On Monday morning Robert Costa, highly regarded for his extensive contacts inside the Republican Party, tweeeted "in calls this morning, many Rs privately want to defect from Trump. But they say the debate gave them pause since he roused their base."
Paul Ryan says he absolutely, positively doesn't condone the remarks and behavior of Donald Trump revealed in the Access Tonight audio released last week, To Ryan, Trump made the "textbook definition of a racist remark" in June and on Friday he was "sickened by what I heard today."
Not sufficiently sickened to rescind his endorsement of Trump, it turns out. Charlie Pierce remarks "Ryan doesn't have the stones to rescind his endorsement and that he is telling the rest of his caucus to swim away from the wreckage before it sucks them all down into the abyss... The essential gutlessness of the man always will shine through."
Paul Ryan is making a calculated judgement about what's best for Paul Ryan, as he always does, which invariably inspires hosannas from the media while coinciding neatly with the expectation of the donor class. However, there is no such excuse for Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer, who- according to the outfit Pierce has dubbed "Tiger Beat on the Potomac"- on Tuesday
reversed her call for Donald Trump to resign from the GOP ticket, telling a local radio station that it's "not a tough choice" to back him just three days after she urged him to quit. "I plan to vote for Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence on November 8," she said on Nebraska's KLIN. "I put out a statement ... with regard to Mr. Trump's comments. I felt they were disgusting. I felt they were unacceptable and I never said I was not voting for our Republican ticket."
The definition of "unacceptable" must have shifted since it meant "not acceptable." It seems, further, that Deb is easily rolled, for
What Fischer had actually said was that "It would be wise for [Trump] to step aside and allow Mike Pence to serve as our party's nominee." She said in the radio interview that she would no longer advocate that position because Trump had already made up his mind. (In fact, Trump tweeted barely an hour after Fischer's call, that he would "never" quit the race.)
It's easy for Deb to decide someone is unacceptable until the subject of her disapproval says "I don't much care what you think." She may be loyal to a virtual stranger from Queens who rejected her, but not so much to a fellow conservative Nebraskan. We learn from Politico also that
Fischer stood by in May as the state's junior senator, Ben Sasse, was rebuked by state party activists for his advocacy for a third-party conservative to enter the race. That's why her initial call Saturday for Trump to step aside startled some GOP insiders.
There is no reason for Deb to startle GOP insiders any longer. She stands her ground firmly until she doesn't.
Recognizing an article in The Huffington Post, HuffPost Black Voices tweeted "nominees debate less than 15 miles from Ferguson, don't discuss police reform." Linking to that tweet, Joy-Ann Reid characterized it "among the most shameful things about last night."
It was, but it wasn't surprising. There is a major reason criminal justice/police reform wasn't discussed at the debate in St. Louis.
The first clue was when a Patrice Brock was allowed to ask "do you feel you're modeling appropriate and positive behavior for today's youth?" When a politician (or a celebrity)- as did Hillary Clinton- commends you for asking "a very good question," it's because the pitch you've served up is a big, fat one over the heart of the plate.
The second hint came when a Muslim asked "how will you help people like me deal with the consequences of being labeled as a threat to the country after the election is over?" He didn't say who would be labeling him a "threat" nor what "consequences" he was referring to.
Then there was the Virginian who asked "is it OK for politicians to be two-faced? Is it acceptable for a politician to have a private stance on issues?" While to Donald Trump truth is a complete stranger, all politicians skirt the truth while earnestly confessing they tell it like it is.
They weren't done. "Diane from Pennsylvania" asked "if you were president, what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo? Isn’t it a lot like the Holocaust when the U.S. waited too long before we helped?"
There was no indication moderators Anderson Cooper and Diane Raddatz were troubled by a comparison of using weapons of modern warfare to kill people indiscriminately to hold on to power with a systematic regime of genocide. It's no wonder forced-birth advocates can refer to abortion as "genocide" with only pro-choice advocates blinking an eye.
Fittingly, the debate ended with "regardless of the current rhetoric, would either of you name one positive thing that you respect in one another?" Of this, Charlie Pierce noted "not much more needs to be said beyond the fact that it should have come with a juice box for everyone in the audience."
Ordinary citizens specialize in the broad question which sounds quite interesting. It also has no reference to anything a candidate has specifically said or done and is like a large, juice steak served up to a political carnivore.
Cooper and Raddatz, he a competent interviewer and she much more, should be embarrassed for having been subjected to this format. So ask not why the duty to probe the views of the candidates on police/criminal justice/police reform was shirked. Ask why a whole range of issues such as abortion, civil liberties, education, entitlement/earned benefits, financial reform, guns, health and safety regulations was largely ignored. The culprit evidently is the Commisiion on Presidential Debates because it determined the format.
The modern urge to involve citizens as active participants in political debates is a sort of journalistic slumming which, one can only hope, makes the professionals involved feel good. Cooper and Raddatz allowed a couple of good questions to get through and there was actual depth to the clash between Trump and Clinton when the professionals asked the questions However, if the Commission believes the format of the second debate was useful, it apparently has little interest in illuminating the great issues facing a great nation
"Did any of you watch the debate last night? Well, I'm not sure you've never seen anything like that before."
So Hillary Clinton told the audience at her rally at Wayne State University in Detroit the day after the second presidential match. Alert Politifact: a "pants on fire" statement has been made.
Or perhaps Mrs. Clinton simply forgot the vice-presidential debate less than a week earlier, which bore a striking resemblance to the Trump/Clinton event in St. Louis- only in reverse.
Following Monday night's battle, Chris Matthews suggested that Donald Trump had controlled the debate. There was an element of truth in that. Consider the exchange in which the GOP nominee charged
If you look at Bill Clinton, far worse. Mine are words, and his was action. His was what he’s done to women. There’s never been anybody in the history politics in this nation that’s been so abusive to women. So you can say any way you want to say it, but Bill Clinton was abusive to women. Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously. Four of them here tonight. One of the women, who is a wonderful woman, at 12 years old, was raped at 12. Her client she represented got him off, and she’s seen laughing on two separate occasions, laughing at the girl who was raped.Kathy Shelton, that young woman is here with us tonight. So don’t tell me about words. I am absolutely — I apologize for those words. But it is things that people say. But what President Clinton did, he was impeached, he lost his license to practice law. He had to pay an $850,000 fine to one of the women. Paula Jones, who’s also here tonight. And I will tell you that when Hillary brings up a point like that and she talks about words that I said 11 years ago, I think it’s disgraceful, and I think she should be ashamed of herself, if you want to know the truth.
In response, Clinton contended "what he's just said is not right," then mentioned Michelle Obama, the latest video starring Trump, the Khans, Judge Curiel and birtherism. There was no defense of herself or her husband.
A moment later, Trump accused Clinton of starting the birther movement, rigging the primary she ran against Bernie Sanders, and of being "the devil." He topped it off with promising "to get a special prosecutor, and we're going to look into" the e-mail matter- and then he said she "ought to be ashamed of yourself."
Thus accused of felonies, the former Senator and Secretary of State responded by stating "everything he just said is absolutely false, but I’m not surprised." When Grump alleged "If you did that (erase e-mails) in the private sector, you’d be put in jail, let alone after getting a subpoena from the United States Congress," Clinton eventually replied (between interruptions)
OK, Donald. I know you’re into big diversion tonight, anything to avoid talking about your campaign and the way it’s exploding and the way Republicans are leaving you. But let’s at least focus… on some of the issues that people care about tonight. Let's get to their questions.
At another point, Clinton maintained "it’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country," to which Trump responded "because you'd be in jail." Clinton let the matter be dropped.
Matthews labeled it, in the fashion of Muhammed Ali's famous approach to his fight with George Foreman, "rope-a-dope." The Democrat, according to polls, won the debate.
That was of a piece with Pence being declared, consistent with polls, of having "won" the first debate. And he did it as Clinton did with her debate. If Trump controlled Monday's debate- as he did, to some extent- Senator Kaine clearly controlled the debate against Mike Pence. Kaine consistently and stoutly, defended his running mate's record and policies and challenged Pence to defend his own running mate's business record, offensive statement, and odd policies.
Choosing not to do so, Pence sat back and was was passive and relatively polite. For Matthews and some others (including many survey respondents), that was statesmanlike. Kaine decisively won on points; Pence won on style. Kaine, the aggressor, was slammed for interrupting Pence too often, not unlike Trump being criticized for stalking his opponent on the debate stage.
The roles of Democrat and Republican were reversed in St. Louis. Demonstrating yet again that she is far more presidential than her opponent, Mrs. Clinton stayed above the fray, at one time even adding "I am reminded of what my friend, Michelle Obama, advised us all: 'When they go low, you go high.'" (She repeated the quote and attribution in Detroit Tuesday.)
When the Democratic nominee lamely claimed "Well, you've never seen anything like that before," she was largely reprising her passive, inoffensive role of the previous night. However- aside from the Trumpian lies- we had seen something quite like it before, and one can only hope Hillary Clinton is possessed of the self-awareness to realize it.
Public Policy Research Institute recently found that 69% of white evangelical Protestants support Donald Trump while only 19% of the same group support Hillary Clinton.
That won't change with the release of the audio of a 2005 conversation on an "Access Hollywood" bus when he said, in part, "I did try and f--- her. She was married."
Anyone who isn't aware of Trump's views about women, sex, and morality isn't about to start paying attention now.
So, too, with the "Declaration by American Evangelicals Concerning Donald Trump" posted on Change.org, by the New York Times reports, a "group (which) includes African-American, Asian, Hispanic and white evangelical Christians, and it says that the news media and the polls are overlooking nonwhite evangelicals."
Noting "we will inevitably disagree about which political stances come closest to the heart of God for our nation," the signers maintain
the candidacy of Donald J. Trump has given voice to a movement that affirms racist elements in white culture—both explicit and implicit. Regardless of his recent retraction, Mr. Trump has spread racist “birther” falsehoods for five years trying to delegitimize and humiliate our first African-American president, characterizing him as “the other” and not a real American citizen. He uses fear to demonize and degrade immigrants, foreigners, and people from different racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. He launched his presidential campaign by demonizing Mexicans, immigrants, and Muslims, and has repeatedly spoken against migrants and refugees coming to this country—those whom Jesus calls “the stranger” in Matthew 25, where he says that how we treat them is how we treat him. Trump has steadily refused to clearly and aggressively confront extremist voices and movements of white supremacy, some of whom now call him their “champion,” and has therefore helped to take the dangerous fringes of white nationalism in America to the mainstream of politics.
They acknowledge "Hillary Clinton is both supported and distrusted by a variety of Christian voters" and "whether we support her "is not the question here." Still, they add
Mr. Trump has fueled white American nationalism with xenophobic appeals and religious intolerance at the expense of gospel values, democratic principles, and important international relationships. He mocks women and the sanctity of marriage vows, disregards facts and the accountability to truth, and worships wealth and shameful materialism, while taking our weakening culture of civility to nearly unprecedented levels with continuing personal attacks on others, including attacking a federal judge based purely on his Mexican heritage, mocking a disabled reporter, and humiliating a beauty pageant winner for her weight and Latina ethnicity—to give just a few examples.
And so began my post of the early afternoon of Friday, October 7, when it was interrupted by news of the videotape.
The Declaration, I would have said (and still say), captures accurately and eloquently the nature of Mrs. Clinton's opponent, as well as of his campaign and its impact on American society.
I would have argued that neither the evangelists' remarks nor the news of Trump's sexual efforts would have an impact on the votes of evangleical voters because of abortion. Following the candidate's controversial remarks in April on Hardball with Chris Matthews, Trump's campaign issued a statement including "he will change the law through his judicial appointments and allow the states to protect the unborn."
Donald Trump is officially pro-life, and that is that. His running mate, chosen in part because of an appeal to "people of faith" who believe in their way or the highway, is genuinelyin favor of forced birth. His selection merely reinforced Trump's appeal to individuals convinced that God is dead-set against a woman's right to choose and in favor of "religious freedom," the right to discriminate when invoking "God's word."
It didn't take much, and no more than that, for most prominent evangelicals to line up behing Grump, and they're not deserting him now. It turns out that neither personal piety, traditional values, nor "family values" ever meant much to this crowd. Corey Robin recognizes
this tape shouldn't be used to delegitimate Trump; he's already done that six thousand times over, and I doubt anyone will be surprised by what he says here. What it should be used to delegitimate is the Christian Right, the overwhelming majority of which—according to the latest polls—is standing with this man who stands for everything they claim to oppose. Rather than discredit Trump, this tape should destroy that movement, its leaders, and the cottage industry of enabling journalists and academics who've told us for decades that we need to take "people of faith"—by which they mean the Christian Right—more seriously.
There have been religious voices speaking out against the GOP nominee, more vociferously now, but they have come- not coincidentally- from Utah, Mormon Central. While never explicitly making the claim, most Christian evangelicals strongly implied that the Kingdom of God superceded the importance of Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. The mainstream media bought it hook, line, and sinker, giving the lie to the charge it is the "liberal media."
We don't yet know for sure how the latest outrage will play with the base of culturally religious voters, though I believe it will change very few minds. However, the impressive (albeit not complete) embrace, even now, of Donald Trump by leaders of the Christian right should be regarded as a teachable moment. Finally we know and must emphasize that most Christian right leaders (one of them a month ago, below) are more right (conservative) than Christian.
The big question at this moment is : will Donald Trump drop out of the race?
The Wall Street Journal's John Harwood tweets: "Roger Stone, asked if any chance Trump will heed GOP officials' calls to quit presidential race: No." On MSNBC this morning, Harwood said that campaign co-chairperson (anyone remember Kellyanne Conway?) implied there is no chance Trump will quit.
In 1972, Senator and Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern won a grand total of 37.5% of the popular vote and 17 electoral votes. In 1984, former Vice-President, Walter Mondale almost duplicated the feat, garnering 40.6% of the popular vote and only 13 electoral votes.
They are remembered in history as fine Senators and failed presidential candidates, and Mondale additionally as a vice-president.
If Donald Trump leaves the presidential race, he will not be remembered as just another failed presidential canidate, like Mondale, McGovern, or Bob Dole. His legacy will be as a big loser.
And not only as a loser. There is the matter of Trump Univesity, in which Judge Gonzalo Curiel- the Mexican born in Indiana- has ruled that Trump will face trial for civil charges of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Justice may be blind, but a President Trump would do better facing accusers than would a private citizen Trump.
Far from release of the damaging video coming at the worst possible time for the GOP nominee, it has come at the best possible time. He has been given warning of a topic sure to be raised, probably at the beginning, of Sunday night's debate. With Ailes, Conway, and othes advising him, Trump should be able to come up with a response sufficient to get him past the debate and on to next week without this story dealing a lethal blow.
He would do well to take the advice of one of his surrogates. Harwood has tweeted "ex-GOP Rep Kingston on what Trump should say at debate about tape: 'I was in the shadow of that Hollywood crude culture.'" He might even launch an attack on "Hollywood" generally. Despite the infatuation of the American people with popular culture, including that from that industry, it has worked for Republicans in the past. He already knows one of the questions, however it is worded. It is up to him whether it is a high, hard one or a hanging curve.
The history of Donald Trump and Howard Stern, of appearances by the real estate mogul on the radio program of the perpetually overrated shock jock, is one of using and being used. And in at least one instance, it is a case of cowardice on the part of Stern himself.
You can't fully blame Stern for wanting to set the record crooked about a controversial conversation he had with a man who may become the next president, whose vindictiveness and authoritarian tendencies have been on full display.
"Nothing! I said nothing new," protested Stern on his program on October 3. "And so I emailed Trump and I wanted to explain to hin, uh, that is not what I said.
But it, uh, was what he said. Stern was exorcised by the CNN headline reading "Howard Stern says Trump backed Iraq War in 2002." Unfortunately for Stern and Trump, the day after the presidential debate, the radio host had in fact stated on his program
I was up late watching the debate. I hung in until about 10:30 almost, heard my name mentioned, and I went to sleep. It was kinda thrilling. Yeah, oh yeah. Well, it always comes up because, you know, Trump was on our show years ago and said yeah, you know, he was kind of for the Iraq war, us going into Iraq. He was saying he really wasn’t for it, and so they were forced to mention my name. Yeah. It was cool. Good promotion.
The Hill's Joe Concha, spinning the story in Trump's favor, wrote "later interviews before the war and as it began show Trump voicing a need to 'wait for the United Nations' before invading and stating 'the war is a mess' in its first week of operations."
But as Fred Kaplan pointed out, on October 10, 2002 Trump's current opponent argued on the floor of the US Senate
... the question is, how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States—and, at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations.” She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.
There was little difference in their thinking as Mrs. Clinton went on to vote for a resolution which did not advocate invasion but authorized the President to launch one if he found it "necessary and appropriate." Though he wished the President had gotten the United Nations more involved, Donald Trump supported the invasion. Hillary Clinton apologized and Donald Trump boasted. and Howard Stern is still a coarse and crude coward.
The year before he died, the late, great Los Angeles Times reporter Jack Nelson wrote
Republican Sen. Dan Quayle, clashing with Sen. Lloyd Bentsen on Wednesday in a vice presidential debate that focused on Quayle's qualifications to be President, compared himself to former President John F. Kennedy and insisted that, if necessary, he would be prepared to assume the presidency. The 41-year-old Quayle said age alone was not the only measure of fitness for the Oval Office. Stressing his four years in the House and eight years in the Senate, he maintained that he had "as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency," a comparison that led to the most dramatic moment in the 90-minute debate. 'Served With Kennedy' "Senator," the 67-year-old Bentsen shot back, glaring at Quayle, "I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." Quayle, tight-lipped and chafing, interjected: "That was really uncalled for, senator." The Bentsen-Quayle confrontation, televised nationwide from Omaha Civic Auditorium, about Kennedy could prove crucial to the election between the presidential candidates, Vice President George Bush and Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis.
As shown repeatedly since then as an example of a great moment in political debates, Bentsen humiliated Quayle in what was thought might "prove crucial to the election between the presidential candidates," GHW Bush and Michael Dukakis. The final election tally: Bush 53.4%, Dukakis 45.6% with Bush scoring 426 electoral votes and Dukakis only 111. (This was back when the Electoral College tilted Republican.) And Senator Lloyd Bentsen never became President Lloyd Bentsen.
On several occasions on Tuesday night, Senator Kaine challenged Governor Pence to defend a statement or policy of Donald Trump, which the governor wisely avoided doing. Grabbing the low-hanging fruit, Pence secured a "victory" by taking the easy path of criticizing Hillary Clinton while eschewing the hard, politically risky role of defending his own running mate. On Monday, an aide to the Senator reportedly had asked “Is Mike Pence going to aggressively defend his running mate when he hasn’t necessarily been inclined to go on full defense [in the past]?” The answer turned out to be a resounding "no."
Among the two Democratic nominees and the two Republican nominees, Mike Pence currently is the least unpopular and could win an election held today against any of the other three. "If Kaine and Pence had been debating for an Ohio Senate seat," Matthew Yglesias slightly exaggerates, "any fair-minded person would have to conclude that Pence won in a landslide." But he is not at the top of the ticket and is not vying to be part of a winning ticket in 2016.
Pence established himself as the leading GOP candidate- for the little that's worth- for the 2020 presidential nomination (assuming the Trump loss Pence is banking on), Tim Kaine denounced Trump and boosted his own running mate, who is running for President. Mike Pence already has determined that he's on a sinking ship, and he's not going down with it.
