The Simpsons endorse Clinton for President

Everyone should vote for the person they find most qualified to be President. I am going to be greatly amused by the reaction of whoever loses in the fall election because both of the major party candidates are disliked and distrusted by large swaths of the voting population. No one can tell what the future holds but of late Trump has been doing everything he can to alienate not only swing voters but also some of his presumed base. It's not too late for him to turn perception around. But with The Simpsons show painting a picture of both candidates which is pretty true to life, Trump may have some difficulty breaking thru his self-built caricature as a crass loudmouth whose contempt for knowledge is only exceeded by his self-regard. Or to put it another way I found this amusing and thought you might as well.

Jon Stewart and Late Show: Donald Trump

Jon Stewart has a special talent for the describing the phenomenon which is the Donald Trump campaign for President of the United States. Below is his appearance on the Late Show where he goes in on the double standards that the conservative media uses when discussing President Obama and the birther running for President, Donald Trump. I liked what Stewart had to say about conservatives not owning America. It's a point worth repeating over and over again. A lot of Trump's support comes from dismay with or fear of THOSE people. This fall election is going to be very interesting from a blogging perspective, regardless of who wins.

San Jose Anti-Trump Protests and the Right to Assemble

I will not vote for Donald Trump in the fall election. There are numerous reasons for this, too many to list here. I think that Trump is despicable for spreading rumors and lies about President Obama's birthplace and religion. I think Trump is a bigot with a history of bigoted words and actions. But there are many people who will vote for Trump. I don't think that all of these people are horrible racists and/or inbred rural residents with stingy dental plans and roiling resentment over Reconstruction. But even if that were indeed the case the fundamental deal in America is that everyone gets to have a say, including people that we dislike or even hate. This was actually going to be another post on the importance of the entire First Amendment. That post may show up later with a slightly different emphasis, I guess. It all depends on the Day Job workload. But if you didn't hear about it already, on Thursday, people who were apparently opposed to Donald Trump physically attacked a number of Trump supporters at a Trump rally in San Jose, California. Now there are better writers than I who will argue in flowery abstruse academic language that Trump has legitimized a certain level of political violence through his ugly words and/or has no problem with violence as long as "his people" are delivering the beatdowns. In this POV all the San Jose protesters were doing is responding to previous violence. It's Trump and his goons who are the real bad guys. Right. This sounds good but it completely misses the point. Every American has the right to peacefully assemble and support the candidate of his/her choice without being physically attacked. Period. If we can no longer agree on that basic point then this country really does need to break apart. Let's call it a day. There is no level of rhetoric that makes it okay to respond with violence. SAN JOSE, Calif. —Protests outside a Donald Trump rally in downtown San Jose spun out of control Thursday night when some demonstrators attacked the candidate’s supporters. Protesters jumped on cars, pelted Trump supporters with eggs and water balloons, snatched signs and stole “Make America Great” hats off supporters’ heads before burning the hats and snapping selfies with the charred remains. “The San Jose Police Department made a few arrests tonight after the Donald Trump Rally,” police said in a statement. “As of this time, we do not have specific information on the arrests made. There has been no significant property damage reported. One officer was assaulted.” In one video circulating widely on social media, two protesters tried to protect a Trump supporter as other protesters attacked him and called him names. 


Perhaps the most jarring scene was that of a young female Trump supporter being attacked by a crowd of protesters. In multiple videos of the incident, the woman initially appeared to be happily posing in her Trump football jersey in front of the mostly male protesters, some of whom can be heard whistling and shouting at her. 
Then an anonymous arm rises over the crowd and tosses an egg at the woman, striking her in the head and eliciting howls and laughter from the crowd. A second later, a red water balloon bursts against the woman’s arm. At first, the woman tries to shrug off the attacks, smiling while appearing to reach out toward the Mexican flags that some protesters are waving. Objects keep crashing into the convention center windows behind her, however, and protesters can be heard screaming expletives at her. Suddenly, another projectile strikes her hard in the face. Eventually, someone comes to help her and, after she indicates that she is having trouble seeing, she is ushered back inside the convention center.

Although excessive American nationalism is unpopular with some, do protesters (citizens or not) really think that waving a foreign flag while attacking American citizens is going to make American voters more sympathetic to their cause? It irritated me and I despise Trump. It is a HORRIBLE bit of messaging. There's just no way around this. All the protesters are doing is confirming the stereotypical narrative of some Trump supporters. The proper way to respond to a charge that people of Mexican heritage and/or left wing political stances are violent is probably not for people with one or more or those characteristics to go into the streets and beat people up. I can respect the strong feelings of attachment to one's native land or to the land of one's parents. But carrying the Mexican flag while burning the US flag sends the wrong message to US citizens, even those who won't vote for Trump under any circumstances. In this country, ideally we have campaigns and elections in order to peacefully try to convince each other of the rightness of our positions. If political violence in the US becomes normalized again then I dare say we will start to look more like the countries which many of our current immigrants (legal or otherwise) fled. Or worse we will look like the US of the 1920s. And that would be a shame. Increased political violence based on ethnic grievance supports the thesis of people at both extremes of the political spectrum who are convinced that assimilation is a waste of time because demography is destiny. Whether it's an aged Trump supporter throwing elbows or a youthful Trump detractor punching someone political violence is wrong and dangerous. This needs to stop now before it winds up impacting the actual election. Do we really want to decide elections based on who can bring more button men to the polls? If anti-Trump protesters feel emboldened enough to beat up people for attending a Trump rally then what will they do to people who vote the "wrong" way? This may sound like fun and games if you're a thug who happens to live in an area where the overwhelming majority is demographically and ideologically identical to you. It's probably not so great if you are the lone Black family in the town of Keep Running N*****!!, Mississippi. No matter what your political beliefs may be using violence against people simply for having opposing thoughts is wrong. The only legitimate reason for violence is self-defense. Self-defense was not what happened in San Jose. That is not what this country is supposed to represent.

This isn't about whether we like Trump or not. I've been clear that I don't like Trump. It's about what's right or wrong. Since I called out the Trump bullyboys who felt empowered to throw elbows when they outnumbered people they didn't like I must do the same for the San Jose whack jobs who think they can put paws on their political opponents. That behavior is disgusting no matter who does it. Saying that Trump's supporters deserved some smacks is the same logic that blames an abused spouse for not shutting up and thus avoiding a beating. It's dumb logic. If the US can allow American Nazis to exercise their rights to protest, organize and march let's not have excuses claiming that the Trump supporters deserved what they got. I don't want a heckler's or rather rioter's veto on political speech. Once you start going down the path that your political opponents do not have the right to gather or speak then you're letting everyone know that you do not believe in or for that matter belong in a constitutional form of government. Again, some may believe and for all I know may be correct that Trump supporters are scum. But even scum get to vote and express themselves. On Thursday a small mob of people assaulted other people because they didn't like their political views. What happens when they decide they don't like what someone else wrote or what religion someone is? Free speech and the right to assemble are important elements of the fabric of democracy. When you start pulling those strings willy nilly the entire political quilt falls apart like a cheap suit. This crap needs to end. Because we know what the next move is. But who knows what happens after that? You want to beat Trump? You want to wipe the smirk off his face and those of his supporters? Register and vote. But attacking people at a political rally is stupid, counterproductive and morally abhorrent.

What's your take on these incidents?

State Department Inspector General and Hillary Clinton's Private Server

Well this is interesting. If Trump's statements and actions give his detractors reason to believe that he is essentially a carnival barker who is willing to say and do anything to close the deal then Clinton's statements and actions give her detractors reason to believe that she has a post-modern relativist understanding of truth. Truth may well be what Clinton says it is at any point in time. The State Department Inspector General report on the Clinton server issue shows that if nothing else Clinton did something she wasn't supposed to do and knew she wasn't supposed to do. 

WASHINGTON — The State Department’s inspector general on Wednesday sharply criticized Hillary Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, saying that she had not sought permission to use it and would not have received it if she had. The report, delivered to members of Congress, undermined some of Mrs. Clinton’s previous statements defending her use of the server and handed her Republican critics, including the party’s presumptive nominee for president, Donald J. Trump, new fodder to attack her just as she closes in on the Democratic nomination. 

The inspector general found that Mrs. Clinton “had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business” with department officials but that, contrary to her claims that the department “allowed” the arrangement, there was “no evidence” she had requested or received approval for it.  Hillary Clinton should have asked for approval to use a private email address and server for official business. Had she done so, the State Department would have said no. She should have surrendered all of her emails before leaving the administration. Not doing so violated department policies that comply with the Federal Records Act. When her deputy suggested putting her on a State Department account, she expressed concern about her personal emails being exposed. In January 2011, the Clintons' IT consultant temporarily shut down its private server because, he wrote, he believed "someone was trying to hack us." And Clinton's statements on the issue since then have been full of evasions, half-truths, misdirection and apparent lies. 

Now I suppose you could make the argument that this is no big deal, that all politicians dissemble to a certain extent. But this feeds into the Republican partisan argument that Clinton is congenitally unethical and simply can't be trusted. It also destroys the larger Democratic narrative that the only people making arguments about Clinton's trustworthiness are evil white male misogynist Republicans who strangle female puppies in their spare time. My take on this is that Clinton didn't think that the rules applied to her. This is no different than what I've seen or experienced in any large organization. The people at the top often feel free to ignore or selectively enforce rules to their own benefit for "good" reasons. There are rules and then there are rules. Some people can float through life serenely ignoring rules and rising in power and authority. Other people break one minor regulation and find themselves in an immediate world of hurt. The problem with this behavior is not just that the rules are being broken. It's that the pattern of winks and nods at rule breaking by the big shots and simultaneous punishment of rule breaking by the plebeians does a tremendous harm to the very concept of good governance. It raises cynicism and anger about political motives and promises. And that cynicism and mistrust is why Trump has done as well as he has so far. Saying that you should have an equal right to do just as much wrong as people of a different sex or race may be an accurate and even logical statement. But it's hardly an inspiring or winning political slogan. Clinton had better get in front of this as soon as possible. It's true that most people do not know or care about all the various laws and regulations concerning public communications. But people do care about someone who thinks she's above the rules. I understand if Clinton had a concern about privacy. I am a privacy nut. But when I sign on to my corporate server the very first thing I am reminded of is that I don't own communications sent over the company network. The company does. And the same thing is true of government employees. Official business should be conducted over government owned servers and in accordance with good security protocols.

Can Donald Trump Win? Well Yes He Can

There has been a lot of discussion online and elsewhere about whether or not Donald Trump can win the general election in the fall and why he was able to become the presumptive Republican nominee. At this time I still think that the advantage that Democrats have in the electoral college will be a bit too much for Mr. Trump to overcome. But things are changing. There were some recent polls that showed Trump tightening the race or actually beating Clinton in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Imagine that.  
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the likely general election presidential nominees, are running neck-and-neck in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, results driven by wide gender and racial gaps among voters, a new general election poll shows.
Clinton edges Trump in Florida and Pennsylvania, while Trump leads in Ohio, according to the Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday.
In both Florida and Pennsylvania the poll shows Clinton narrowly over Trump, 43% to 42%. In Ohio, Trump leads Clinton 43% to 39%.
"At this juncture, Trump is doing better in Pennsylvania than the GOP nominees in 2008 and 2012. And the two candidates are about where their party predecessors were at this point in Ohio and Florida," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac poll, in a memo accompanying the poll results. And despite comments about Mexican illegal immigrants that have inspired a fierce reaction from across the political spectrum Trump is currently polling slightly better among Hispanics than Romney did.  Now it's still very early. Some of these polls are outliers. It's not time to panic if you are a Clinton supporter and/or a Democrat. After all there are a few Republicans who would rather vote for Clinton than Trump. 

That's not saying much but it does show that Clinton is a weak candidate who has so far not provided an explanation of why she's running or what vision she has for the country. There is a reason why, despite Clinton's presumptive nominee status, that she has still been unable to put down a feisty socialist from Vermont who is getting nastier as time passes.
Clinton is not an inspirational candidate. She's the candidate of "Eat your spinach because it's good for you dammit!" or "I'm running because it's my turn." She doesn't seem to offer much more than that. And whatever advantage she has among women may be offset by the advantage that Trump holds among men. If Trump can continue to nibble away at the advantage that Clinton has over women while maintaining or extending his lead among men, then we could be looking at President Trump in January of 2017. On the other hand Clinton is only trailing Trump in Georgia by four points. The Republican solid South may be starting to crack thanks to migration of non-Southerners to the region, a presumptive Republican nominee with extremely high negatives and a growing Hispanic electorate which tends to vote Democratic. No one knows what will happen. I do know though that people who are broadly speaking on the left need to stop assuming that Trump will lead the Republican ticket to electoral disaster of Biblical proportions. That still may be the most likely outcome. But if Trump can translate those record breaking primary voters and rallies to general election voters he can win. All Trump needs to do is to hold on to the South (absent North Carolina and Florida) and "steal" two or three states which normally vote Democratic in national elections. 

The most likely areas for Trump to do this are in the "Rust Belt" Midwest and western Pennsylvania. Trump is targeting Michigan. Look for future Trump emphasis on down market white voters in places like Ohio, Indiana, Colorado, Florida and elsewhere. Again, right now, I still don't think this will be enough to put him over the top. But it's the only thing that could. You could argue that we've seen some of the Trump voters come out before to support Sarah Palin when she was on the ticket. And their support wasn't enough then. But President and VP are different. Either way this is going to be an exciting campaign. Historically it would be something else if the Democrats held on to the White House for three successive elections. That hasn't happened since the Republicans did it starting in 1980. The Democratic electoral debacles of the eighties led to a rebranding and reworking of the Democratic party. If the Republicans lose again then they will need to undergo a similar process. The Republican leadership may no longer be able to hold together a fractious group of nationalists, free market purists, evangelicals, big business supporters, and people who don't like them. On the other hand should the Democrats lose then perhaps they will have to rethink the emphasis on some "social justice" issues. We shall see. 

2016 Presidential Race

Lately few of the five remaining major party candidates have been having a good time of it in the polls or on the campaign trails. Most of the candidates made some unforced errors or were baited into making mistakes by the media or their rivals. The candidates seem to be reaching a point where their irritation with each other and the entire campaign process becomes more evident each week. Each candidate is digging deep to find weaknesses in his or her rivals. This interminable process is made even more unpleasant by the 24 hour cable news and social media presence. For every statement you make there is someone eagerly waiting to call you and your supporters everything but a child of God. When Republican consultants are asking other Republican partisans if their preferred candidate pays them more for certain unusual sexual favors or Democratic consultants and media talking heads are trying to paint the other Democratic candidate as the Second Coming of George Wallace you know that people are getting nasty and desperate. So it goes. Nobody put a gun to their heads and made them run for President of the United States.

Donald Trump
Politics is not war. But politics and war have some things in common. In both war and politics you can attack in different ways. There's the air game where someone comes over the horizon at 800 mph, drops ordnance on the target and is gone before anyone can react. There's lots of explosions and people running around bemoaning all the destruction. The nice thing about the air game is that you're in and out quickly. Few people can meet you on equal terms. You can shift targets at a moment's notice. The air game looks great on video. 
In the ground game you have to, as Sonny Corleone might have said, get up close to someone and bada-bing shoot them right in the head. The danger with this is that even a less technologically advanced enemy can still hurt you once you're both rolling around in the muck.The ground game is slower. You spend more time doing things that don't get publicity or ratings. It's pretty ugly on video.

Donald Trump is a devotee of the air game in politics. It's worked well for him. He's a bombastic man who apparently becomes easily bored. Trump likes to drop the hammer on his opponents and/or the media and move on to the next target. So far he hasn't shown the patience for or ability to execute the long slow grind. This means building an organization that will ensure that his supporters (and children) are registered and ready, willing and able to vote, caucus or become delegates as the rules require. Someone has to know all the various state rules and loopholes about obtaining delegates. A winning campaign must put resources into making sure that all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed right down to the precinct level. This can be boring work. It's not as exciting as stream of consciousness pep rallies, nasty tweets about how ugly your opponent's wife is or calling into MSNBC or FOX and boasting about the size of your Wee Willie. If you're ignorant of the rules and ignore your ground game you'll find yourself losing Colorado and Wisconsin to Ted Cruz. That's annoying. This is why Trump hired strategist Paul Manafort to ensure that Trump gets every delegate to which he's entitled and to bring some structure to his campaign. The race will be closer than it should but most of the remaining Republican contests are on Trump friendly turf. I think Trump will be the nominee. And I think he will clinch the nomination before the convention. But if he doesn't my won't that be entertaining!


Hillary Clinton

Her aura of inevitability has been a bit damaged of late with a string of Sanders victories. However because of the rules of the contests and the choices of the voters, it's almost but not quite impossible for Sanders to catch up to Clinton in pledged delegates. For example over the weekend Sanders beat Clinton decisively in Wyoming. But Clinton walked away with just as many pledged delegates from that state as Sanders did. In order to lose to Sanders in pledged delegates Clinton would need to lose almost all of the remaining contests by insane margins (70-30, 90-10,80-20) which probably won't happen. Additionally Clinton still has a commanding lead among Democratic superdelegates. At this time, Clinton is leading decisively in New York. If she wins convincingly there the air could start to leak out of the Sanders balloon. That poll could be meaningless of course. But ultimately Clinton's campaign is the Borg model of Democratic politics. Resistance is futile. Your opinions are irrelevant. You will be assimilated. Absent her or her husband going off script and making some racial faux pas it would be the political upset of the century should she lose the nomination to Sanders when all is said and done. Sanders is certainly putting Mrs. Clinton through her paces. Her flashes of irritation and the constant charges of sexism emanating from her followers and media surrogates show that Clinton never expected to be in this sort of tussle with an old socialist from Vermont by way of Brooklyn. I still think at this time that Clinton wins the Democratic nomination. The important question is after Clinton wins the nomination will she and her supporters reach out to Sanders voters? Or will Sanders voters decide that they'd rather vote for someone outside of the Democratic party altogether? The snide back and forth between Clinton and Sanders over qualifications and the pompous expectation that Sanders voters MUST vote for Clinton in the fall show that Clinton may lead a still fractured party in November. Because her current range of possible general election opponents is so dismal, Clinton may not need every last single Sanders voter. As she is fond of pointing out, she HAS won the majority of Democratic voters. Sanders has not. There are some people who feel that Clinton is just a slightly left wing version of a establishment party that doesn't disagree all that much on things like foreign policy, privacy, law enforcement, monetary policy, capitalism, etc. Those people may say to hell with it and vote for another candidate.


John Kasich

There is no mathematical way that John Kasich can win the Republican nomination before the convention. He's too far behind. His only hope appears to be to stay in the race and win just enough to deny Trump or Cruz the nomination. Then, in a contested convention, Kasich will pour everything he's got into an argument to convince delegates that Cruz and Trump have too many negatives to win in the general election. So they should then go with a winner like Kasich. Kasich just all but called Trump Sauron and has made similar statements about Cruz in the past. There are some polls and other indicators that show Kasich doing better against Sanders or Clinton in the fall. But the ironic thing is that Kasich only appears moderate and mild tempered in comparison to Trump or Cruz. He's got his own history of personal harshness and hard right viewpoints. Of course Kasich could be angling for a VP spot. It wouldn't be the first time that a tough rival got the booby prize of American politics. The problem with Kasich's plan is that the nomination rules do not currently allow for him to be nominated. A nominee must have won the majority of delegates in at least eight states to be nominated. Kasisch hasn't done that and isn't likely to do it in the states remaining. So implicitly he's arguing to be selected as much as elected. But given the high negatives that Cruz and Trump bring, a little bit of convention chicanery might save the Republican party from itself in the fall. But be that as it may it doesn't mean that Kasich should benefit from it. The American electorate isn't clamoring for Kasich. And they've told him that already.



Ted Cruz

The Canadian Conservative Crusader has looked like he has the wind beneath his wings. He came across as human and even sympathetic in the dust up over Trump insulting Heidi Cruz's looks. And unlike Trump, who seems like the know it all blowhard who thinks he can guess his way through the multiple choice final exam, Senator Cruz comes across as the smarmy dedicated student who constantly asks for extra work, reminds an absentminded professor of the promised pop quiz and refuses to share his notes with fellow students who couldn't hear what the professor said. Nobody in the Republican establishment much likes Cruz but many of them appear to be signalling that they like Trump even less. It still remains a source of amusement to me that many of the diehard birthers who couldn't accept that President Obama was born in the US, could be voting for a man who was born in Canada. But that's life. Most people who know Cruz will tell you that he's a smart man. They may think he's a jerk but few people question his intelligence or political skills. Cruz could also be angling for a VP spot or other cabinet position though again it's hard to see how you work for someone who implied ugly things about your wife. Cruz won't catch Trump in the race but he definitely could prevent Trump from reaching the 1237 delegates needed to win the nomination. And if he does that, well then he can contest the convention by arguing that Trump's negatives with everyone, including Republican women, make it impossible to select Trump as the nominee. Left unsaid that while Trump is apparently not that invested in the pro-life, anti-gay marriage stance of many conservatives, Cruz definitely is. This could, properly framed in a general election, be devastating to a Cruz helmed ticket. Cruz is the hard right winger whom many conservatives say they've been waiting for. Perhaps it will take a beatdown of Mondalesque proportions for Republicans to realize that the hard right can't win a national election just by being well, hard right. We'll see.



Bernie Sanders

Sanders has been kicking around longer than anyone thought he could, maybe even Sanders himself. It's only recently that Team Clinton has started to take him seriously, perhaps because it's been a while since Sanders has lost to Clinton. Sanders made a critical mistake in not going after the black vote earlier. In the South the Democratic voter base is disproportionately black. Sanders was and still is easily caricatured as a clueless out of touch white liberal who is tone deaf to specifically black voter concerns. There might be something to that insofar as talking solely about class when people have interests that are touched by class, race and gender doesn't tell people what they want to hear. And you don't get people to vote for you by not telling them what they want to hear, at least some of the time. There are some Clinton supporters for whom blunt identity politics is the reason for voting for Clinton. As one Clinton supporter was quoted saying in the NYT, "It's time for someone with a womb" to be in the White House. Every politician panders of course but if some voters in the Democratic base won't support Sanders because of his race or gender then there's not much Sanders can do about that. People have criticized Sanders, in both reasoned and ridiculous ways, for his "pie-in-the-sky" plans and lack of details about working with Congress and the Courts. That's fair enough I guess. But let's remember that the current President told everyone after winning the nomination that his election would be remembered years later as a time when everyone looked back and realized that that was when the oceans stopped rising and the planet began to heal. Politicians make lofty promises. It's what they do. Anyway I don't think things look so good for Sanders going forward. His misguided but noble attempt to avoid getting negative with Clinton and his late outreach to black voters left him in a hole that's probably too hard to climb out from in the current atmosphere. New York could be his last stand. The poison arrows are flying fast and furious against Sanders. He's definitely shaking the pillars of heaven. People are worried that he could win or do serious damage to Clinton.

Trump's Fascist Rallies and Violence

If you have ever wondered about the sort of people who attended lynching parties in the America of the 20s, 30s or 40s and asked yourself how could they watch, cheer and participate in the brutalization, torture and murder of their fellow human beings you can satisfy your curiosity by looking at a Donald Trump rally. Human fecal emission John McGraw, 78 years old, thought that he would be a big brave man by throwing an elbow to the eye of 26 year old Rakeem Jones. Jones was being led out of a Trump rally. Unsurprisingly immediately after the assault the police swarmed on Jones, the victim of the crime and not McGraw, the perpetrator. At 78, McGraw mostly missed out on the classic period of American lynching, in which lynchings were announced days beforehand and whites sent each other postcards and other memorabilia to commemorate the event. But McGraw is the perfect age to have been one of the people protesting the desegregation efforts of the 50s and engage in some of the violence that took place then. I wouldn't be surprised if we find out that McGraw was among those who flocked to Woolworth's sit-ins to insult, spit on or attack civil rights protesters. Trump has consistently exhorted his followers to violence against protesters in his rallies. He's talked about how things would have been handled back in the day. Trump initially refused to disavow David Duke and the KKK. So it's not at all surprising that his supporters, riding his rhetorical wave of hatred, have felt emboldened to lash out against the other, that is anyone not supporting Trump, especially black people. People can talk about Trump's position on trade or illegal immigration or whatever. But it's clear that for a not insignificant number of his supporters, their support arises from the fact that Trump panders to their worst instincts. They want to beat up people who disagree with them. They want to torture or kill the families of terrorism suspects. And they want to kill dissenters. There is no reasoning with people like McGraw. McGraw's a coward of course. He never would have put his hands on Jones were they mano a mano on the street. But there are a lot of people like McGraw in this world. They get courageous when they and likeminded people outnumber you 10,000 to 1. However there is a solution. North Carolina and several other states are stand your ground states. Jones and other protesters should obey the law but make it clear that anyone illegally laying hands on them won't get a chance to do so again. 
LINK

Michigan Primary Results

Last night Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders managed to beat former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the March 8 Michigan Democratic Primary by 49.83% to 48.3%. This slim margin of victory for Sanders was astounding given that polls shortly before the vote showed that Clinton was ahead by double digits. Michigan has a primary which is closed (technically defined as closed because you have to declare party affiliation before you can get a ballot) but there is not a requirement that you are a registered member of one party or another. So there might be some sour grapes among partisans of one party or another who are convinced that their preferred candidate only lost because of those rascally rapscallions of the other party who lied about their party affiliation just to cast a vote in a different primary. But at this point there is no evidence of that. Michigan is different from the southern states which Clinton was winning handily (like Mississippi which Clinton won 83-17) in that (1) there are still white Democrats in Michigan, (2) there is still an active (but dying) union movement, and (3) Michigan lacks a huge Hispanic or Asian population. Sanders' attempt to make his case to Black voters paid off in Michigan. He got roughly 30~35% of the Black vote, which coupled with a more competitive percentage of the white vote allowed him to win. In Michigan in particular there's a strong undercurrent of discontent over NAFTA, "free trade" and globalization which was likely more fertile ground for Sanders' message. Michigan is ground zero for the loss of high wage middle class manufacturing jobs. In any event Sanders still has an uphill battle for the nomination but last night showed that it's not time for his political funeral just yet. Clinton will need to alter her message a bit so that it can resonate with a few more male voters in the Midwest, especially white ones. I think it's interesting that Clinton has mostly run up the score in states that will almost certainly be in the Republican column on election day. Michigan is whiter than the nation as a whole but it's also a state which usually leans Democratic. That Sanders won here after being down by such a huge margin has to give pause to some people in the Clinton camp. The big question will be if Michigan is just a bump in the road to the inevitable Clinton nomination or is it a harbinger for a comeback which hasn't been seen in modern times.

Donald Trump won the Republican Primary in Michigan with 37% of the vote. I also think he won in part because of his nationalist stance on trade issues. I think he will be the Republican nominee. Cruz came in second at 25% while Ohio Governor Kasich finished third at 24%. Marco Rubio finished fourth with just 9% of the vote and lacks any reason to keep going other than spite. Rubio did win in Puerto Rico but of course Puerto Rico provides no electoral votes. Perhaps Rubio will soldier on until the primary in his home state of Florida but he's currently behind there. 

The Unstoppable Donald Trump?

Donald J. Trump has won three out of the first four Republican primaries or caucuses. He's gleefully ignored or changed the rules on what is proper political speech and prudent behavior in a Republican political race. Trump has insulted and feuded with Fox News personalities, made fun of war hero Senator John McCain, mused about being able to commit felonies and still win, said good things about Planned Parenthood and the necessity of some sort of national health system, called his opponents liars and derogatory names for women's genitalia, retweeted white supremacist talking points, talked about punching protesters in the face, joked about shooting Muslims with bullets dipped in pig's blood, called Bush a liar and blamed him for 9-11, joked that if his daughter wasn't his daughter he might, well you know, and on and on and on. That's not even the half of it. Statements that would have quickly sunk another campaign either have had no impact on Trump's supporters or have actually increased their admiration and fervor. Unless there is some sort of unforeseen meltdown (someone gets footage of Trump doing a Ray Rice on his wife Melania) it's a pretty good bet that Trump will be the 2016 Republican nominee for President. Trump's recent win in Nevada where he both inspired record turnout and received 46% of the vote makes it unlikely that anyone on the Republican side will beat him. Trump even got 45% of the Hispanic vote. This was a little surprising considering that the received wisdom has been that to criticize illegal immigration is to throw away the Hispanic vote. Apparently that's not true with Nevada Hispanic Republicans. Of late Ben Carson has consistently been making lame jokes about being surprised and grateful that the debate moderators ask him questions. He's the only one still laughing about his dumpster fire of a campaign. Rubio hasn't won a contest anywhere but constantly talks as if he's the front runner. Confidence is good I guess but there's a thin line between that and delusion. Rubio is in the process of crossing it. Trump is currently polling ahead of Rubio in Rubio's home state of Florida for goodness sake! Cruz likes to talk about how he's the only man who has beaten Trump. And that's true. But he's only done it once. Can Cruz beat Trump again? Can he do it consistently? I don't think so. Kasich has so far been an after thought.

Some are convinced that if Trump is the nominee that the Republicans will lose in a historic landslide to Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee. So some Republican "establishment" types or hardcore conservatives who don't believe in Trump's dedication to anything other than himself are now calling for everyone except either Rubio or Cruz to drop out of the race so that Rubio or Cruz can get all of those non-Trump votes. The problem with this is that Donald Trump is someone's second choice too. There's no guarantee that a narrow field gives the anti-Trump candidate 51% of the vote. Once Carson and Kasich depart, Trump's numbers could go up. There was some data from the 2012 election which showed that white turnout, especially among non-college educated Midwest middle class and lower-class whites was down. This just happens to be a group with whom Trump is currently resonating very strongly. Although I still think it very unlikely it's possible that in the fall election this group comes out in such numbers that one or two formerly safely blue Midwest states turn red. And if that happens, well then hello President Trump. Turnout and motivation will mean everything this fall. Should Trump lose decisively to Clinton (after all Florida, North Carolina and Virginia are swing states now) the Republican wailing and gnashing of teeth will be horrible to behold. Losing to a black guy was bad enough but to lose to a woman will make heads explode. But if Trump wins, look for Democrats to rediscover their dedication to strict separation of powers, a slow moving Senate and a reigned in executive branch. We live in interesting times. If nothing else we should learn from Trump's rise that there aren't quite as many Republicans as we thought who are ardent free trader interventionists dedicated to low capital gains taxes, low tariffs and porous borders. Class and nationalism (and its uglier kissing cousin racism) still have roles to play. The idea of making America great again is enticing some people. And it's not just because they're racist, though many are. There are people who feel forgotten and overlooked. And some of the medical data is confirming that. I think that Trump is lying to those folks but he's the only one even talking to them. And that apparently counts. In tonight's debate look for Cruz and/or Rubio to come after Trump with everything they've got. Time is running out.

Omarosa and Bra Sizes; Killer Mike and Uteri

In the early days of Donald Trump's reality show The Apprentice, one of the more unpleasant contestants was one Omarosa Manigault. She was combative, sarcastic, dishonest and above all, snide. Of course, being a jerk can make for good television. Omarosa took pains to point out that she was there to win the contest (she didn't win), and that behavior which might otherwise be considered within the normal modes of competition was considered underhanded and nasty when practiced by a woman, especially a black woman. Maybe so. Omarosa has said that the television shows edited depictions to show storylines which producers felt were more entertaining. Probably so. If you're watching reality tv and thinking it is real, you might need help tying your shoes every morning. On the other hand sometimes when there is smoke there is fire. Fast forward 12 years and after a number of other reality shows, Omarosa has resurfaced as a Trump media surrogate. Recently she was on Fox Business Channel defending her preferred candidate against questions about his seriousness from Fox contributor Tamara Holder. But perhaps unintentionally reflecting both the insult happy nature of Donald Trump and the foolishness of all thing Fox related while revealing her own bile, Omarosa decided to engage in some ad hominem (ad feminem?) attacks on Holder. These attacks were centered around Holder's chest size. Okay then. I guess Omarosa felt threatened in some regard? Or maybe she was just saying what she thought Trump might say in a similar position. Or perhaps she really is just an unpleasant individual. I am not seeing what someone's physical attributes have to do with pronouncing their name correctly but such logic is not necessarily shared by everyone on this planet. I was always taught that in a professional environment that you do not comment on anyone's body parts. I'm trying (and failing) to imagine saying something similar to anyone at work. That wouldn't and couldn't happen. But if it did take place I suspect I would need to look for other employment. And I wouldn't even have to wait two weeks to start searching.

But Omarosa wasn't the only campaign surrogate to raise some eyebrows by impassioned defense of her preferred choice for President.

As we discussed earlier Hillary Clinton has suggested, via surrogates and less frequently via her own statements, that people, especially women, should vote for her in part because she is a woman. It is true that in that aspect Mrs. Clinton would be different from all previous Presidents. It's not clear though that just being a woman necessarily means that you would bring about the sort of change that most US voters, even most US women, would find of value. The backlash and resentment against a woman President might be greater than the realistic change in economic, political and social standards that she could create. And of course women differ on all sorts of things just as any other arbitrary group of people would. In the media there have been plenty of recent news and opinion pieces quoting women of various ages and races explaining that for a variety of reasons that Clinton doesn't have or deserve a lock on the women's vote, or their vote. Shared chromosomes don't imply lockstep voting. Bernie Sanders' surrogate, the rapper/activist Killer Mike, who does not share chromosomes with Clinton or any other woman, recently took to a stage at Morehouse to explain that your gender should not determine your vote or your morality. However he was accused by some Clinton surrogates of being sexist. Now Killer Mike was quoting the noted anti-racism activist and feminist Jane Elliot. Perhaps the words sting less coming from a woman than from a man. But no matter what gender speaks those words, I don't see them as being sexist. To be sexist would mean stating that being a woman is all by itself a disqualification for being President of the United States. And that's not what Killer Mike said. While it's inaccurate and unfair to suggest that Clinton or her supporters have said that Clinton's only qualification is being a woman, certainly Clinton is appealing to what she hopes is a desire among women voters to put "one of their own" in the big chair. That's understandable I guess. But there are other candidates who evidently want the job just as badly as Clinton does. It is unrealistic and unfair to expect them to stand down or not try to challenge Clinton's qualifications, intentions or abilities. Compared to the Republican battles so far the Democratic scrum for the nomination has been relatively collegial. I'm not saying whether that's good or bad. There are benefits and costs to each approach. Certainly the more the candidates poke, push, and prod each other the more prepared they will be for what is sure to be a very nasty general election. On the other hand there are some things which once said can't be unsaid. And these statements often are noticed by the opposition party and used in a general election fight. As the race between Sanders and Clinton tightens up look for much less politesse.

Random thoughts on 2016 election and New Hampshire Primary

This post was actually supposed to be written on Monday but my supervisor at my Day Job is becoming more unpleasantly demanding and nastily watchful in his later years. I will have to ensure that my pay keeps up with his demands. Lately it doesn't seem like that's the case. No sir, not at all. Anyway this is going to be a short post so I can swiftly return to the virtual salt mines that provide a way for me to earn my daily bread. Since the last time I was able to write on the race to become the next POTUS, also rans and longshots like Mike Huckabee, Martin O'Malley, Rick Santorum and Rand Paul all dropped out of the race. None of that was surprising as either the political time had passed them by (Paul) or there was never any evidence that there was strong voter desire for their services in the first place. Santorum and Huckabee had little to say on issues beyond abortion, grits and gay rights. Paul's movements away from his father's hardcore libertarianism didn't win any voters. And O'Malley had little to say besides "I'm not Hillary Clinton". Yawn. But there were two interesting events in both the Republican and Democratic contests which made news and are worthy of discussion while New Hampshire primary voters make their choices. The first was the remarkable display of emptiness by Florida first term Senator Marco Rubio at the Republican debate Saturday night. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie attacked Rubio's relative lack of experience, leadership and tendency to repeat memorized lines regardless of context. Rattled, Rubio tried and failed to think on his feet and swat away Christie's attacks. In fact he retreated to the same talking points 3 times(!!!) even as Christie seized the opportunity to tell everyone to watch Rubio mess up in real time. Both in terms of content and appearance it was a serious body blow to Rubio's debate standing. I don't ever think he quite recovered. It was a man putting a boy in his place. I was reminded of Rocky Balboa in the first fight against Clubber Lang. Rubio wasn't strong enough to keep Big Chris off of him. And he got hurt.

Christie was relaxed, confident and in command of what he was saying. His body language demonstrated aggressiveness and control. His tone was direct and dismissive. Rubio was nervous, sweaty, high pitched and floundering. His body language gave me the impression of someone who is applying for a job without the necessary skill set and who just got called out on it by the interviewing manager. It was an entertaining political display. Rubio has to hope that it doesn't become a defining one. We'll see tonight. The reason that Rubio keeps trying to turn every question back to President Obama's alleged malfeasance is that it's impossible to criticize President Obama for lack of experience when you (Rubio) have the same lack of experience.

The second event that was interesting to me is that Hillary Clinton, faced with a photo finish win in Iowa which may be revisited and an expected loss in New Hampshire, has started to take the possibility of losing to Senator Bernie Sanders seriously. She and her supporters have said some very nasty things about Sanders and his supporters, accusing them of sexism (President Clinton), claiming that Sanders' female supporters are thinking with their reproductive parts (Gloria Steinem) or just stating that female supporters of Sanders will burn in hell for not supporting a woman candidate (Madeleine Albright). Clinton is also banking on a firewall of black voter support once the race for the nomination turns south though as this piece from 3chicspolitico makes clear, there are at least some black people who are not huge Clinton fans. Hillary Clinton, to me, doesn't have a lot of passion or excitement to her campaign. She's a real life Tracy Flick. She may well be the "most qualified" depending on whom you ask but elections are not just a sober assessment of arbitrary and oft ill-defined qualifications. After all none of the people running have done this job before. You have to make people excited to vote for you. You have to provide a vision of how you will govern. Sanders is doing this better than Clinton is now. Clinton has missed the anger in the Democratic base towards the perceived unfairness of the economic structure. I still think at this time that she'll win the nomination but Sanders is going to make things much closer than anyone realized.  If Clinton only wants to be not quite as right-wing as a Republican, that leaves a lot of room to her left. And if Clinton and her deputies don't drop the entitled attitude that she deserves votes by dint of her gender, well, say hello to nominee Sanders.  

Okay. I'm sure my boss has probably noticed my absence from the salt-pit by now so I must depart. I will be very interested to see the primary results this evening. Trump and Sanders should win. But I want to see where Christie and Rubio finish. I also want to see if Carson, who missed his cue to go on stage Saturday night, will recognize that the time has come to take his campaign out to the back yard and bury it.

Michael Bloomberg and the 2016 election

I do not like Michael Bloomberg. I think his enthusiastic embrace of "stop-n-frisk" tactics in NYC was not only something that violated the Fourth Amendment but was also emblematic of his larger approach to life. Bloomberg seems to prefer that people live according to his rules and sees few if any issues to using government force to make sure that they do. He is quite dismissive and oft contemptuous of opposing views. While this is admirable when it comes to such public goods as clean drinking water and auto safety it's perhaps not so great when it comes to private decisions on how much sugar or fat a person should be ingesting. Perhaps irritated by the rise of Trump and shocked by the fact that at the time of this post Sanders is giving Clinton more of a fight than he was supposed to, Bloomberg has floated a trial balloon about running for President this year as an independent candidate. As Bloomberg is anywhere from four to ten times as wealthy as Trump, Bloomberg would not at all be pressed by the costs necessary to build a national campaign at this late date. I don't doubt, Republican or Democratic protests and shenanigans aside, that if Bloomberg really wanted to get on the ballot in all 50 states he would have the money and moxie to make that happen. The question though is that in a time when the Republican and Democratic parties have accepted and enforced ideological purity it's not clear from which party and in which state Bloomberg would take more votes.

Bloomberg is certainly acceptable to much of the Democratic base on the sexual politics (gay rights, feminism, abortion rights) which take up so much energy in today's political arena. Bloomberg is no socialist. He's a believer in what is called free trade. He likes immigration and wants more of it. He's to the right of people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders on economic issues. As much as any one person can be, Bloomberg is the Wall Street Establishment. On economic and gun control issues, Bloomberg could well appeal to that well educated moderate Republican voter who in an earlier era was known as a Rockefeller Republican. The problem though is that that sort of voter is not that common outside of some pockets of the Northeast. Certainly not many conservatives in the South, West or Midwest will vote for someone who's best known for visceral hostility to gun rights. Bloomberg simply can't win 270 electoral votes. And I can't see too many Black voters picking Bloomberg over either Clinton or Sanders. If Bloomberg does run I don't see him winning a single state. The only impact he might have is to make a few Northeast states competitive for Republicans. And I would bet that he knows that. But if Clinton should lose in the upcoming Iowa and New Hampshire contests, Bloomberg might see himself as the last chance to prevent a choice between Sanders and Trump. And who knows, there just might be enough establishment Republicans out there who think that they can deal with Bloomberg instead of Trump. But it's really really difficult to imagine that there are millions of thirsty desperate voters out there, yearning for the chance to vote for Bloomberg. I don't see it. The 2016 election is going to be about a repudiation or continuation of President Obama's legacy. It's not going to be about bloodless management, which is what Bloomberg offers. Well he offers that along with stop-n-frisk for everyone. You need to offer a message. Trump's message is America's losing. Vote for me and make America great again. Sanders' message is the rich have screwed you over. Clinton's message is it's time for a woman to lead. Bloomberg's message would be what exactly? What is the passion to make someone vote for Bloomberg? Ultimately, I think any Bloomberg Presidential campaign would be rooted in pure vanity.

Donald Trump: Racist White Man's Badass Revenge

Donald Trump is the walking unalloyed id of fearful white reactionaries. He says what a lot of people are thinking (if you believe that various online comments are a window into some people's souls) but until recently have not said out loud in mixed company. Trump opened his presidential campaign with slurs against Mexicans and Hispanics. He has continued it with broadsides against and snide comments about Blacks, the media, disabled people, President Obama, Jews, women he finds uppity, and of late, Muslims. It is arguable as to whether Trump truly believes all that he says. Much of what he says is demonstrably untrue. There were not thousands, hundreds or even dozens of American Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the 9-11 attacks. Black people do not commit 81% of murders. And so on. And it would be neither wise nor constitutional, as Trump suggests, to employ religious tests for immigration to and ultimately citizenship in the United States. The US military and law enforcement agencies should not and must not, as Trump has suggested, go after the families of suspected or convicted terrorists. And Muslims should not be forced to have special IDs or sign up for a database. Trump thinks that the United States should use a religious test for entry into this country. And the test would be simple. If you are a Muslim, you don't get to enter. How he would square that with the Constitution is anybody's guess. Obviously, for quite a lot of people, apparently most especially Trump, the election of a black man to the highest office in the land was a severe shock from which they've never truly recovered. As a result some folks think if that Barack Hussein Obama can do it, I KNOW I could. It's one thing to think that the President is incorrect on this or that issue or even incompetent. That comes with the job. But when you, as at least some Republicans do, view the election of a black man as prima facie evidence that something has gone very badly wrong in the system then you're playing with some very dangerous forces.

For some people, the fact that the President is black, regardless of how much of a centrist/Eisenhower Republican Obama can be, means that America is in decline and must be restored. Those are the people to whom Trump speaks. I don't think that Trump is a stupid man by any means. However I don't believe he's as smart as he would have us conclude. 

It is darkly humorous and quite revealing that Trump supporters, some of whom froth at the mouth over President Obama's executive orders and aggressive bureaucracies, cheer at Trump's "Me, me,me, I, I, I" rhetoric and promises to make changes that simply can't be made without the agreement of Congress, the courts, and occasionally other countries. But when Trump defends his idea by saying well it's not as bad as FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans then as I wrote, you're dealing with someone who is downright dangerous. It has become popular in some circles for people to claim that they would rather have their racism and bigotry upfront and honest, rather than hidden behind politesse and smarmy denials. Well those people will have their claims put to the test should Trump ever become President. Trump is in full "attack the other" mode. And for him the other is anyone who is not Caucasian and Christian. Many people find the whiff of fascism, racism and sexism in anyone who's to the right of Noam Chomsky and more masculine than pajama boy. Those folks can usually be dismissed. But this time they are dead on accurate. Trump may or may not become the Republican nominee for President. But if he does then the American voter will have a quite clear choice to make. I can understand why people who didn't care for George Bush's cowboy certainty were initially attracted to Obama's cool as a cucumber persona. And I can understand why some of those people, now frustrated with what they view as Obama's confusing lack of passion, are excited by Trump's bombast. But blaming all Muslims for the acts of a few makes no sense. That's not how America is supposed to work. I think that most Americans still get this. But quite a few Republicans do not. For them the descriptor  "American" simply can't be easily fit onto anyone who isn't a White Christian. That is why so many of them still believe that the President is neither American born nor Christian. These people aren't going anywhere for a while. And they vote. Buckle your seats because this election cycle just became a lot more interesting and vital. I wonder if the Christian right-wingers who mutter about exercising their Second Amendment options accept that Muslim-Americans, facing talk of id cards, immigration restrictions, calls to "go after" family members of suspects, and internment camps, might themselves decide to get better armed...just in case.

Republican Debate Demands

It is surreal that the Republican party, the political party that likes to posit itself as the implacable foe of political correctness and trigger warnings, the party that likes to claim the mantle of tell it like it is muscular masculinity and heterosexual he-man heroics, is wilting like the proverbial pansy in the face of a few tough or mildly irreverent questions from some debate moderators. The same people who were seemingly on the verge of physical release before grilling Hilary Clinton about Benghazi, her email server and anything else for eleven hours can't handle two plus hours of debate questions. They feel that the questions are biased or unfair. They want greater control over the questions, the tone, the time, the format, and oh yes, the thermostat. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Someone asked me tough questions! Mommy make them stop!! Make them stop! It hurts so bad!! It's not fair!
Watching this is like watching Tombstone and instead of seeing Kurt Russell's Sheriff Wyatt Earp tell his enemies that he's coming and hell's coming with him, we see Sheriff Earp curl up in a fetal position with some soy latte and mumble that he's written a very curt letter to the proper authorities about all the mean things those bad men did.They'll be sorry. Pajama Boy Earp complained about them. This is just pathetic. I thought the Republicans were supposed to be the tough guys? They were supposed to be the ones who stood up and showed the rest of us how to live up to the American ideal of heroic individualism. I know that Trump doesn't like to spend a lot of time doing anything where he's not the center of attention. Bush is desperate to have any positive coverage. Carson probably would rather be sleeping than at a debate. But that doesn't mean that they or other candidates should be telling the media how to do its job by sending out the list of below demands and requirements.

• Will there be questions from the audience or social media? How many? How will they be presented to the candidates? Will you acknowledge that you, as the sponsor, take responsibilities for all questions asked, even if not asked  by your personnel?
• Will there be a gong/buzzer/bell when time is up? How will the moderator enforce the time limits?
• Will you commit that you will not:
  • Ask the candidate to raise their hands to answer a question
  • Ask yes/no questions without time to provide a substantive answer
  • Allow candidate-to-candidate questioning
  • Allow props or pledges by the candidates
  • Have reaction shots of members of the audience or moderators during debates
  • Show an empty podium after a break (describe how far away the bathrooms are)
  • Use behind shots of the candidates showing their notes
  • Leave microphones on during the breaks
  • Allow members of the audience to wear political messages (shirts, buttons, signs, etc.). Who enforces?
• What instructions will you provide the audience about cheering during the debate?
• What are your plans for the lead-in to the debate (Pre-shot video? Announcer to moderator? Director to Moderator?) and how long is it?
• Can you pledge that the temperature in the hall be kept below 67 degrees?

LINK

Not only does this show that the Republicans who are supporting this silliness are not really ready for prime time it also shows the weakness of many of the Republican policy proposals. If I'm running for President and have what I consider to be good ideas I should be happy to engage skeptics and show them where they're wrong. If on the other hand I have no answer to as to why my tax proposal won't increase the deficit or how I will bully a sovereign nation into paying for another country's border security other than to pout and cry foul then that should tell likely voters about the seriousness of my ideas. The deeper problem (and to be fair it's not solely a Republican one) is that when you spend too much time only listening and talking to people who agree with you on every little thing, you lose the ability to understand that there are people out there who see things differently. Your assumptions and even delusions become your reality because everyone you talk to shares the same worldview. I will write something else on this later I think because it's worth much deeper discussion. I think the Republican frustration over the debates also stems from the fact that there are so many candidates running that even with the field slightly trimmed there's little room to get a word in edgewise. But that has nothing to do with the media. The more candidates there are the less time any one of them has to get media attention. These are debates, not press conferences. For people who are already media-savvy or have methods beyond debate performance to get noticed this may not be an issue. But for some other candidates, it's a big problem. But in any event, crying like a baby who just dropped a mess in his pants is not going to be a winning formula to retake the White House. I'm no Obama legionary but it's incredible that even today there are racists who insult him and his family, wish for his death and believe he's not American. But if the President should even mention any of that, he's the one being divisive. And here we have Republicans who have not gone thru any of that or in some cases were the ones stirring up racist resentment of the President whining and complaining about questions. 

Maybe in my next management meeting when a supervisor asks about project status I should pull out my inner Republican and start whining about mean questions. Wow. Just wow. Man up.