station and deemed it "tasty"  1%, 33 votes

Canadian parliament candidate Wyatt Scott, whose zany online ad in which he rides a goose, slays a dragon and high-fives a space alien went viral and entered political ad lore   2%, 72 votes

Hillary Clinton: still running strong against the GOP; unveils New College Compact; meets with members of Black Lives Matter activists in New Hampshire  6%, 219 votes

Go Left America and the Detroit School Board, for filing a Title VI complaint with the DOJ against MI Gov. Rick Snyder for misusing federal funds, discrimination against minorities, and abuse of power  4%, 159 votes

The senators who announced their intention to vote for the Iran nuclear agreement, inc. Franken, Tester, Durbin, Sanders, Schatz, Klobuchar and King (Go, Angus!)  20%, 655 votes

Bernie Sanders: draws a crowd of 28k in Portland and 27k in LA; National Nurses United endorsement; hires the amazing Symone Sanders of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice as new national press secretary  27%, 898 votes

Melissa Gilbert, who is running for Congress as a Democrat in Michigan's 8th District, and stands a good chance of winning  1%, 49 votes

Baseball trivia buffs: on Tuesday all 15 Major League home teams won their games over the visitors (with 4 shutouts) for the first time ever  2%, 85 votes

Bernie Sanders was the popular winner there but nothing he said last week compared to a statement from a Republican US Representative. Interviewed by a conservative talker from the southeastern part of the state, the conservative congressman admitted

I did not do what I should have done to read and find out whether Bush was telling us the truth about Saddam being responsible for 9/11 and having weapons of mass destruction. Because I did not do my job then, I helped kill 4,000 Americans, and I will go to my grave regretting that.

You can't get a better apology than that.  Compare those words of regret from North Carolina's Walter Jones to the Repub politician who on Thursday at a forum sponsored by Politico remarked

I'll tell you, though, that taking out Sadaam Hussein turned out to be a pretty good deal... In 2009 Iraq was fragile but secure. It was mission was accomplished in a way that there was security there. It is a fact.... It was important to create a secure situation so that the Iraqi people, uh, felt progress was being made; they weren't afraid to walk the streets.

The surge was a military success and political failure, paving the way for the election of Nouri-al-Maliki, who shut the Sunnis out of the government and created conditions ripe for increased terrorism and instability.  President Obama complied with the terms of the Status of Forces Agreement signed by the brother of the man who made the statement above.   Taking out Sadaam, an ardent foe of Al Qaeda, turned out to be a pretty bad deal, setting in motion the events which have led to the turbulence and instability in the region today.

It's a tale of two men, both Republicans. One of them doesn't understand the Middle East and is even more confused about economics. The other one, from a district which went 58%-41% for the GOP presidential nominee in 2012, offers a bold, nearly unprecedented, apology for his role in a war waged by a president of his own party. The other can raise an awful lot of money and is from a family which has produced two failed presidents. And he is the one who thinks he should be President.












Share |