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 |

More Brazen Than Fox News

As Politico's Kate Glueck writes, "Carly Fiorina nailed it in the second Republican debate."

Of course she did. CNN made sure of that.

Until September 1, CNN had for determining who would be on the main debate stage one set of rules, which excluded Carly Fiorina. Amid complaining from the candidate's camp, CNN maintained Federal Election Commission law prevented it from changing its criteria.

Concerned about the optics for both CNN and the Republican Party of leaving off the only female candidate, CNN buckled, changed its criteria, and Fiorina was in, bringing an even 11 candidates to the debate stage.  Suddenly, the FCC mattered not.

Good news for CNN: their decision appears to be the right one, given that the failed business executive fared very well. Better news for CNN, the network that made it happen.

Rolling Stone published a profile of Donald Trump in which the billionaire was reported to have remarked "Look at that face!  Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?! I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not s'posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"   To wide acclaim, Fiorina then released an ad, described by Vox's Jonathan Allen as "shaming Trump as sexist, and it's the best comeback to a Trump insult yet."

Trump insults Fiorina; Fiorina responds, effectively; case closed. But not for CNN's Jake Tapper, who seized the opportunity to confirm the wisdom of his network's decision to dsiplay the failed 2010 GOP senatorial candidate (debate transcript here).   So Tapper asked

In an interview last week in Rolling Stone magazine, Donald Trump said the following about you. Quote, “Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?” Mr. Trump later said he was talking about your persona, not your appearance. Please feel free to respond what you think about his persona.

No need to have leaked that question to the candidate- she knew it was coming. Well prepared and staying on message, Fiorina responded (video below) in part "I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said," as she was seen saying in the ad.









Not to be outdone, GOP right-winger Hugh Hewitt figured on getting in on the action. Unconcerned about hiding his bias, Hewitt began "I’d like to talk about winning because I think all of you are more qualified than former Secretary of State Clinton." It went downhill from there sd he continued

and as were the people in the first debate, but there are different styles, and Carly Fiorina, Governor Kasich, you’re conveniently located next to each other, and you have different styles.

Governor Kasich, you’ve been on my show a lot. You refused to attack Hillary Clinton, you just don’t want to go there, you want to do the up with people. Go, Ohio, OK, and I like that.

Carly Fiorina, I don’t have to bring up the Secretary of State — you bring her up, so (inaudible).

Which one of you is wrong? Governor Kasich?

It didn't surprise any of you that John Kasich, as any Republican candidate with an IQ over 50, did not criticize his rival for criticizing the satanic Hillary Clinton.  No one ever lost a Republican vote by criticizing Mrs. Clinton and when Hewitt followed up Kasich's answer by asking "Carly Fiorina, your style?" the fix clearly was in.  Right on cue, a few minutes before the end of the debate, a CNN reporter wrote an adoring article about Fiorina's performance.

Carly Fiorina may have done well on her own without the debate being fixed, though Trump's reminder of how she brought down Hewlett-Packard and Lucent might have put a dent in that.  Credit Fiorina for accomplishing her objective in the debate, and CNN for the same.







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 |

Fiorina Fail

On Friday, Carly Fiorina spoke to the National Federation of Republican Business Women Convention in Phoenix.  She has been surging in the polls lately, in part because, like Donald Trump and Ben Carson, she is eminently unqualified for the top job.

Fiorina's speech was well-received, despite- or more likely, because of- its many contradictions. Listen beginning at approximately 13:30 of the video below when she recommends

... a lot of challenging to the status quo. It means we have to go to some form of zero-based budgeting.  We actually do need to know where our money is being spent. That's the only way you can spend less overall and thus prioritize how it is being spent.  We need to go to some version of meritocracy so that when hundreds of thousands of veterans die without an appointment more than two people in the VA lose their jobs.

Yes, a lot of veterans went a long time- far too long, without an appointment.  To cheers, Fiorina then offers her remedy: "we have 256,000 federal government bureaucrats, baby boomers who are going to retire in the next four or five years. I will not replace a single one."  Fiorina will solve the problem of backlog in the Veterans Administration by cutting jobs.









Fiorina's response sounds ridiculous only because it is. Nonetheless, it is her modus operandi. Recall that

.... lost shareholder wealth and lost strategic direction at HP are only part of Fiorina’s legacy. Also lost during her reign were 30,000 U.S. tech jobs, the company’s revered employee morale, and the egalitarian, humble HP way culture. A new defensive, finger-pointing style of leadership led to waves of firing. Dissent was equated with disloyalty as discovered by Walter Hewlett, a board member and son of HP’s co-founder, when he questioned Fiorina’s misguided Compaq acquisition strategy and refused to be bullied into a board statement of unanimous consent, suffering legal and personal threats.

Fiorina got high marks for her performance in the first debate, among the candidates barely registering in voter preference surveys, from a media which largely has ignored her poor record at Hewlett Packard, as well as the over the $100 million she pocketed while inept. It's hard, though, not to come out looking good when one of your rivals virtually endorses you, as when Rick Perry commented

One of the great challenges that we have, $150 billion is fixing to go to a country that killed our Marines in Lebanon, that used their weapons to kill our young men in Iran. And the idea that this negotiation — I will tell you one thing. I would a whole lot rather had Carly Fiorina over there doing our negotiation than John Kerry. Maybe we would’ve gotten a deal where we didn’t give everything away.

Evidence indicates the country benefited a great deal by having John Kerry lead negotiations for the USA with Iran.  Had Carly Fiorina been nearly as adept at guiding a large corporation, she would be someone who would almost deserve serious consideration for the nomination of her Party.







Share |

Colbert's Folly

After watching Stephen Colbert's interview of Vice-President Joe Biden on CBS' Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Steve M. believes it likely

Biden won't run. Maybe that's a good thing. But I'll be sorry if we never get to see him debate the GOP nominee, who, I'm more and more convinced, will be Trump. Biden can seriously talk policy, but I wonder if the quantity of blarney he tosses into the mix, and especially the quality of sentiment, could be the magic bullet against Trump. Watch the Colbert interview -- when Biden talks about his son, you can hear a pin drop. I don't think Trump's bombast would be a match for that.

A person could not watch the Biden interview and come away without a much greater regard for the late Beau Biden, and a greater regard for his father, Joe. That's the way the brilliant,  experienced talk-show host planned it.

Assuming he does not announce for the Democratic presidential nomination, win the nomination, and win the general election, Joe Biden will be an afterthought and Stephen Colbert will still be stealing millions from CBS (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Admittedly, he may take a different tack to other politicians.   Colbert may like the former Delaware Senator so much that he intentionally conducted the puff interview to end all puff interviews, attempting to cast the grieving man in the best possible light.  Hopefully, Colbert's future interviews with individual any person who might become leader of the Free World will be worthy of the office in which he or she is interested.

In this one, however, Colbert's most piercing remark (at 8:12 of video below) was "I love how you say so many times 'my mom had an expression.'"  After Biden obliged with one of those homespun sayings, Colbert continued

And you know, there's one other person who said that and that's Thomas Jefferson and this is why I think people want you to run for President... and sir, I just want to say that I think your experience and your example of suffering and service, um, is something that will be sorely missed in the race. It's not that there aren't good people on both sides running but I think we'd all be very happy if you did run and if you don't, I know that your service to the country is something that we all should salute.

This was an unusual situation, interviewing a public official who has recently lost a son, but the man might become the 45th President of the United States.  Joe Biden is entitled to tell his story. But Steven Colbert should not be applauded for passing off the segment as anything other than an effort to promote the vice-president's potential candidacy.

Such fawning might not be unique in late-night talk shows, but it's something unexpected in someone portrayed as so clever and intelligent with a biting wit and willingness to go where no one else goes.   Colbert is as clever, and even more intelligent, as claimed. As for the rest, if last night's interview (and the initial show) are any indication, he's going to be just another late-night hack focused on fame and fortune.














Share |

Deciding Who Is Deserving Of Mercy

Regular Crooks And Liars contributor LeftOfCenter uses the occasion of an interview by Alan B. Colmes of the Catholic League's Bill Donohue to criticize Donohue, which always is a good thing. He observes

In summary, the Church is really no more accepting of the reality of being homosexual, but the judgement seems less harsh, and the faith is not overtly condemning them to eternal damnation, anymore. The current Pope is slowly changing hearts and minds with slightly less harsh proclamations, but when it comes down to brass tacks, the Catholic Church really hasn't changed all that much. But a more liberal leader of the church can make the faith seem far more welcoming and tolerant than it appeared, under Pope Benedict.

Fair enough. But LOC asserts also "The Pope doesn't believe man is fit to judge other men, especially since Jesus did specify in the Bible that there are men who are born eunuchs, inferring homosexuality, and was tolerant of these children of God."

I don't know much about eunuchs but I do know this: the Pope (with Raul Castro, below) does believe man is fit to judge other men, a position contrary (ironically) to both women's rights and biblical Christianity.  No theology lesson here, so leave aside that inconvenient notion of Jesus Christ being the propitiation for sins. His Holiness believes a mortal man, a priest, may forgive sins, reflected even in the positive step he took earlier this month

by announcing that priests around the world will be authorized to forgive the "sin of abortion" when the church begins a "Year of Mercy" this December.

"The forgiveness of God cannot be denied to one who has repented," the Pope said, adding that he has met "many women" scarred by the "agonizing and painful" decision to have an abortion.

Francis' announcement will give all priests full authority to absolve Catholics contrite about their role in a procedure that the church considers a grave "moral evil." In the United States, many priests already have that power, but Vatican officials portrayed Tuesday's announcement as "a widening of the church's mercy."

Forget that crazy idea about God alone granting mercy.  Rather, as The New York Times' Jill Filipovic argues,

Instead of treating women as adults who make their own decisions, the pope condescends to “all the women who have resorted to abortion,” saying he is “well aware of the pressure that has led them to this decision.” The threat of excommunication, at the very least, makes the church’s views on women’s rights clear. Offering forgiveness is a softer version of the same judgment: that the millions of women around the world who have abortions every year are sinners. Inviting women to feel shame and guilt for their abortions isn’t a mercy; it’s cruelty.

Though noting "the idea that a woman who chooses to have an abortion needs absolution in the first place" is "pretty damned patronizing and paternalistic all on its own," Charlie Pierce commends the Pope for having

taken this decision away from the bishops- including those American wingnuts who want politicians who support a woman's right to choose refused communion and/or excommunicated- and placed  it in the privacy of the confessional, where it is between a woman and her parish priest.

Pierce writes from the branch of Christianity in which replacing the bishops with the parish priest, offering the woman the opportunity to confess and thereby receive mercy, is a big deal.. It is, if it proves to be a slippery slope to allowing the woman, any woman (or man), to approach God directly. That might include abortion, for which I believe an apology rarely is necessary, or for anything else. Otherwise, as Digby notes,

now local priests can forgive the dizzy broads who made this horrible error without really knowing any better without be designated by a bishop to have the power to do it. That's literally the only thing that has changed. Women who make the evil choice to have an abortion need to prove to a celibate male priest that she didn't know what she was doing and then perhaps she won't be excommunicated. So that's nice. 

Share |

Bible Aside, Still Not Right

Sometimes controversy brings out the best in talk shows and even a bad show can present an interesting and edifying interview.

And so  it went when Joe Scarborough and almost assistant co-host Mika Brzezinski interviewed Mike Huckabee (video here), Kim Davis' most visible supporter, on "Morning Joe" Wednesday.  Joe Scarborough tried to go toe-to-toe with Huckabee on Scripture. "Obviously," the Joe in "Morning Joe" stated, "we disagree on, uh, constitutional grounds here. I want to ask you, though, biblically, um, what are the biblical grounds of somebody that works for Caesar not rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's?"

After Huckabee responded, Brzezinski tried at least three times to get the former governor to answer "What if Kim Davis wanted to get a third or fourth marriage license from somebody who truly believes that you should only get married once?” Brzezinki asked. “What would you say to that?”

Huckabee avoided answering each time, though he helpfully pointed out that Davis already has been married four times, which would qualify her for a fifth marriage license, were she to divorce her current husband.  As Salon's Scott Eric Kauffman explains

Joe Scarborough jumped in at this point, noting that “Jesus focused a lot more on divorce, focused a lot more on lust, focused a lot more on the poor, focused a lot more on clothing the naked, visiting people in jail, taking care of the hopeless than he did on homosexuality. In fact, he never mentioned homosexuality.”

“You can read the text of the gospel and what Jesus Christ said,” he continued, “and there’s a lot more condemnation for people like myself who have been divorced than there is condemnation for people that participate in the gay lifestyle.”

Huckabee replied, “homosexual marriage was not an issue in the First Century,” to which Scarborough countered that that’s not the point. ” Jesus was much more explicit about divorce and you can much more easily make an argument that a judge would refuse to grant divorces because Jesus was far more explicit about divorce equaling adultery.

Scarborough's argument falls short on two bases. The apostle Paul famously (or infamously, depending upon your viewpoint) slammed homosexuality, in 1 Corinthians maintaining" Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men."   And in Romans:"the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Skeptics question whether Paul actually made these statements. But it is precisely the same book which includes these words, and by the same authority that they are uttered, which quotes Jesus as saying what he did about divorce, adultery, and a myriad of other things. Question both Paul and Jesus, if you will; but questioning one and not the other is intellectually dubious.

And as it turns out, Scarborough is disingenuous, albeit not dishonest, about Jesus' view of same-sex relations.  Jesus condemned "sexual immorality," which this Christian apologist believes derives from the Greek word "porneia," which refers to "prostitution, unchastity, fornication of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse." That appears to be anything which deviates from accepted social and religious norms.

Jesus, as Scarborough observes, did not speak specifically of homosexuality. But when he condemned divorce, he made quite clear (as in Matthew 19:3-6) that he assumed marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Though Huckabee noted "homosexual marriage was not an issue in the first century," his failure to eviscerate Scarborough and Brzezinski on Scripture demonstrates that he has lost something off his fastball. Moreover, he is wrong when he suggests, contrary to Marbury v. Madison, that the US Supreme Court's determination of the constitutionality of a statute is not always legally binding.  He is not a lawyer (or a doctor), and should not play one on TV (genesis of that, here; video below). Kim Davis has no legal right to violate her oath of office and not carry out her duties, even if consistent with her religious faith.








The books of the Bible were composed nearly 2,000 years ago with instructions practical and moral for individuals of that time and for some time thereafter. Circumstances have changed, though, and we have the benefit of hindsight and dramatically altered conditions.

We have also a Constitution, against which Justices can judge a law, and which provides the basis for the reasoning of eight Justices on same-sex marriage. (Anthony Kennedy is more concerned with social policy and Confucius.)  The same God whom Mike Huckabee believes is appalled at same-sex marriage gave us the ability to think and reason, and to obey legitimately-established authority.






Share |