David Brooks, "It’s Not Too Late!": You Should Be Scared. Very Scared.

Tweet

"I’ve never done this before. Can I have a pledge? A swearing? Raise your right hand. I do solemnly swear that I, no matter how I feel, no matter what the conditions, if there's hurricanes or whatever - that's good enough - will vote on or before the 12th for Donald J. Trump for president."

- Donald Trump, rally, Orlando, Florida, March 5, 2016

"I swear: I will be faithful and obedient to the leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, to observe the law, and to conscientiously fulfil my official duties, so help me God!"

- Nazi Germany civil servant oath, 1934-1945

Yes, you should be scared. Very scared. But not only by Trump.

In an editorial entitled "Democracy’s Disintegration in Turkey," The New York Times would have us know:

"If there was any doubt about why the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan seized the newspaper Zaman last week, consider this: Within 48 hours after the takeover, the paper began publishing pro-Erdogan propaganda.

. . . .

This crackdown is merely the latest of Mr. Erdogan’s increasingly authoritarian moves, which have included imprisoning critics, sidelining the military and reigniting war on Kurdish separatists. He now controls much of the media and has made Turkey a leader among countries that jail journalists. Along with his campaign to wipe out a free press, his government’s prosecutors have opened nearly 2,000 cases against Turks in the last 18 months for insulting Mr. Erdogan, which is a crime.

. . . .

It is unsettling that the United States and Europe have responded so meekly to Mr. Erdogan’s trampling of a free press. The Obama administration said the move against Zaman was 'troubling.' "

"Unsettling"? "Troubling"? It goes without saying that the Times fails to mention how Obama named Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan as one of his best overseas friends in 2012.

And then there was the news out of Oberlin College. As reported by Perry Chiaramontein in a Fox News article entitled "Oberlin trustees fire back at school, crackpot prof":

"Trustees and alumni at a prestigious Ohio college are turning up the heat on the school administration, which has so far taken no action against a nutty professor who believes Jews were behind 9/11 and the Charlie Hebdo terror attack in France.

The Board of Trustees at Oberlin College demanded answers in a statement posted on the school's own website, with Chairman Clyde McGregor blasting 'rhetoric and composition' Professor Joy Karega for anti-Semitic online postings.

'These postings are anti-Semitic and abhorrent,' McGregor said in the statement. 'We deplore anti-Semitism and all other forms of bigotry. They have no place at Oberlin."

Oberlin's president, Marvin Krislov, had previously defended Karega's right to publish such trash:

"I am a practicing Jew, grandson of an Orthodox rabbi. Members of our family were murdered in the Holocaust. As someone who has studied history, I cannot comprehend how any person could or would question its existence, its horrors, and the evil which caused it. I feel the same way about anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Regardless of the reason for spreading these materials, they cause pain for many people—members of our community and beyond.

I am also the son of a tenured faculty member at a large research university. My father instilled in me a strong belief in academic freedom. I believe, as the American Association of University Professors says, that academic freedom is 'the indispensable quality of institutions of higher education' because it encourages free inquiry, promotes the expansion of knowledge, and creates an environment in which learning and research can flourish."

You see, bigotry, at least against Jews, allows learning and research to flourish. How very "progressive" of you, Krislov! However, even Roger (Iran is "not totalitarian") Cohen yesterday acknowledged in a Times op-ed entitled "An Anti-Semitism of the Left" that "nothing can justify the odious 'anti-Semitic anti-Zionism' . . . seeping into British and American campuses."

All of which brings me to David Brooks's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "It’s Not Too Late!" Praying for a "Marco Rubio miracle in Florida" and asking that the field be cleared for John Kasich in Ohio, Brooks writes:

"If the G.O.P. is going to survive as a decent and viable national party, it can’t cling to the fading orthodoxy Cruz represents. But it can’t shift to ugly Trumpian nationalism, either. It has to find a third alternative: limited but energetic use of government to expand mobility and widen openness and opportunity. That is what Kasich, Rubio, Paul Ryan and others are stumbling toward."

But can Rubio and Kasich behave like big boys and strike a deal? I doubt it.

The situation is grim, but not only on the right, and those in the center are being squeezed like never before. Does it remind you of the Weimar Republic before Hitler came to power? It darn well should.

Thomas Friedman, "Beware: Exploding Politics": "Hybrid" Horse Manure. It All Boils Down to Florida and Ohio.

Tweet

Will wonders never cease? We now have both former KKK grand wizard David Duke and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan praising Donald Trump. Does this make Trump a "hybrid" candidate?

"Hybrid"? Count the number of times Thomas Friedman uses the word "hybrid" in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Beware: Exploding Politics." I found 10 instances: "the need for hybrid solutions," "a hybrid of left and right," "educators and local government come together to forge hybrid solutions," "a coalition of far-right media and money people who have created a closed loop of incentives for bad behavior and never getting to hybrid," "a system that nationally incentivizes polarization and prevents hybrid solutions," "hybrid compromises, not dogmatism," "His [Obama's] instinct has become hybrid," "a totally new hybrid politics," "His [Trump's] hybrid is an incoherent mess," and "a new, mature, hybrid center-right version." Such erudition on the part of Tom Terrific!

Given that I drive an old hybrid Incyte, which is full of dog hair, I suppose that I should be feeling pretty good about myself this morning. But I'm not - particularly after parsing the Super Tuesday scorecard. Actually, I'm experiencing more than a little nausea.

Friedman concludes his gem of an opinion piece with a prayer to the Almighty concerning the Donald:

"But please, Lord, keep him away from the White House."

At least we agree on something. Now if only Rubio can win in Florida, and Kasich can win in Ohio, however, that might indeed demand divine intervention.

Paul Krugman, "Cranks on Top": Psychiatric Tests for All Presidential Candidates!

Tweet

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Cranks on Top," Paul Krugman begins by savaging Ted Cruz and Donald Trump:

"The thing is, one of the two men who may still have a good chance of becoming the Republican nominee is a scary character. His notions on foreign policy seem to boil down to the belief that America can bully everyone into doing its bidding, and that engaging in diplomacy is a sign of weakness. His ideas on domestic policy are deeply ignorant and irresponsible, and would be disastrous if put into effect.

The other man, of course, has very peculiar hair."

But Krugman saves most of his venom for Marco Rubio:

"In short, Mr. Rubio is peddling crank economics. What’s interesting, however, is why. You see, he’s not pandering to ignorant voters; he’s pandering to an ignorant elite."

Mind you, this denunciation of Marco is coming from someone who wrote in an October 6, 2011 New York Times op-ed entitled "Confronting the Malefactors":

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

Mention by Krugman of the repeal of Glass-Steagall by Bill Clinton, the effect of its repeal on the US economy, or Hillary's position on its reinstatement? Not a chance. Again, consider what Robert B. Reich, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, has to say about this matter:

"Hillary Clinton won’t propose reinstating a bank break-up law known as the Glass-Steagall Act – at least according to Alan Blinder, an economist who has been advising Clinton’s campaign. 'You’re not going to see Glass-Steagall,' Blinder said after her economic speech Monday in which she failed to mention it. Blinder said he had spoken to Clinton directly about Glass-Steagall.

This is a big mistake.

It’s a mistake politically because people who believe Hillary Clinton is still too close to Wall Street will not be reassured by her position on Glass-Steagall. Many will recall that her husband led the way to repealing Glass Steagall in 1999 at the request of the big Wall Street banks.

It’s a big mistake economically because the repeal of Glass-Steagall led directly to the 2008 Wall Street crash, and without it we’re in danger of another one."

I agree with Reich. Moreover, it is no wonder why Hillary is unwilling to release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms.

More to the point, are we to understand that Hillary, who claimed she came under sniper fire in Bosnia, is not a "crank"? I proposed in my prior blog entry that all remaining US presidential candidates undergo psychiatric testing and that the results be published. Indeed, let's see who are the "cranks"! I am confident the list extends to both parties.

Paul Krugman, "The Time-Loop Party": Hillary Clinton Good, Marco Rubio Bad

Tweet

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Time-Loop Party," Paul Krugman savages Marco Rubio's performance during Saturday's GOP debate:

"Mr. Rubio’s inability to do anything besides repeat canned talking points was startling. Worse, it was funny, which means that it has gone viral. And it reinforced the narrative that he is nothing but an empty suit. But really, isn’t everyone in his party doing pretty much the same thing, if not so conspicuously?

The truth is that the whole G.O.P. seems stuck in a time loop, saying and doing the same things over and over."

Saying the same thing over and over, like Obama repeatedly declaring "No matter what you’ve heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it"?

More to the point, Krugman honestly believes that Hillary, whom he deems "a genuine policy wonk," does not make a habit of repeating canned tripe, or even worse, flip-flopping on key issues?

Krugman continues his opinion piece by observing:

"Meanwhile, on foreign policy the required G.O.P. position has become one of utter confidence in the effectiveness of military force. How did that work in Iraq? Never mind: The only reason anybody in the world fails to do exactly what America wants must be because our leadership is lily-livered if not treasonous. And diplomacy, no matter how successful, is denounced as appeasement."

Let there be no mistake: unlike Hillary, I opposed the Second Gulf War. However, how is Obama's "diplomacy" working out in Syria? Answer: More than 250,000 people dead, and over nine million people who have abandoned their homes.

Perhaps you recall Hillary's inexcusable 2011 defense of Syria's homicidal president, Hafez al-Assad:

"Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer."

Hillary is a "genuine policy wonk"? Sorry, Paul, but there is nothing "genuine" at all about a candidate who cannot bring herself to release transcripts of her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs.

Shame on you, Paul.

Gail Collins, "The Things We Love to Loathe": Hillary Took It ($675,000) From Goldman Sachs and Didn't Leave It

Tweet

Veiled criticism of Hillary Clinton from Gail Collins? Will miracles never cease?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Things We Love to Loathe," Collins says of Hillary:

"Clinton did very well at a Democratic forum and debate this week. Except when she was asked, during the forum, why she accepted $675,000 for giving three speeches for the investment banking firm Goldman Sachs. ('That’s what they offered.') She had a somewhat less awful response at the debate, but then was unable to say whether she’d ever release the speech transcripts. ('I will look into it.') The situation here is clear. Clinton is never going to say she’s sorry, release transcripts or announce that she’s decided to clear everything up by donating $675,000 to charity. It is what it is, and you’re going to have to take it or leave it."

Hillary obviously took it from Goldman Sachs and didn't leave it.

But Collins can't possibly scold Hillary without castigating Marco Rubio, who is on the rise in New Hampshire. Collins goes on to say of Rubio:

"We have heard a lot already about Rubio’s $800,000 advance for a very modest memoir about his formative years. And the billionaire auto dealer who donated $100,000 to Florida International University, where Rubio was hired as a visiting professor for $69,000. This week, NBC News reported that he worked less than 10 hours a week during his first semester at the teaching gig, missing three of his 10 classes."

Needless to say, Collins doesn't mention that Obama earned $60,000 per year teaching part-time at the University of Chicago.

Collins also doesn't mention that as reported by in a Tampa Bay Times article entitled "Marco Rubio drew strong student reviews, but skimped on job requirements as FIU professor" by Adam C. Smith:

"FIU agreed to pay Rubio $69,000 for 2009, but as his U.S. Senate campaign against Charlie Crist consumed more of his time, that was reduced to $40,000.

. . . .

Nicol Rae, Rubio's co-teacher in 2012, said he had no idea how much time Rubio spent readying for class but he was always well-prepared and attended about 80 or 85 percent of the classes.

Moreno, another co-teacher, said his presence in the classroom has been a coup for FIU.

'He showed up; he did his job. The students liked him, and he would spend time with students, not a lot but usually half an hour after class,' Moreno said, noting that many students have gone on to internships in Rubio's Senate office.

. . . .

The Senate Ethics Committee approved Rubio's job with FIU, which is unusual but not unprecedented. Before he became vice president, Sen. Joe Biden earned more than $20,000 for helping teach a class at Widener School of Law, which has campuses in Wilmington, Del., and Harrisburg, Pa."

But more to the point, how do you compare $675,000 for three speeches for Goldman Sachs with $40,000, or even $69,000, for teaching part-time over the course of a year at FIU? Sorry, Gail, you don't.

Gail Collins, "And Now, the Marco Memo": Getting Nervous, Gail?

Tweet

Gail Collins concludes her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "And Now, the Marco Memo," by observing:

"Rubio himself goes to two churches. Sometimes the family attends a Baptist-affiliated service on Saturday night and a Catholic Mass on Sunday.

Quick question: How would you feel about a presidential candidate who’s both Protestant and Catholic?

A) That’s great. Maybe it’s a sign he’s open-minded. B) That’s O.K., unless it’s just another way to fudge his positions. C) I am strongly against bringing a person’s religion into the political arena. Which is why I wish Marco Rubio would stop telling us about his."

So Marco frequents two different churches on weekends. Maybe, contemplating his ultimate arrival at St. Peter's Gates, he's hedging his bets. That's an issue?

Moreover, consider what Hillary preached to an Iowa crowd less than two weeks ago:

"I am a person of faith. I am a Christian. I am a Methodist. I have been raised Methodist. I feel very grateful for the instructions and support I received starting in my family but through my church, and I think that any of us who are Christian have a constantly, constant, conversation in our own heads about what we are called to do and how we are asked to do it, and I think it is absolutely appropriate for people to have very strong convictions and also, though, to discuss those with other people of faith. Because different experiences can lead to different conclusions about what is consonant with our faith and how best to exercise it."

Was Hillary's answer prepared in advance? You decide.

Collins also complains about the advance that Marco received for his autobiography:

"The $800,000 advance he got for his memoir — the one that fails to explain his trajectory on the union issue — is also not exactly typical."

Question for Gail: Was the $14 million advance received by Hillary for "Hard Choices," which flopped, more acceptable to you? My guess is that the $800,000 received by Marco could prove a windfall for the publisher if he is elected president.

Collins focuses most of her criticism on Marco's flip-flops involving immigration: "maybe he was just … growing." Needless to say, Collins avoids mention of how Hillary's positions have been "evolving," and how this evolution justifies her flip-flops on the Iraq War, same sex marriage, free trade, gun control and immigration.

Objectivity from Collins? Not in this lifetime.

David Brooks, "Donald Trump Isn’t Real": A Pity McMahon Didn't Shave Trump's Head

Tweet

David Brooks begins his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Donald Trump Isn’t Real" by observing:

"Donald Trump was inducted into the World Wrestling Entertainment Hall of Fame in 2013. He’d been involved with professional wrestling for over a quarter century. At first his interest was on the business side, because so many of the events were held at his hotels. But then he began appearing in the ring as an actual character.

His greatest moment came in 2007 with the pay-per-view series called 'Battle of the Billionaires,' when he verbally went up against the WWE’s chief executive, Vince McMahon. The feud started when Trump interrupted McMahon on Fan Appreciation Night and upstaged him by raining thousands of dollars in cash down on the crowd in the arena. It continued with a verbal barrage and proxy match, and ended with a triumphant Trump shaving McMahon’s head in the middle of the ring."

A pity McMahon didn't shave Trump's head, revealing the secrets of the Donald's comb-over. Now that would have been entertainment!

Brooks proceeds to explain Trump's second-place finish in Iowa, "Trump was more spectacle than substance," and informs us, "We can expect similar Trump underperformance in state after state." Brooks's conclusion:

"Marco Rubio now has his moment. He is the only candidate who can plausibly unify the party. Desperate Cruz-hating Republicans will turn their faces to him."

From your lips to God's ears, David.

But once again, Brooks leaves Hillary out of the equation. How does someone facing possible indictment garner the votes of almost 50 percent of Iowa's Democrats?

Is Hillary's candidacy just as obscene as that of Trump? You bet!

Please, Joe, it's time to throw your hat into the ring.

Frank Bruni, "Marco Rubio Doesn’t Add Up": What About Hillary's Profit From Cattle Futures?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Marco Rubio Doesn’t Add Up," Frank Bruni observes with regard to Rubio's quest for the Republican presidential nomination:

"Reasonable people can’t stomach the thought of Trump or Cruz as the nominee. We can’t accept what that would say about America, or what that could mean for it. Rubio is the flawed, rickety lifeboat we cling to, the amulet we clutch. He’ll prevail because he must. The alternative is simply too perverse (Trump) or too cruel (Cruz)."

Good point, Frank.

But what of the "alternative" that Hillary represents? A liar (e.g., telling the parents of the Benghazi victims that the attack on the diplomatic compound stemmed from a videotape, not to mention her claim that she came under sniper fire when landing in Bosnia in 1996)? A hypocrite (e.g., someone willing to accept millions of dollars of donations to her foundation from Saudi Arabia, a nation which whips and imprisons women who have been gang raped, while contending that women's rights are at the center of her agenda)?

And let's not forget how she turned a $1,000 investment in cattle futures into almost $100,000 after 10 months. Beginner's luck? I don't think so.

What does this say about America?

Sean Sullivan and David A. Fahrenthold, "Marco Rubio wants to unite later by staying vague now": WaPo's War Against Rubio

Tweet

In 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy declared:

"But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."

Or stated otherwise, there exist situations where the judicial branch of government's construal of the Constitution or legislation necessarily must be respected by American politicians and trump (no pun intended) their personal views, e.g., on abortion. Yet, in a lead Washington Post article entitled "Marco Rubio wants to unite later by staying vague now" by Sean Sullivan and David A. Fahrenthold, we are told:

"It is a habit with Rubio, a candidate aiming at moderate and conservative voters who often seems to advocate two positions at once. He tells voters that he has a personal view on the subject — whether abortion, immigration, Syrian refugees or gay marriage. But he also has a view of what is politically possible. Which, usually, is not what he personally wants.

That tactic allows Rubio to offer two right answers to the same question, and lets him carve out wiggle room on topics where none seemed possible."

"Wiggle room" or respect for the American system of government and the views of other citizens? Moreover, as president, might a former senator need to adapt her/his stands owing to her/his service elsewhere in government? Consider how Hillary Clinton, once a pro-Israel senator from New York, served as President Obama's "designated yeller" at Netanyahu.

Sullivan and Fahrenthold's article follows on the heels of WaPo's December 12, 2015 lead article "The drug-smuggling case that brought anguish to Marco Rubio’s family." Yup, a brother-in-law was arrested when Rubio was 16 years old. Fascinating.

And then there was WaPo's December 3, 2015 article entitled "Before Senate win, Rubio turned political ‘juice’ into personal profits," in which Rosalind Helderman examined Rubio's income during the two-year interval between stepping down as Florida House speaker in 2008 and becoming a US Senator in 2010. Helderman wrote:

"Even before he left office in late 2008, his longtime aide sent a letter on behalf of a new private consulting group Rubio was launching, seeking business from a potentially major client: Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami’s busy public medical center.

That was an initial step in what became a profitable two-year stretch for Rubio between his time as a state legislator and his 2010 election to the U.S. Senate. Although he spent much of his time on the campaign trail, Rubio built a consulting and legal practice that made more than half a million dollars."

Helderman acknowledged that following "a complaint filed by a political critic who, among other things, alleged that the former speaker had scored clients as remuneration for his legislative support," Florida ethics officials who investigated the matter "found no evidence to support the allegation."

This smacks of scandal? Is The Washington Post remotely aware of how many former members of Congress go on to highly lucrative careers at law firms or lobbying organizations, built upon their knowledge of the ins and outs of politics and the legislative arena?

Any mention of Hillary Clinton in Helderman's article? Not one. Apparently, it doesn't matter that Hillary and Bill Clinton earned in excess of $25 million for 104 speeches since early 2014 and that Hillary charged $300,000 to speak at public universities.

How do you begin to compare income of $500,000 over the course of two years with $300,000 for a one-hour speech? Answer: You don't.

Bottom line: Rubio would wipe the floor with Hillary (famous for her flip-flops) in November 2016. Any chance that this is influencing WaPo's choice of lead articles?

I'll let you form your own opinion.

The Washington Post, "Before Senate win, Rubio turned political ‘juice’ into personal profits": Marco Made Less in Two Years Than Hillary's Income From Two Speeches

Tweet

In a Washington Post article entitled "Before Senate win, Rubio turned political ‘juice’ into personal profits," Rosalind S. Helderman examines Marco Rubio's income during the two-year interval between stepping down as Florida House speaker in 2008 and becoming a US Senator in 2010. Helderman writes:

"Even before he left office in late 2008, his longtime aide sent a letter on behalf of a new private consulting group Rubio was launching, seeking business from a potentially major client: Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami’s busy public medical center.

That was an initial step in what became a profitable two-year stretch for Rubio between his time as a state legislator and his 2010 election to the U.S. Senate. Although he spent much of his time on the campaign trail, Rubio built a consulting and legal practice that made more than half a million dollars."

Helderman acknowledges that following "a complaint filed by a political critic who, among other things, alleged that the former speaker had scored clients as remuneration for his legislative support," Florida ethics officials who investigated the matter "found no evidence to support the allegation."

This smacks of scandal? Is The Washington Post remotely aware of how many former members of Congress go on build highly lucrative careers at law firms or lobbying organizations, built upon their knowledge of the ins and outs of politics and the legislative arena?

Any mention of Hillary Clinton in Helderman's article? Not one. Apparently, it doesn't matter that Hillary and Bill Clinton earned in excess of $25 million for 104 speeches since early 2014 and that Hillary charged $300,000 to speak at public universities.

How do you begin to compare income of $500,000 over the course of two years with $300,000 for a one-hour speech? Answer: You don't.

Gail Collins, "Wow, More Terrifying Than Trump": Gail Is "Totally Terrified"

Tweet

"A particularly beautiful woman is a source of terror. As a rule, a beautiful woman is a terrible disappointment."

- Carl Jung

Perhaps you recall how Donald Trump once sent Gail Collins a copy of her column with "The Face of a Dog!" written over her picture. Well, if you believe Carl Jung, I suppose Trump is not afraid of Collins, but also not disappointed by her. On the other hand, Collins is apparently terrified by Trump; however, there are other things that go bump in the night that have Collins more alarmed than the Donald.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Wow, More Terrifying Than Trump," Collins regales us with her thoughts regarding the most recent Republican debate. Collins concludes:

"Who won? It’s hard to imagine voters who’ve stuck with Trump or Carson this long would be deterred by anything at this point. Many experts seem to think Cruz and Rubio did well, which I guess they did if you like illogical economic programs and totally terrifying views on foreign affairs. I guess Jeb felt encouraged. After the debate he emailed a request for another donation, to 'keep the momentum going.'"

I wonder if Gail was also "totally terrified" after Hillary announced her support for the inane Second Gulf War.

I also wonder if Gail was "totally terrified" after the beheading of James Foley by ISIS, or did she just contentedly swallow another bonbon? After all, President Obama raced off to play a round of golf just minutes after expressing his grief over the death of this American journalist.

Or was Gail "totally terrified" after Obama expressed his desire that Iran become a "very successful regional power"?

Different strokes for different folks . . .

Sour Grapes: Bush Is Bush's Problem, Not Rubio

Tweet

"People should know when they are conquered."

- Quintus, "Gladiator" (2000)

As reported in a New York Times article entitled "Bush Allies Threaten Wave of Harsh Attacks on Rubio, an Ex-Mentee" by Maggie Haberman and Michael Barbaro:

"The cash-rich group aiding Jeb Bush’s White House run has filmed a provocative video casting his rival Marco Rubio as ultimately unelectable because of his hard-line stand against abortion.

That group, which has raised more than $100 million, has asked voters in New Hampshire how they feel about Mr. Rubio’s skipping important votes in the Senate.

And the group’s chief strategist has boasted of his willingness to spend as much as $20 million to damage Mr. Rubio’s reputation and halt his sudden ascent in the polls, according to three people told of the claim."

Remarkably, Bush's staff doesn't understand that Rubio is not Bush's problem. Bush is Bush's problem. (And the $20 million could be better spent feeding hungry people.)

As reported by CNN in an article entitled "Poll: Carson and Trump vie for lead, Rubio in third" by Eric Bradner (my emphasis in red):

"A McClatchy/Marist GOP presidential primary poll released Monday shows Ben Carson with a narrow 24% to 23% lead over Donald Trump -- followed by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 12% and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 8% each.

But the best news for Carson, Rubio and Cruz could be that likely Republican primary voters overwhelmingly say the more they hear about them, the more they like them.

For Carson, 67% of Republicans said that's the case -- while 20% said the more they hear about him, the less they like him.

For Rubio, the splits were 58% to 27%, and for Cruz they were 51% to 31%. Carly Fiorina does well too, at 46% to 34%.

But for Bush and Trump, the opposite is true: 44% of Republicans say they like Trump more as they hear more about him, while 49% say they like him less. And for Bush, the numbers are 32% and 58%."

As Jeb declared after the last Republican presidential debate, "I got a lot of really cool things I could do other than sit around and be miserable, listening to people demonize me and feeling compelled to demonize me." Well, it's time for Jeb to heed his own advice and do those "cool" things, even if it disappoints Bush the Elder. The dynasty is finished.

It's also time for Jeb to realize that it doesn't serve his best interests to go around demonizing others. It backfired for him at the last Republican presidential debate when he attacked Rubio. It will backfire again.

Marco Rubio and "Messy" Group Speak at The New York Times and The Washington Post

Tweet

In case you didn't notice, we witnessed a horrifying development this past week, evidencing the decline of an objective American press. We're talking about "Group Speak."

On Friday, November 6, 2015, New York Magazine published an article entitled (my emphasis in red) "A Guide to Marco Rubio’s Messy Personal Finances" by Margaret Hartmann, which told us of the "controversy surrounding Rubio's financial background." Concerning Rubio's credit card statements, Hartmann's article declared:

"The pressure grew so intense that Rubio promised to release records from his time in Florida’s House of Representatives 'in the next few weeks.' A Rubio campaign aide claimed, 'our plan has always been to release these,' but that's dubious since journalists have been trying to obtain the files for a decade."

"Dubious"? Rubio released 22 months of credit card statements on Saturday, one day after the publication of Hartmann's article.

Among other things, Hartmann, who was a press intern at Senator Hillary Clinton's  New York office in 2005, also said of Rubio in her article:

"He liquidated most of his retirement savings last year, though financial experts say that's usually a very bad idea."

The "experts" say that's usually a bad idea? In fact, that would depend upon the yield on your retirement savings fund, the rate of interest you are paying to borrow money, and the level of your anticipated future income. I am a business adviser to several leading life science companies (chairman of the board of one of them), and a decade ago, after weighing the risks, I also decided to liquidate my retirement savings fund in order to pursue a lifelong goal of establishing my own company, which has proven successful and gratifying.

But notwithstanding Rubio's release of his credit card statements, the press was not finished with the "scandal" - not by a long shot.

Do you remember past reporting of The New York Times concerning Marco Rubio's purchase of a fishing boat, repayment of student loans, and receipt of traffic tickets, which even Jon Stewart ridiculed? And do you recall how I told you one week ago that we should expect more of the same from the Times as regards Rubio, who stands too good a chance of beating Hillary in November 2016? Well, on Saturday, November 7, 2015, in a Times article entitled (my emphasis in red) "Marco Rubio’s Use of Party Credit Card Reinforces a Picture of Messy Finances," Jeremy W. Peters, Steve Eder and Jeremy Merrill also sought to impugn Rubio's finances, based upon the credit card statements. They acknowledged that there was nothing illegal in anything Rubio had done, and they didn't claim that he had failed to repay personal expenses charged to his Republican Party credit card. However, the authors of this article did inform us of several personal payments charged to the card (my emphasis in red):

"There were more than two dozen visits to La Carreta, a chain of Cuban diners, sometimes for amounts under $10. There were several hundred dollars in purchases at bookstores, one listed on the statements as a family bookstore and the others from trips to a Barnes & Noble in South Miami. He spent $25 at a CVS about a half-mile from his home in West Miami. There were also purchases at a Publix grocery store in Miami.

. . . .

Other charges from the newly released records that the campaign identified as personal included $599.45 for visits to a Honda dealership near Mr. Rubio’s West Miami home; $180 for a children’s activity center; and $715.28 to a Sym’s discount clothing store in New York City."

Rubio spent $25 at a CVS using his party credit card? Shame on you, Marco! Rubio bought clothes from Sym's using his party credit card? I can only hope that the clothes were not selected from the Bargain Basement, which might have landed him in deep trouble with Joan Rivers's "Fashion Police," if she was still alive.

But wait, there's more. On Saturday, November 7, 2015, The Washington Post also ran a lead story entitled (my emphasis in red) "Inside Marco Rubio’s messy American Express statements" by Manuel Roig-Franzia, Sean Sullivan and Tom Hamburger, which told us:

"The Florida Ethics Commission investigated Rubio’s credit card spending and dismissed a citizen complaint against him. According to an internal audit commissioned by the Florida GOP, Rubio repaid the state party for six airline tickets, costing $2,417, that he had double-billed to the party and the state government. The audit report states that Rubio was able to provide proof that other charges the auditor questioned were for business purposes, but it does not provide specifics.

The Florida GOP’s policy manual prohibited using the card for personal reasons, according to the audit. But some Florida GOP officials have publicly stated that such expenses were acceptable, as long as the cardholder paid for them personally."

Oh my goodness! What a horror story! The WaPo article fobserved:

"Rubio’s handling of the card gained renewed attention this past week after attacks by his 2016 presidential rival Donald Trump, who accused the Florida senator of being a 'disaster' with his card and living beyond his means."

Or stated otherwise, how dare this parvenu, the son of Cuban immigrants and who did not receive a $1 million dollar loan from his father to start his own real estate business, struggle on his own to achieve what many would regard as the American dream?

A "scandal" here? It sounds almost as serious as Mitt Romney's "dog on the roof of the car" affair. Moreover, any unseemliness does not even approach the stench emanating from Obama's purchase of his Chicago mansion or Hillary having to return $114,000 of White House "china, flatware, rugs, televisions, sofas and other gifts."

But if there is something rotten here, it is to be found in the titles of the New York Magazine, New York Times and Washington Post articles, all of which refer to Rubio's finances as "messy." A coincidence? I don't think so. A case of great minds think alike? Not a chance. I think The New York Times and The Washington Post have more than a bit of soul searching to do here, particularly if they wish to preserve any vestige of past reputations for objectivity.

Jeremy W. Peters, Steve Eder and Jeremy Merrill, "Marco Rubio’s Use of Party Credit Card Reinforces a Picture of Messy Finances": Rubio Guilty of Buying Clothes at Sym's!

Tweet

Do you remember past reporting of The New York Times concerning Marco Rubio's purchase of a fishing boat, repayment of student loans, and receipt of traffic tickets, which even Jon Stewart ridiculed? And do you recall how I told you one week ago that we should expect more of the same from the Times as regards Rubio, who stands too good a chance of beating Hillary in November 2016? Well, today, in a Times article entitled (my emphasis in red) "Marco Rubio’s Use of Party Credit Card Reinforces a Picture of Messy Finances," Jeremy W. Peters, Steve Eder and Jeremy Merrill impugn Marco Rubio's finances, based upon the senator's recently released credit card statements (my emphasis in red):

"Newly released credit card statements from the years when Senator Marco Rubio was a young Florida legislator on the fast track to leadership show a pattern of falling behind on payments while mingling personal and political spending, disclosures that reinforce the image of a politician who has long struggled with messy finances, at home and in his career.

. . . .

In all, his campaign said on Saturday, Mr. Rubio spent $182,072 on the card from January 2005 through December 2008, of which 12 percent, or $22,003, was personal and was paid to American Express directly by him.

But those payments were routinely late — 21 times over the course of those four years — sometimes because he did not pay on time, and sometimes because the Republican Party fell behind. The account, which was listed under his name, was assessed delinquency charges seven times, adding up to $1,639.47.

. . . .

There were more than two dozen visits to La Carreta, a chain of Cuban diners, sometimes for amounts under $10. There were several hundred dollars in purchases at bookstores, one listed on the statements as a family bookstore and the others from trips to a Barnes & Noble in South Miami. He spent $25 at a CVS about a half-mile from his home in West Miami. There were also purchases at a Publix grocery store in Miami.

. . . .

Other charges from the newly released records that the campaign identified as personal included $599.45 for visits to a Honda dealership near Mr. Rubio’s West Miami home; $180 for a children’s activity center; and $715.28 to a Sym’s discount clothing store in New York City."

Rubio spent $25 at a CVS using his party credit card? Shame on you, Marco!

However, as acknowledged even by the authors of this article, there was nothing illegal in any of this. Moreover, where is it claimed that he did not repay the party for personal expenses charged to his party credit card? Answer: It isn't.

Thank goodness I'm not running for office. I admit it: There have been a few instances over the course of the decades when I mistakenly reached for the wrong credit card while paying a bill, although, like Rubio, the personal charges were always subsequently paid by me. Over the years, may the Lord forgive me, there were also times when I was charged for late payments. And while struggling to build my own business, my finances could also have been labelled "messy."

Which is not to say that Rubio emerges from all of this scot free: He bought clothes from Sym's, although I am not aware if they were from the Bargain Basement, which might have landed him in deep trouble with Joan Rivers's "Fashion Police," if she was still alive.

[Lo and behold, who would ever imagine: The Washington Post is now also running a lead story entitled (my emphasis in red) "Inside Marco Rubio’s messy American Express statements." "Messy" again? What a coincidence! But then there was also New York Magazine's article entitled (my emphasis in red) "A Guide to Marco Rubio’s Messy Personal Finances." A case of great minds think alike? Why is it that I have my doubts?]

Glenn Kessler, "Is Hillary Clinton a ‘liar’ on Benghazi?": Who Checks the Checker?

Tweet

In a Washington Post "Fact Checker" column entitled "Is Hillary Clinton a ‘liar’ on Benghazi?," Glenn Kessler assigns Marco Rubio two Pinocchios for claiming that Hillary was "exposed as a liar" after she "spent over a week telling the families of those victims and the American people that [the Benghazi massacre] was because of a video." Kessler justifies these Pinocchios by asserting:

"Rubio is certainly within his rights to point out Clinton’s contradictory statements — and the remarks of the family members give us pause — but he does not have enough evidence to label Clinton a liar."

Yup, we should all take the word of Hillary "I remember landing under sniper fire" Clinton over the statements coming from the family members.

For more concerning Kessler's abominable handling of this matter, see Mark Hemingway's article entitled "Did WaPo's Fact Checker Inadvertently Expose Clinton Disseminating Classified Info on Benghazi?" in The Weekly Standard.

Shame on you, Kessler! Any credibility that you might have once wielded has now gone flying out the window of Mastro Geppetto's workshop.

David Brooks, "The Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio Moment": Marco Could Wipe the Floor With Hillary

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio Moment," David Brooks informs us that Marco Rubio is the likely Republican presidential candidate:

"Ryan is the new House speaker and right now Rubio is the most likely presidential nominee. The shape of the presidential campaign is coming into focus. It’s still wise to expect (pray) that the celebrity candidates will fade as the shopping phase ends and the buying phase begins.

. . . .

While other candidates are repeating the formulas of the 1980s and 1990s, Rubio is a child of this century. He understands that it’s no longer enough to cut taxes and say bad things about government to produce widespread prosperity. In a series of major policy speeches over the past two years (he’s one of the few candidates who actually gives them), Rubio has emphasized that new structural problems threaten the American dream: technology displacing workers, globalization suppressing wages and the decline of marriage widening inequality."

Or stated otherwise, a young Marco could wipe the floor with an aging Hillary, and this obviously has Gail Collins and her ilk in a panic. And yes, you should expect more articles about Rubio's traffic tickets and fishing boat from the Times.

Gail Collins, "Oh, Those Debating Republicans": Taking Aim at Marco Rubio

Tweet

Gail Collins doesn't give a damn if Hillary lied to the parents of the Benghazi victims, as part of the Obama administration's efforts to pretend that al-Qaeda was "on the run" prior to the 2012 presidential election. And in this regard, I should point out that Hillary is amazing. Have another look at the videos in which she claimed that she came under sniper fire in Bosnia and in which she blamed the video for the Benghazi tragedy. I used to work in "investigations," and I can't find the "tell" in either video, which makes her more than a little frightening.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Oh, Those Debating Republicans," Collins examines yesterday's Republican presidential debate and fixes Marco Rubio in her crosshairs:

"Republicans who have been terrified by Trump and Carson, and in despair over Jeb Bush, keep pointing hopefully to Marco Rubio. During the debate, Rubio demonstrated great verbal talent when it came to explaining why he seems so bad at things like, say, managing his personal finances. (His parents were humble working folk who did not leave him a fortune.) Also, his stupendous absentee record in the Senate is not all that much worse than some other people who have run for president."

Rubio's poor management of his personal finances? Gail must be referring to that pathetic New York Times story concerning Rubio's purchase of a fishing boat and his repayment of his student loans, which even Jon Stewart ridiculed.

Rubio's "stupendous" absentee record in the Senate? Hey, Gail, how about comparing it with Obama's 129 "present" votes in the Illinois state senate?

If the Republicans decide not to nominate the Donald, i.e. avoid shooting themselves in the foot, and choose Rubio instead, look for more of the same from Collins. Rubio can beat Hillary, and Democratic sycophants such as Collins are already running scared.

Gail Collins, "Too Many Bushes Spoil the Broth": Hands Off Hillary's E-Mail Scandal

Tweet

Care to take a short walk down memory lane? Seven months ago in a less than prescient New York Times op-ed entitled "Hillary Clinton Comes Back," Gail Collins wrote:

"Right now you’re probably asking yourself: What am I supposed to do with all this Hillary Clinton stuff? True, I am a concerned citizen, but I have a big deadline at work and a lot of social activities scheduled for the weekend.

. . . .

There won’t be a new Hillary. What voters can hope for is the best possible version of her flawed self. That while there will be messes, she will force herself to be open during the cleanup. That while she might not be a transformative speaker, she will be able to explain how she can take the issues she’s been pursuing for decades and turn them into a plan for serious change."

Hillary has forced herself to be "open during the cleanup" of this inconsequential "mess"? Care to retract your bullshit op-ed, Gail? Probably not. Instead, Collins would have us turn our attention away from Hillary and focus on Jeb Bush. In a new Times op-ed entitled "Too Many Bushes Spoil the Broth," Collins writes of Jeb's candidacy:

"[T]he big donors are getting restless. Dissatisfaction on the part of your former constituents is one thing, but there’s nothing worse than cranky oligarchs. Dangers abound. It’s a time when you need to see your kin flocking to the rescue. One person’s hedge is another person’s security blanket."

My advice to Gail: Forget Jeb, who is going nowhere, and concentrate on Rubio. Make issues of his refrigerator, fishing boat and traffic tickets. Maybe Marco had a dog that defecated on the roof of his car. Go for it, Gail! You're going to need find something to sustain your column until November 2016.

David Brooks, "The Marco Rubio-Carly Fiorina Option": Or a Leap of Faith Off a Cliff With Donald

Tweet

Yes, the Republicans could win in 2016, if they don't shoot themselves in the foot.

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Marco Rubio-Carly Fiorina Option," David Brooks writes:

"[The Republican] party will veer on a course midway between outsider and establishment. It will probably end up with some hybrid candidate — sharp of tongue, gifted in self-expression and yet still anchored in the world of reality.

That’s where Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio come in. So far, Fiorina has looked like the most impressive candidate. She has a genius for creating signature moments. ('If you want to stump a Democrat, ask them to name an accomplishment of Mrs. Clinton’s.') But her spotty record at Hewlett-Packard probably means she can’t start at the top of the ticket.

Rubio is young and thus uncorrupted, and he is a genius at relating policy depth in a way that is personal. He has clarity of mind and can sum up a complex subject — Russia, the Middle East — in a way that is comprehensible but not oversimplified."

Rubio and Fiorina? A Hispanic and a woman, young, forthright, intelligent, and accomplished speakers? Yes, notwithstanding the ersatz refrigerator controversy floated by The Washington Post and the risible attempt by the Times to focus attention on the Rubio family's parking tickets, they would probably win against Hillary, Joe or Bernie, but it remains to be seen whether the Republicans are determined to take a leap of faith - off a cliff - with Donald.

Marco Rubio, "Obama’s Faustian Bargain With Cuba": The Same Deal Being Struck With Iran

Tweet


Having published inane front-page stories concerning Marco Rubio's finances and traffic tickets, which were mocked by Jon Stewart, The New York Times has allowed the senator from Florida to present his views concerning Obama's overtures to Cuba. In a guest op-ed entitled "Marco Rubio: Obama’s Faustian Bargain With Cuba," Rubio writes:

"WHEN President Obama announced the formal re-establishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba last week, he criticized the supposed failures of United States policy toward Cuba, which, Mr. Obama said, 'hasn’t worked for 50 years.'

. . . .

Mr. Obama’s outreach has done nothing to change any of this. On Sunday, Antonio Rodiles, a prominent activist, was beaten by regime thugs, and nearly 100 others were arrested. Human Rights Watch reports that in recent months, 'short-term arbitrary arrests of human rights defenders, independent journalists, and other critics have increased dramatically.' The Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, an independent human rights group, puts arbitrary detentions for political motives in May alone at 641, the most in months.

Yet Mr. Obama insists that building economic and diplomatic ties is likely to bring freedom and democracy to the island."

Heck, senator, do you really think Obama gives a damn about human rights? After all, he's desperately struggling to sign a deal with Iran's mullahs, which will provide them with the unequivocal right to build a nuclear arsenal after 10 years (if they don't cheat before then - which they will). Obama doesn't give a damn if Iran hangs gay men, stones to death women accused of adultery, savagely persecute Baha'is, Christians, Kurds and Sunnis, jails and brutalizes journalists and political opponents, and executes poets for "waging war on God."

January 2017 cannot come soon enough.