Quick Takes (v71): Meaningless "Major Endorsements"

Last night on ABC's World News Tonight, we were urged to the edge of our seats with the news that Donald Trump received a "major endorsement." 

Who could it be, I wondered... Meghan McCain? Jeb Bush? Rachel Maddow? Or wait... maybe it was Carly "Look at that Face" Fiorina, who ran against him in 2016? 

Oh, silly me... it was Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC). You remember him, right? The only Black Republican in the Senate? Former presidential candidate? The guy forced by the press into declaring he had a girlfriend?  Yeah, that guy. 

Can you imagine how this must have been "a big boost" for Donald Trump,  and "a major snub" for Nikki Haley, who appointed Scott to the Senate back in 2012?  That's how ABC's Rachel Scott described it about ten minutes into the broadcast. 

My guess? It's neither of those things. 

Sure, all the candidates in the race hope for the endorsements of those who drop out, and one might expect there'd be a bit of loyalty from Scott to Haley, but she's behind both Trump and DeSantis coming out of Iowa, and likely has little chance of winning regardless of who endorses her. 

Now, to be fair, ABC is not the only outlet gushing over the endorsement - it's pretty widespread, with folks all trying to make it sound more meaningful than it is. 

I agree with NH Gov. Chris Sununu, a Haley supporter, who said

If anyone cared about Tim Scott, he'd still be running for president. 

Honestly, I think there are two issues with this: the endorsers, and those who report on the endorsements.

In my opinion, if you're Tim Scott, Doug Burgum or Vivek Ramaswamy, or even folks like Nick Ayers, one of  Mike Pence's former chiefs of staff, you're endorsing Trump because you want something from him, not because you have anything to offer him. 

According to the folks at 538, as of January 14th, Trump had picked up 185 endorsements,

including nine governors, 24 senators, and 116 U.S. representatives. By comparison, only 22 of them had endorsed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis or former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. 

How many of those governors, senators, and representatives honestly believe Trump needs their endorsement, and how many of them are more interested in making sure folks who can vote for them know they support Trump? 

If you're a political reporter paid to give your best attention to these things, you should be asking yourself, "What's in it for the endorser?" instead of simply giving free publicity to the endorsee.  

And please, do us a favor: when a truly notable endorsement happens - if Mike Pence, or Nancy Pelosi, or Merrick Garland, or Liz Cheney - decides for incomprehensible reasons to support Trump, let us know. 

Trump in Transition (v26)

He's a mean one, Mr. Trump. A jerk, a slime, a pig! Oh -- sorry. I must have been typing out loud again.

The president continues his backsliding, hateful transition to the oafish NYC real estate developer he was before, well, before that fateful escalator ride.

He's a pig, for sure -- by his own admission.  He's rude - countless examples, not the least of which was his Megyn Kelly 'blood coming out of her...wherever' which, as he told us, meant her eyes (yeah, right) or his comment about Carly Fiorina's face. Or Rosie O'Donnell. Or flatchested women the world over.

So who is the latest victim of this delightful man and his petty attacks? That would Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, of course. And what did she do to Trump? Well, let's take a look at her tweets from earlier today.

When it comes to sexual assault, harassment and the general mistreatment of women, we must be able to call out anyone, Democrat or Republican. 

As elected leaders, let's rise to the occasion and not shrink away from it. That is what the larger #MeToo movement is all about. Let's send a clear message none of this is okay. 

 That means Farenthold should step aside. Moore should never set foot in the Senate, and president Trump should be held accountable.

The accusations against more are disgusting. And president Trump has admitted on tape to how he treats women. His campaigning for Moore isn't leadership, it's shameful. 

We are in a moment of reckoning - and the silence from Republicans is deafening. It is long past time for them to join Democrats in holding members of their own party accountable. 

President Trump should resign. But, of course, he won't hold himself accountable. Therefore, Congress should investigate the multiple sexual harassment and assault allegations against him. 

Now, I appreciate there are some very strong feelings about Gillibrand's position. She led the charge against Al Franken with her zero tolerance position, which endeared her to many and blew any chance she had of becoming president, according to others. Heck -- some commenters want her primaried for what she did to Franken; they, and others, feel she was both late to the game on calling out Trump, and wrong to call for an investigation of the creep-in-chief but not allowing Franken the same courtesy.  It's a mixed bag, for sure.

And after all of this, there was the Trump response, which was bigly presidential as you might imagine.

Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office "begging" for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill and Crooked - USED!

Garbled message aside ("begging"? Disloyal to Bill and Crooked? USED! -- #WhatTheSniff), it's hard not to notice the (and would do anything for them) comment nestled in there, isn't it?  What do you think he meant?

a. This is simply talking about a rigged system that we have that is broken, in which special interests control our government.

b. This is a (fill in the blank) shooting off his mouth because, well, because he's a (fill in the blank) who frequently acts like a (fill in the blank), in the most presidential way possible.

c. This was an attempt to bully, intimidate and slut-shame Senator Gillibrand.

d. This was a statement by a misogynist, compulsive liar, and admitted sexual predator and a bully from whom no one is safe.

Yeah -  no matter which response you pick, the guy's a pig, a jerk, and a slime.

And no, I won't respect the office if the person occupying it doesn't have the sense to. And he's still #notmypresident.

Sunday School 11/26/17

I only visited one classroom today -- Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace at the helm. Today, Wallace and the gang were mostly talking about sexual harassment allegations - both generally and specifically.

One of the guests was former Presidential candidate and HP CEO Carly Fiorina, about whom our current president said:

Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president? I mean, shes a woman, and I'm not s'posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?

Wallace asked Fiorina about Trump's changing positions on Judge Roy Moore. Initially, he said that if the allegations were true, Moore should step aside. That became well, Moore denied the allegations, which were from 40 years ago, and he deserves to be heard. Which has now become this:

Fiorina's answer was spot on.

Well, that's politics, isn't it, Chris? This is all about politics and that's why when politicians talk about this, it doesn't have a lot of credibility.  This has been going on in politics for a very long time. Democrats try and defend their own. Republicans try and defend their own. It's a little bit like George Washington warned us 200 years ago. The problem with politics and political parties is they care about winning above all else. Donald Trump cares about a vote in the Senate, no more, no less.

Wallace followed up by wondering what should happen to Moore, and to Senator Al Franken and Representative John Conyers, the longest-serving member of Congress. Franken has apologized for his conduct; Conyers paid a settlement (from his campaign funds) but has denied all of the allegations against him; both are awaiting ethics investigations. Fiorina's response?

Well, first of all, this behavior goes on all the time. It has for a long time, unfortunately. In politics, in the workplace, in athletics, and when we politicize it -- it's not my team vs your team, Republicans and Democrats alike are guilty of it. 

I tell you the most helpful thing would be for Congress to change its own process and procedures If someone wants to come forward and allege harassment or abuse in Congress, they must go through a mandatory 30 days of counseling, mandatory mediation led by a lawyer whose express purpose is to protect the institution, and then maybe if they're lucky the get a secret settlement paid for by taxpayers from the Treasury.

That whole process is designed to protect politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, to protect the institution and make it next to impossible for a women, or in some cases a young male page, to come forward. That ought to change, that would actually help.

When Wallace asked if  someone should resign just because there were allegations, Fiorina noted that it isn't just one woman coming forward, it's multiple women. Then, she raised the complicity aspect of so many of these cases.

And I think what's most - I think what we all need to think about, but particularly men need to think about, and in virtually all these cases, people knew. People knew this was going on. You can't tell me that no one knew what was going on with Roy Moore and John Conyers or Al Franken or Charlie Rose or Roger Ailes or Howard Weinstein. People knew. Men knew and women knew.

And so, while we all express outrage now and people say, should they step down or should they not, I think the question going forward is, when are we going to stop tolerating this behavior and respecting the men who do it? Because all of these men have been respected, despite the fact that people knew. 

And, she called on men to stop respecting their peers who do this - because that's the only way anything is going to change.

Men, not most, but enough, abuse their positions of power in return for sex. And what happens is, women step up but men continue, unfortunately, in too many instances to respect the men who are behaving this way. Every single one of the men who has been exposed in the last several weeks has been respected. And so, I think men need to decide, 'I'm not going to respect a man who disrespects women. I'm going to withhold my respect from him, unless he respects others' - that will be a watershed moment.

As you might expect, Fiorina has her own experiences with abusive men, stories of what happened to her or to her friends or coworkers. It's not pretty, as many women can confirm. She described feelings of rage which led to her vowing never to feel that way again.

So, yes, women go through all of these emotions and unfortunately, many of the women who have come forward recently didn't feel they were in a position to confront because the men had power over them, the power of their career, the power of their future. These women, when you watch them come forward, they obviously feel humiliated. They are embarrassed, it's not easy. 

Women have been coming forward for decades. The point of my post (which you can read here) was it to say it's men's turn now.

Wallace closed the interview by asking about Trump's comment about Fiorina, and more recent ones about how wonderful women are and that it's good they're coming forward. Wallace asked her which was the real Donald Trump.

Oh, you know, we could endlessly analyze Donald Trump. What I focus on always is someone's behavior, how do they behave? Are they leading or are they not leading?

I don't think he has (met the test of leadership ) often enough. He won't be the first president to fail the test of leadership, and he won't be the last, unfortunately.

Proving Fiorina's point about politicians talking about sexual harassment not having a lot of credibility was Wallace's next guest, Senator John Thune (R-SD), head of the Republican Conference.

Thune was asked about Trump's tweet, which I shared above, and whether Trump is a disappointment now that he's siding with Moore. Thune's response, in all its glory, is below (with some emphasis added).

Well, I would like to see the president, Chris, come out and support what many of us have said, and that is that Roy Moore needs to step aside, allow somebody else to be a write-in candidate. We can win that seat. 

He is right. If a Democrat wins, it's going to be a vote for the Pelosi-Schumer agenda, which is going to be against tax reform, against constitutional judges, against smart borders. 

But the other alternative is, if Roy Moore wins and he comes into the Senate in January, there's going to immediately be an ethics investigation, which is going to be a cloud that he'll be operating in, and it's going to be a distraction for us and for our agenda. 

So, you know, ultimately the decision's up to the people of Alabama, but it strikes me at least that it would be in their best interest and in the country's best interest, and certainly the best interest of our agenda, if the president would use his influence to try and get Roy Moore to step aside. 

 Notice no mention of the women who came forward? No mention of  Moore's behavior? No mention of not wanting an accused child molester representing the Republican party? No mention of having to serve with someone with Moore's ethical issues, aside from the sex abuse charges?

Nope. Just we, us, our agenda, a distraction, our agenda, our agenda. Fiorina is so right with her assessment.

See you around campus.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v54)

Ahh...  A nice relaxing night to sit and wonder about stuff.

I wonder how much time Ted Cruz (R-Canada, R-Cuba, R-Texas) spent thinking about his nefarious plot? You know, the one in which he and John Kasich (R-Hungry, R-Ohio) would dance around each other, rather than competing directly against each other, in an effort to stop His Hairness from getting the nomination on the first ballot?

In case you missed it, the deal which I think Mitt Romney started asking for weeks ago was supposed to have Kasich head west for New Mexico and a couple other places, and leave Indiana to Cruz, who was believed to have the better chance there to beat Trump. If they weren't actively competing against each other, they figured, one would be stronger and have a better chance of winning.

Then John Kasich was asked, between bites of something (since lately he's always shown eating, it seems), whether he would tell his supporters to vote for Cruz. Um, that's a big negative. His supporters should vote for him, he said.  The 'deal' such as it was, unravelled just that fast. The point of it, according to Kasich, was that neither campaign has unlimited money and they both were trying to economize - not give up on their supporters, or have their supporters give up on them.

That sure made me wonder about the art of the deal Ohio-style, and I'm sure it made Ted Cruz wonder too.

So what's a wondering, wandering, lost-on-the-campaign trail guy to do, especially after finishing third in four out of five primaries last night?  Well, let's see.  I know -- tell the media you're going to make a big announcement, and then spend some time wondering what you're going to announce?

Yeah, that sounds like a plan. And then without further ado, announce your plan to be forever linked in failure with....

After a great deal of time and thought, after a great deal of consideration and prayer, I have come to the conclusion that if I am nominated to be president of the United States that I will run on a ticket with my vice presidential nominee Carly Fiorina. 

What a country Canada, Cuba and America are, eh?

And speaking of Making America Great Again, I wonder how totally ridiculous it would sound if Hillary Clinton (and yes, even Carly Fiorina) decided to accuse Donald Trump of "playing the man card" -- would they sound as stupid as does Trump when he accuses Hillary of playing the woman card?  My guess is yes, yes they would sound as stupid as he does. But I'm willing to bet that both Clinton and Fiorina are smarter than that.

And speaking of smarter than that, according to a recent Rasmussen poll from earlier this month, here's what likely voters thought about which of the candidates was 'qualified' to be president:

• 54% thought Kasich was
• 50% thought Hillary was
• 48% thought Bernie Sanders was
• 40% thought Cruz was

How many said yes to Trump?  27%.  

I wonder what 'card' he's playing?

Sunday School 1/3/16

Sunday School posts provide an overview of what some of the talking heads were talking about on the Sunday news shows.

On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace had Jersey Boy Chris Christie and Former Florida Governor Jeb! Bush. Christie was pressed on his criticism of Jeb!'s protege Marco Rubio never making it to Washington, even to vote against things he thinks are important, particularly calling out the spending bill that was just passed. Christie himself seems to have misplaced his GPS, as he's never in Jersey anymore, having basically moved to New Hampshire.  The difference between what he does and what Rubio does? Christie never stops working for the people of New Jersey.  Honest, he said so.

Bush, for his part, was asked (again) to explain why he's doing so poorly in the polls. Unlike Mike Huckabee, who was asked this question last year, Bush babbled about connecting with voter in the early states and being on the ballot in all 50 states.  When pressed  by Wallace, he noted that he made adjustments in his campaign, because that's how leaders lead.

Dana Bash was sitting in for Jake Tapper on CNN's State of the Union, where the guests were Republican Carly Fiorina and Democrat Bernie Sanders. Fiorina said a lot of stuff but not much of it was substantive or responsive to the questions. For example, when specifically asked what she would do about the escalating situation between Saudi Arabia and Iran, first she said our main goal was to help calm things down, and then said that as president she would provide leadership, strength and resolve. Not sure how the either of those statements impact the situation; Bash didn't press the issue. On a more important issue, her 'cursing' of the Iowa Hawkeyes in the Rose Bowl with her tweet that she was rooting against Stanford, her alma mater: tongue in cheek, it was, she said. Pandering, the rest of the universe said.

Sanders was asked about guns and whether President Obama's apparent plan for some kind of executive order, most likely on universal background checks, is the right thing to do. It almost has to be, Sanders noted, because Republicans in Congress won't do anything in a bipartisan manner on something that the vast majority of Americans support. On taxes, he was pressed for a 'tax plan' and noted that he's already offered a number of plans on taxes, including insanely rich people and corporations paying their fare share, increasing the salary limit for Social Security contributions, and others, and that more would be coming out before the Iowa vote. On calls from other candidates that Bill Clinton's sex life should be fair game, he noted that we have more important things to worry about. Interestingly, he also pointed out that in his last race in Vermont, he garnered 25% of Republican votes, so his move to attract Trump supporters makes perfect sense.

Finally, over on NBC's Meet the Press, Chuck Todd had former Ohio Governor John Kasich and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Kasich spent most of his time trying to convince Todd that he's actually ahead of Chris Christie, although Todd wasn't really having much of that  More interesting, by far was Rand Paul and his 'New Year's resolutions' which included spending less time voting in the Senate, so that Rubio and Cruz wouldn't look quite so bad, and giving Cruz more time to steal Paul's policy positions.

Todd also asked Paul if he was 'frustrated' with the campaign and maybe with the attention given to his party's front-runner (the one I try very hard not to mention), or whether it was something else. Paul schooled Todd on polls, how they're frequently wrong, and how the media is covering the guy at the top based on polls, or is perhaps not quite as even coverage of all candidates, "just saying."

Good for him.

Point/Counterpoint: Syrian Refugees

Below are a number of comments made by various presidential candidates regarding Syrian refugees. Not surprisingly, there are a wide range of opinions, which allows me to classify this as a Point/Counterpoint post.

Can you match the contender with the statement? Answers at the end of the post - no cheating!

Here we go:

(a) We have welcomed refugees, the tired, huddled masses for centuries, that's been the history of the United States. We should continue to do so. We have to continue to be vigilant to make sure those coming are not affiliated with the terrorists, but we can do that. 

(b) I support the call from humanitarian and refugee organizations for the United States to accept at least 65,000 Syrian refugees next year. If Germany - a country with one-fourth our population - can accept 800,000 refugees this year, certainly we - the nation of immigrants and refugees - can do more. 

(c) You have the refugee organizations that are overwhelmed; I think it's in our national security interests to try and get ahead of this problem. My goal is to make sure they don't have to flee their country... They're not coming here because they want to. People leaving Syria are fleeing tyranny, not to get jobs. 

(d) We're facing the worst refugee crisis since the end of World War II and I think the United States has to do more I would like to see us move from what is a good start with 10,000 to 65,000 and begin immediately to put into place the mechanisms for vetting the people that we would take in.  

(e) I'd sit down with our allies and figure out how we can help, because America is a compassionate country. We saw the image of that four-year-old little boy drowned in Syria (sic) and we can't have those kinds of things. I can't come up with an exact number. You'd have to sit with our allies and work together.

(f) We should take our fair share. We are good people. I don't think the average American has any idea what it's like to live in the Middle East right now. I don't see how you can lead the free world and turn your back on people who are seeking it... 

(g) I'm putting the people on notice that are coming here from Syria as part of this mass migration, that if I win, they're going back. They're going back. 

(h) Are they really escaping tyranny, are they escaping poverty, or are they really just coming because we've got cable TV? I don't mean to be trite, I'm just saying we don't know. 

(i) Send them back to a hell hole? That's not the proper policy for the United States and it's certainly not an exhibition of leadership. 

(j) I think it's impossible to give a proper number until we understand the dimensions of the problem. People are leaving Iraq, they're leaving Syria, with just the clothes on their backs. The world has got to respond. The United States should be part of the response. 

(k) We've always been a country that's been willing to accept people who have been displaced, and I would be open to that if it can be done in a way that allows us to ensure that among them are not...people who were, you know, part of a terrorist organization that are using this crisis. 

(l) We are a welcoming nation, and we have accepted a lot of refugees, and I think we will continue to to do. But we also can't accept the whole world, so there are some limits. 

(m) The United States, I believe, has done it's fair share in terms of humanitarian aid...I think the United States honestly, sadly, cannot relax our entrance criteria. We are having to be very careful about who we let enter this country from these war-torn countries to be sure terrorists are not coming.  

How'd you do? Were you able to tell then apart?

Kudos, I think, to those who have maintained consistency in their positions and who have not jumped on the bandwagon simply to stay in the game. For those who previously said one thing and are now, post-Paris, saying something else, do you think they remember where they used to stand on this only a couple of months ago?

And, perhaps more importantly, do you think any reporters are going to call them on it where they're being inconsistent?


(a)  Ted Cruz  (b) Martin O'Malley (c) Lindsey Graham (d) Hillary Clinton (e) Chris Christie (f) Graham (g) Donald Trump (h) Mike Huckabee (i) Jeb! Bush (j) Bernie Sanders (k) Marco Rubio (l) Rand Paul (m) Carly Fiorina

The Comic Book Debate

It's a rare day that I find myself in agreement with Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, Jeb! Bush, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump and the rest of the Republican candidates - it takes the moon, stars and planets being in complete disarray, I think. But that's exactly what happened the other night.

If you watched, listened to, read the transcript or heard anything about the CNBC "debate" I think you'd find yourself in agreement with them as well.

Let's set the stage first: according to CNBC, this debate featured "the best team in business"  and it was "the first debate focused on Your Money, Your Vote" - you know, tough economic issues like the shrinking global economy, growing national debt, beaten-down middle class and all that. So naturally I expected questions on the candidates' tax plans, job plans, deficit reduction ideas, and so on.

It was no surprise then, that the opening question from Carl Quintanilla was this:

This series of debates is essentially a job interview with the American people. And in any job interview, you know this: you get asked "what's your biggest weakness?"  So in 30 seconds, without telling us that you try to hard or that you're a perfectionist (cue the giggles) what's your biggest weakness and what are you doing to address it?

I was seriously afraid the second question was going to be "If you were a tree..." But it was worse than that.  Here's John Harwood:

Mr Trump, you've done very well in this campaign so far by promising to build a wall and make another country pay for it. (Trump agrees). Send 11 million people out of the country. Cut taxes $10 trillion without increasing the deficit. (Trump agrees). And make Americans better off because your greatness would replace the stupidity and incompetence of others. (Again, Trump agrees). Let's be honest. Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?

Now, I get that media folks are having a blast with the whole "Republican clown car" campaign thing, and I get that Trump's ideas are presented in an entertaining way, with lots of hair and bluster and waving hands and scowling and all.  But how seriously should a candidate take that kind of question? Here's where Trump started:

No, not a comic book, and it's not a very nicely asked question the way you say that.(veritable pastiche agrees) 

There's more. Like Carly Fiorina trying to make the point on tax code simplification; she wants us to reform the entire thing., and expressed frustration with the fact that there's been zero progress on tax reform for years.

Let me just say on taxes, how long have we been talking about tax reform in Washington? We have been talking about it for decades. We now have a 73,000 page tax code.  There have been more than 4,00 changes to the tax plan since 2001 alone.  There are load of great ideas, great conservative ideas from wonderful think tanks about how to reform the tax code. The problem is we never get it done.

Enter the giggling Quintanilla again.

CQ: You want to bring 70,000 pages to three? 

CF: That's right, three pages.

CQ: Is that using really small type?

CF: You know why three?

CQ: Is that using really small type? 

No, Carl, you moronic comic book moderator (I wish she had said).

Because three pages is about the maximum that a single business owner, or a farmer, or just a couple, can understand without hiring somebody. Almost 60 percent of American people now need to hire an expert to understand their taxes.

Same on other tax plans. Complete doubt from the best-in-the-business moderators, without really even allowing the candidates to speak to their plans, because the 'experts' have determined that mocking questions are "hard questions" and that we'll find out what we need to know if they act like jerks and treat the candidates as cannon fodder.

The next question on the economy, jobs, taxes, growth, entitlements and the rest of the Your Money, Your Vote conversation was this one, again from Quintanilla, for Marco Rubio:

You've been a young man in a hurry ever since you won your first election in your 20s. You've had a big accomplishment in the Senate, an immigration bill providing a path to citizenship the conservatives in your party hate, and even you don't support anymore,  Now, you're skipping more votes than any senator to run for president. Why not slow down, get a few more things done first or at least finish what you start?

Rubio's answer referenced all of these: people living paycheck to paycheck with no raises and costs going up, struggling small businesses, a world out of control, our weakened military, a 'bipartisan' $19T debt, and our borrowing from 'countries that don't like us' to keep things running. So, naturally, Quintanilla's followup question was exactly on point:

So when the Sun-Sentinel says Rubio should resign, not rip us off, when they say Floridians sent you to Washington to do a job, when they say you act like you hate your job, do you?

Do you, Mr. Jones?

John Harwood again, questioning Jeb! on his falling poll numbers ("you're at the fifth lectern tonight"), posed this thoughtful question:

It's a question about why you're having difficulty. I want to ask you in this context. Ben Bernanke, who was appointed Fed chairman by your brother, recently wrote a book in which he said he no longer considers himself a Republican because the Republican Party has given in to know-nothingism. Is that why you're having a difficult time in this race? 

I'm not kidding, That really was the question.

Becky Quick, the third alleged moderator, did her part to glean key strategic information from the candidates as well. She had a 146-word question for Fiorina, which boiled down to this:

You know, we look back, your board fired you, why should we hire you now?

Quintanilla, asking Cruz about  his opinion on the bill to raise the debt ceiling and prevent another government shutdown:

Does your opposition to it show that you're not the kind of problem-solver American voters want?

Huh?

And Quick, asking Trump about his plans for our future economic security:

Bankruptcy is a broken promise. Why should the voters believe the promises you're telling them now?

There were more. On the question of Wall Street bankers not going to jail, and GM's issue with the faulty ignition switch, this question was posed to Christie:

As a former prosecutor, do you believe the people responsible for the switch and the cover-up belong behind bars?  

Not sure how that impacts my personal financial growth or my retirement fund; pretty sure I can't figure out why asking Marco Rubio why he liquidated his personal retirement account after he made a million bucks on a book deal has anything to do with my 401(k) and Social Security, but yes, that question happened too.

Here's another totally irrelevant question on hot-button economic issues, and a perfectly relevant answer. Harwood again, and Huckabee:

JH: Governor Huckabee, you've written about the huge divide in values between middle America and the big coastal cities like NY and Los Angeles. As a preacher as well as a politician, you know that presidents need the moral authority to bring the entire country together. The leading Republican candidate, when you look at the average of national polls right now, is Donald Trump. When you look at him, do you see someone with the moral authority to unite the country?

MH: You know, of the few questions I've got, the last one I need is to give him some more time. I love Donald Trump. He is a good man. I'm wearing a Trump tie tonight. Get over that one, OK?

Quintanilla further cemented his lightweight, incompetent, media-clown-car designated driver persona with this question for Jeb!

Governor Bush, daily fantasy sports has become a phenomenon in this country, will award billions of dollars in prize money this year.  But to play you have to assess your odds, put money at risk, wait for an outcome that's out of your control. Isn't that the definition of gambling, and should the Federal Government treat it as such?

At one point, Chris Christie allowed as how Harwood was being rude, even by New Jersey standards.

A friend of mine, when we come across things that are just mind-blowing at work, has a go-to phrase that I think is completely appropriate to summarize this 'debate':

You just can't sit around a campfire and make this crap up.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- we deserve so much more, and so much better. What CNBC tried to pass off as a debate was a mockery -- and you don't need to be a card-carrying liberal to see that.

I'm going to stay on this topic for another post or two; I hope you'll stick around.

The Sixth and First vs. the Second

In yesterday's post, I explained the real reason Kim Davis is in jail.

Among those who believe, erroneously, that  Davis is being persecuted for her religious views, for being a Christian, are some of the Republican presidential candidates. Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee have clearly come out on that side of the equation, as I noted yesterday. But where do the rest of the Rs stand on this?

Well, here's a sampling.

Front runner Donald Trump thinks that others in the Rowan County Clerk's office should be able to issue the licenses, or that frankly, people should leave town and get one somewhere else.

I would say the simple answer is to let her clerks do it. Now from what I understand, she's not letting the clerks do it either.  The other simple answer is rather than going through this -- because it's really a very, very sticky situation and terrible situation - 30 miles away they have other places they have many other places you get licenses. And you have them actually quite nearby, that's another alternative. 

He's half right - others in her office should be able to issue the marriage licenses, and in fact began doing so last week.  However, his suggestion that citizens cannot receive services in their own county because one elected official decides that her beliefs are more important than the law, is not acceptable.

Kentucky's own Senator Rand Paul says the answer is for states to stop issuing marriage licenses all together.

There never should have been any limitations on people of the same sex having contracts. But I do object to the state putting its imprimatur to the specialness of marriage, on something that's different than most people defined as marriage for most of history. So one way is just getting the state out completely, and I think that's where we're headed, actually.

Paul's answer is at least consistent with his beliefs in smaller government, and it removes the issue entirely by making marriage a contract between two parties with 'blessings' coming from a church if that's what you believe. But he too stays away from addressing the issue of an elected official not doing her job.

Rick Santorum, on his website, notes his respect for Davis, and vows to protect the First Amendment if elected.

I have great respect for Ms. Davis and her courage to stand up for her faith. In America we should not have to choose between keeping our job and practicing our faith. Today only reinforces my belief that the First Amendment Defense Act must be passed now at the Federal and state level. More and more people of faith will face the penalties Ms. Davis is now encountering if we do not make the necessary accommodations so people cannot just worship but live out their faith in their lives.

Santorum, like others, chooses to ignore the fact that Ms Davis is not just living out her faith, but insisting that everyone else live by her faith as well.

Similarly, Louisiana's Bobby Jindal  is on the wrong side of this. Speaking to the Huffington Post, he noted

I don't think anyone should have to choose between following their conscience and religious beliefs and giving up their job and facing financial sanctions. I think it's wrong to force Christian individuals or business owners. We are seeing government today discriminate against whether it's clerks, florists, musicians or others. I think that's wrong. I think you should be able to keep your job and follow your conscience. I absolutely do believe that people have a First Amendment right, a constitutional right. I don't think the court can take that away. 

And Wisconsin's golden boy Scott Walker?  He was "out there" in his response, (which is where he believes religious beliefs are practiced).

It's a balance that you've got to have in America between the laws that are out there, but ultimately ensuring the Constitution is upheld. I read that the Constitution is very clear, that people have the freedom of religion.  That means you have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs out there.

So, in general, these folks who would be president think that:

• it's OK for an elected official to put his or her personal religious beliefs above the law, and 
• it's generally OK for an elected official to impose those personal beliefs on everyone else,
• or that citizens should just find another jurisdiction to obtain the services they're entitled to,
• or that the government should just get out of the business of doing things that people may find objectionable.  

OK.  Let's pretend those are the right answers, the correct positions to have here. And let's say that I'm an elected official, and among my duties, I'm required to issue gun licenses and permits for folks who want to concealed-carry.

And let's say that it is my personal belief that guns kill people, and I steadfastly believe that 'Thou shalt not kill, and therefore I refuse to issue any gun licenses or concealed-carry permits.  And say that a judge orders me to issue the licenses and permits, and I not only refuse to issue them myself, but I also refuse to allow anyone else in my office to issue them. And say I try to get the Supreme Court to hear my case, and they refuse. And I still will not issue the permits, because of this 'heaven and hell' position my beliefs put me in (as Davis says), and so I go to jail.

• Would Mike Huckabee hold a rally for me, and petition the President to free me right now?
• Would Rick Santorum craft legislation to protect me? 
• Would Rand Paul suggest that the government get out of the gun permitting business, and have that just be a contract between two parties?
• Would Donald Trump simply send me to a different jurisdiction to avoid this "very, very sticky situation and terrible situation" in which I placed the citizens I was elected to serve?  

I think we all know the answer to that: Of. Course. Not.

Because a citizen exercising her personal right to practice her religion and live by her personal belief  that guns are killing machines and are against her religion, thereby barring other people from being able to exercise their right to own a gun? Well, that's a completely different constituency, and we know it's one that no Republican is going to defy.

These folks would be committing political suicide if they stood by me in a battle of the Sixth Commandment and the First Amendment vs. the Second Amendment.  I know it; you know it; and they know it. Add another twist - say I was a Muslim, or an atheist -- and we'd barely be able to see them in the rear view mirror.

These candidates should all take a page out of Carly Fiorina's book:

When you are a government employee as opposed to say, an employee of another kind of organization, then in essence, you are agreeing to act as an arm of the government. And while I disagree with this court's decision, their actions are clear. And so I think in this particular case, this woman now needs to make a decision of conscience -- is she prepared to continue to work for the government, be paid by the government, in which case she needs to execute the government's will, or does she feel so strongly about this that she wants to sever her employment with the government ...?

That is exactly the issue here. And that's exactly the right answer.

That we have so many people running for president who pretend not to understand  this, and who would not have the courage of this 'religious freedom' conviction if the belief-holder wasn't a Christian, and wasn't complaining about same sex marriage, is frightening.

Who Won the First Debate?

I confess I didn't watch the Fox News Republican presidential candidates debate, either the afternoon version with the bottom seven, or the evening version with Donald Trump and a bunch of other people. We don't get Fox News at home, and frankly I was afraid if I had gone to a bar to watch, I would have ended up with alcohol poisoning or something.

Today, on talk radio and on the evening news, and other TV news shows, as well as on various online news sites, the talk was all about who 'won' the debates. 

The Kids Table debate, which for some odd reason Fox News apparently only allowed family and friends to attend, was won by Carly Fiorina. 

I'm not sure why she won, other than (paraphrasing here) she's a woman and she can say bad things about Hillary Clinton, and it's OK because it's not 'woman bashing' when she does it but it is 'woman bashing' when men do it. She might have answered a couple of questions, too, I'm not sure. But I was clearly told she's a woman you know, and women will vote for a woman. Fiorina's a woman. 

For the main event, all anyone could talk about before the show was how Donald Trump was going to do; the remaining nine were barely mentioned. After the debate, what did we hear? Donald Trump. Donald Trump. Donald Trump. He was mean to Megyn Kelly. Megyn Kelly asked Donald Trump tough questions. Donald Trump. Donald Trump. 

After all of the talking heads stopped saying the same things about Donald Trump, they all said the same things about Jeb Bush. The most frequently heard comment about Jeb? Wallpaper. He was wallpaper. He blended into the wallpaper. He might as well have been wallpaper.  

Marco Rubio was a winner, he seemed like a leader, he's the future of the party, he was a winner he seemed like a leader hewasawinnerheseemedlikealeader. John Kasich was a winner too but part of that was his home field advantage. He might have been a winner because he said if one of his daughters was gay he would still love her, or something like that. 

The lack of diversity in the opinions of the political commentators was absolutely stunning. And what's worse, their comments, which they will repeat over and over, and which will be repeated over and over by others on their networks, will impact the poll results which will determine who gets to make the big table at the next debate.   

I won't know who won the first debate until I do some more research, catch the video and read the transcripts.  But I think I know who the losers are.