Donald Trump Actually Talks Sense For Once in REEP Debate #5

Let's first be honest and point out that - as Guardian UK columnist Richard Wolffe put it, this fifth Reepo “debate” was "about as convincing as the gondolas gliding along the supposedly Grand Canal outside the  (Venetian) casino."  If you've ever been to the Venetian you know what Wolffe's talking about, including the faux blue skies and the whole artificial setting, e.g.


A Venetian gondolier - from our trip to Vegas in 2006.

So it was almost to be expected this debate would reflect the artifice of the environment. We beheld Trump, for instance, "ambling in like the character he plays on 'The Apprentice': the judge on a reality show."  And where other candidates embraced the audience as potential voters, "Trump weakly applauded them as apprentices aspiring to his hiring." You had to admire his chutzpah.

But the main takeaway is that most of these guys believe the American people (or at least those who actually vote) are a bunch of whiny little 'fraidy cats or infants, e.g.

"Pwotekt me, Mista Goopa!"

 And can be drumbeaten into the GOOPr fold by manic, unhinged rhetoric spewed out in a hawk fest more appropriate to the meeting scene in 'Dr. Strangelove'. (Google to learn the connection if you never saw the flick.)

There was Jeb! boasting how he wanted to "increase defense spending" to fight ISIS despite the fact we are now spending $667 billion a year. WTF does he want? Another $3 trillion squandered like his dumb bro pissed away in the Iraq War?  In any case, the last thing we need is another Bush in the White House to complete the descent of this country into 2nd class nation status. And then there was Cruz who intended to "carpet bomb" Raqqa - the HQ for ISIS -  but which actually is a city of over 400,000,  with mostly civilians. Collateral damage, anyone? How about intentional genocide?

We also had the really immature dolts going after Russia, which nation I guess they really believe is a "paper tiger" as one deluded WSJ poppet put it a week ago in an op ed. There was John Kasich (who I once took to be the GOP "adult") bragging he intended to "punch Russia in the nose". Good luck on that, pally, but you are going to have to go through Vladimir Putin first, and somehow I don't think you're up to it against the former KGB head who walks with a "gunslinger's gait". (As noted in a report on the news last night, from having his weapon at the ready on that right side.)

Then we have the heavyset (putting it mildly) turkey,  Chris Christie,  who actually wants to outdo Gen, Curtis LeMay (from 1962's Cuban Missile Crisis) vowing he would effectively  start World War III if he had to by shooting down Russian pilots over Syria - if he put up a no fly zone. He even defended it this morning, essentially insinuating if he put up such a zone the Russians would not dare disobey it, "if they knew the consequences". One wonders what manner of marijuana edibles or candies this fool was ingesting.

Amidst all this huff and puff it was therefore gratifying to at least see Trump separate from the hawkathon and especially inveighing against the insane GOP yen for 'regime change". We've already seen in Iraq (ousting Saddam), Libya (ousting Muammar Ghadaffi) how this game plays out and now also the eagerness to supplant Assad in Syria. Mincing no words, Trump emphatically stated that the $4 trillion blown on those regime change operations would have been better spent here at home for roads, infrastructure, schools, etc. He also added that any future trillions that the interventionists might wish to blow, would be better spent here in the U.S. To which the harpy-witch Carly Fiorina responded he was "talking more like Obama". Actually no, you ignorant misfit, he was talking sense!

By contrast, the odious slob Chris 'Crisco' Christie instantly disqualified himself by asserting that he'd have no qualms shooting down a Russian plane over Syria after installing a dopey "no fly" zone. So, he'd risk incinerating billions in a third world (nuclear) war to prove his security bona fides and that his Pillsbury doughboy frame really had the balls to do it. (Recall in 'Oct. 62 JFK had to restrain Gen. Curtis LeMay who wanted to bomb Cuba into the stone age, despite the fact there were 93 fully armed IRBMs  aimed at the eastern and central U.S.)

What Christie really showed is how easy it is for one's ass to occupy one's brain, when bravado supersedes common sense and intellect.

Christie, while lamenting the sense of fear gripping the United States,  then ended up stoking as much fear as possible, talking at length in dog whistle style about the bomb threat that closed the Los Angeles Unified school system on Tuesday. But somehow ignoring that the New York authorities in his backyard decided the same threat was a hoax. (The reason given by the NYPD Police commissioner is that the email sender referred to "allah" and not Allah.)

By contrast to Christie and the other warmongering, take 'em all out Reepo yahoos,  Trump showed forbearance and sound judgment- at least by his stated unwillingness to intervene and overthrow yet another Middle Eastern state and for nothing.  (Of course, he later more or less neutralized the quantum of rationality displayed then by his stance on killing the families of terrorists. As Rand Paul asked: "Ever heard of the Geneva Convention?")

Let's recall the Bush bunch are the original regime changers so no surprise Jeb! had to butt in to do an indirect defense of his incompetent brother.

Late in the debate, for example,  Jeb! jabbed at Trump for "getting his national security advice from retired generals on cable TV.". But Trump simply stepped out of the exchange to critique his rival and the moderators – retaking his role as judge rather than participant.

At one point Jeb clearly lost it,  barking:

“You’re never going to be president of the United States by insulting your way to the presidency,”

“Well, let’s see,” said Trump, “I am at 42 and you’re at three,” he added citing recent polls. “So, so far, I’m doing better.”

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz tried to talk with a certain Texan swagger on how he'd "wipe out ISIS" and basically do everything Obama "isn't doing"  now. Except Obama is, including sending in more strategic ground forces for support. But as I noted before, it's easy for imps like Cruz and Rubio to try to out swagger each other with empty rhetoric when they hold no real positions of power. It's likewise easy for a pompous porker like Christie to vow he'd shoot down Russian planes when the only really nasty thing he's done up to now (as NJ Governor) is shut down a key bridge backing up traffic in his state for miles- and hours.

The most important aspect of last night's debate was to show that the Reeps -most of them - can only "win" by instilling fear. Fear of the terrorists and fear of our own shadows, if we let the lizard brain take over the prefrontal cortex.  People need to bear in mind the only political leverage the Reepos hold is the terror card. And if they can get enough of us to submit, and believe terrorism trumps all else - then we will have truly fucked ourselves to a far thee well in next year's elections.

The facts speak otherwise, that this era and period is nowhere near as terrifying as many in the past, including the Cuban Missile Crisis which I lived through when we came within a hair's breadth of WW III. Our much bigger fear ought to be of the millions of assault weapons in our midst which too many seem to be quite content to leave alone, at least their regulation, out of a misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment. Meanwhile mass murders go on daily, not by terrorists or ISIS sympathizers but by fellow Americans too ready to settle things or act out with their AR-15s. There've been 200,000 slaughtered since 9/11 by these weapons in the hands of fellow citizens, vs. 45 killed by terrorists. Do the math! And if you are still terrorized by ISIS,  or any other random jihadi terror,  you don't deserve to call yourself an American - or at least claiming that you belong in "the home of the brave".

And if you believe Chris Crisco Christie is the answer- as some expressed in an MSNBC focus group this morning-  you definitely don't know which end is up or what WWIII would look like. So I suggest you get the movie 'Threads' and watch it - maybe several times - to let it sink in.

If this fifth debate did anything it showed the Dems still are the adults in the room, and the party most likely to feature a sane and temperate leader in a world too overrun by fear, panic sand over-heated rhetoric. But, of course, the election next year will ultimately depend on adults - not fearful infants - to make the decision that best serves the nation.

And when one writes that Donald Trump was (relatively speaking) the most rational on the stage tonight, you have some idea of just how fucked up the GOP really is.

Terrified Americans Prepared To Sacrifice Liberties Again After Paris

Bwaaaaa! Daddy Reepo pwotekt me fwum dem bad guys! Bwaaaahahah!

"Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for the purpose of a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy, which cunning will discover and wickedness insensibly open." - Thomas Jefferson, in 'Notes on Virginia'.

As many Americans take to the skies and roads over the long holiday weekend, you can be sure that despite the assurances of President Obama, millions will still be seized by pathological terror fears.

Just reading the accounts in The Wall Street Journal three days ago, of all the citizens prepared to sacrifice their hard won liberties to "feel safe" was enough to turn a civil libertarian's stomach. Person after person averred of the need to feel safe and how the Paris attacks had again turned them toward their own mortality.  One middle-aged Pennsylvania woman said she'd accept a new surveillance state, anything to "catch the terrorists".

And, of course, it doesn't take too much for crass politicos to exploit those fears (now voiced by 64 % of the country who believe a terror attack is "imminent"  for the U.S.)  and convert them into demagoguery and fear mongering - while vowing  a lot more surveillance - as Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Chris Christie have done. The last guy saying at a Council on Foreign Relations  confab that "Paris changes everything". Uh, no it doesn't.

Add to that hysterical articles like 'Time to Remove the Surveillance Blinders', WSJ, Nov. 24, p. A13) by Michael B. Mukasey and Jamil N. Jaffer, yelping to "restore the metadata programs" and you can understand why so many of our countrymen are in panic mode.

But as yesterday's Denver Post editorial ('Don't Retreat on NSA Surveillance') points out:

"The security hawks are misguided. The Paris attacks are not a cogent argument for their views. "

It goes on to cite knuckledragger Tom Cotton, hell bent on introducing legislation to delay implementation of the USA Freedom Act which passed in June and is set to be fully implemented in December.   (Incidentally, Cotton's cotton-pickin' energy in this, as well as that of other GOOPrs is nothing short of amazing given Republican leaders have recently declared the lower chamber will be closed for a total of 150 weekdays starting next year. That's upward of 30 weeks paid vacation for each!)

But the Post to its credit has noted that while the modest rollback of NSA bulk collection of records threatens national security, the facts do not bear this out. (But what value are facts anymore anyway, when a blowhard nincompoop like Trump can say anything he wants - like he heard and saw people in Jersey City clapping approval after the WTV towers went down - and not one report can support it)

As the Post observes:

"The federal government's own Privacy and Civil Liberties Board was unable in 2014 to identify "a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the telephone records collection program made a concrete difference to the outcome of a terrorist investigation."

Adding:

"Moreover, we are aware of no such instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack."

The Post also pointed out that the Justice Department's own inspector general came to a similar conclusion namely that "even federal anti-terrorism officials in favor of the 'metadata' program could not identify any major case developments as a result of it."

Those are significant findings showing the programs, methods were essentially useless despite all the huff and puff now erupting among politicians eager to gain leverage in the polls by playing on Americans' fears. Or least a certain subset I call "the good Germans".

Go back to the end of World War II and the American occupation of Germany in the years after 1945. We assailed the “weak” German people and mocked them for not standing up to the growing metastasis of Hitler’s Reich which they obviously saw but did nothing about. Hell, too many sided with Hitler, praised him and embraced his ideology while turning a blind eye to the wrongs. The last straw was the Enabling Act (1933) which essentially obliterated the last vestiges of the Weimar Republic. Our military also dragged out these “good Germans” and trotted them into the remnant concentration camps to see first hand what their Fuhrer and his minions did. They were marched in and forced to look at the naked, gassed bodies stacked like cordwood until they puked.
Americans have got to realize that if they're so petrified by the Paris attacks that they are led to vote for any of these tinhorn,  wannabe dictators, our nation will be in deep shit - from which it may never be extricated even after the current threat passes.  Worse, many citizens may be mutated into the same "good Germans" who would deny atrocities committed (e.g. by the security state) to protect them from the bad guys.

Am I a civil liberties “extremist”? Damned right if that means a citizen who understands that the Constitution is not just “a piece of paper” (as Bush once called it) and that the rights inherent in the Bill of Rights are real, apply to individuals, and not mere “compromise abstractions” but rather hold the key to American identity – what truly sets us apart. And once those rights are gone, believe me they won’t be coming back! Once they are gone we will cease to be the nation my ancestor,  Conrad Brumbaugh,  envisaged and fought for in the Revolutionary War  - as one of the Pennsylvania Regiment.

What would Conrad think now nearly 240 years after the War of Independence? He’d likely barf nonstop at the spectacle of what too many of the current crop of Americans have devolved to: arrant, whiny, weak, sissy consumers,  who’d rather give in to their fears and vote for an obvious tyrant than stand tall and face their fears.

Which means not letting the ISIA terrorists win, i.e. getting us to do their dirty work for them by rescinding our had won liberties via the imposition of dubious, hollow laws.

4th REEPO Debate = Democratic Cause For Jubilation

If I were the Democratic front runner, I'd save a tape or DVD of the just completed Republican debate. The reason? It is chock full of material to slay any of these bozos in a 2016 general election showdown. Not only did their responses show their detachment from economic reality (this debate was on economics) but the "solutions" proffered are assured of inciting middle and working class outrage. All the Demos need do is exploit the 'gift' already there, which means integrating the cockeyed replies into assorted Demo ads come 2016.

Where to begin? Start with their reasons for not raising the minimum wage when hard working Americans are already - many of them (as in  Boulder and Frisco, CO) having to live in their cars because there is no affordable housing. How are you going to afford an apartment for $1900/month in Boulder or Frisco, CO when your pay is $9 an hour at Starbucks.

Do the Reepo goons have any solid answers for Ellie Reilly - living out of her Subaru because there aren't any affordable homes or apartments in Frisco, CO - where she works?

None of their stupid, ignorant solutions will help a hard worker like Ellie Reilly featured recently in a DPost article on workers in Colorado mountain towns having to live out of their cars because of the lack of affordable housing.  What happened? After the 2008 crash which was cause by their same ignorant tax cutting policies and rabid creation of credit default swaps, home builders simply created high end condos for tourists, pricing locals out. Home owners rented rooms and apartments but also mainly for tourists.  Teachers, cops and others - like Starbucks baristas - were priced out.

And please spare me the BS that those jobs (like Ellie's barista job) were "only meant to be entry level" when corporations - sitting on over $1.9 trillion, have ceased investing in higher pay jobs. For anyone who needs it spelled out, that translates into a fixed jobs 'pyramid' with only a few great paying jobs at the top, and only middling to low pay jobs making up the bulk. (Made worse by older workers refusing to leave and open up their jobs to the young, because they're still trying to make back the 401k money lost after the 2008 crash.)

The solution to move these folks to better jobs? Tax cuts (in the form of "flat" taxes like Cruz' idiotic 10 percent flat tax - he also wants to abolish the IRS). All the bozos on stage wanted cuts of some form, as well as to "entitlements" in order to also lower corporate taxes. The claim often repeated, especially by Trump, is that the U.S. is the "most highly taxed nation" in the world, which is baloney.

 Thus, Trump's, Fiorina's, Paul's, Carson's, Cruz's and Rubio's solutions of cutting taxes to quick start the economy falls under the header of fantasy. Cutting taxes (Rubio also wants to blow $1 trillion on increased defense spending - meaning he'd have to not only cut Medicare, Medicaid, but the military Tricare program too) is only going to increase the debt. (See my citation of the Financial Times analysis of the Bush tax cuts below). The way to more higher earning jobs and productivity is actually to increase taxes.

Authors James Medoff and Andrew Harless (The Indebted Society) indeed showed that as tax rates increase, aggregate demand is enhanced and job output and productivity grows. This is in direct opposition to the specious claims of the tax cutter fetishists like the goons on parade at this GOOPs debate.

At several points I had to even ask wifey if any of these lunatics knew how to do basic math. WIth all their giveaways to the rich (Jeb would give them an average $180k tax cut each) and Rubio and Trump lowering corporate taxes, they wouldn't have a fucking dime left to work with and in fact add trillions to the deficit. Especially Rubio, aka 'the Cisco Kid' , who wants to give a trillion bucks to the Pentagon when they "misplaced" a trillion back in the late 90s. (As former defense analyst Chuck Spinney pointed out to Bill Moyers on one of his 'NOW' PBS shows in 2002). With a chump like this, why would the brass at the Pentagon want anyone else as Prez?

I mean Jeebus Peace! Rubio can't even control his own outlandish spending on his GOP credit card - running it into the red - and he wants to take over the nation's budget? (The Miami Herald fact -checked his insistence he only used the card once. The Herald documented over $1,200 blown at a Miami steak house, plus $275 for one New Year's Eve fling and over $3,800 at assorted Miami gas stations. What? Cubans don't have their own credit cards? Did the punk expect the party to pay for his spending? If not, why not use your own card?

Rubio also blew it with his blurtation that "welders make more money than philosophy majors". But a fact check exploded that canard: welders earn an average of $37k a year and philosophers, $64 k.

This is all stuff the Dems can use to their maximum advantage and if it doesn't inspire class hatred and warfare I have to consign most of the American working class to the walking dead demographic.

Then there was Trump barking about sending 11 million "illegals"  back across the border. Kasich tried his best to temper this ntiwit's bombastic blathering - realizing he was handing Hillary or Bernie millions of potential Hispanic votes on a platter. Don't these goons grasp what this sort of rhetoric does and how it plays against their stupid elephant party?

I mean, after Trump then Carson, blurted their solutions for the nation's finances I had to recall JFK's words when he faced Tricky Dick Nixon in the 1960 campaign:

"I run against a candidate who reminds me of the symbol of his party, the circus elephant, with his head full of ivory, a long memory and no vision"

But I'd even question their collective memories, given none of these turkeys on stage in Milwaukee (my home town, btw) seem to have any recollection of what went down before Obama arrived. How Bush busted the budget with his tax cuts and wars of choice, as well as a massive giveaway program to Big PhrmA (in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003). And then they all want to blame Obama for economic deterioration. WTF are they all blind too, as well as Alzheiumer's- level low on memory?

Any of these tools could have, prior to the debate, gotten hold of the CBO's data on how deficits have been lowered progressively since Obama was elected, including a clear graph, e.g.


What? They can't read graphs? Or maybe they don't want to because it means acknowledging what Obama has accomplished for the nation's economy which their own party and yahoos have failed to do.

Note after an initial spike the most significant lowering of deficits arrived AFTER the cessation of the Bush tax cuts (which the Dems had also unwisely extended for two years). But what it shows is that tax cuts do not work to help the economy. I don't know how much more clearly I can make this, except maybe to refer to the Financial Times own assessment of the Bush tax cuts. Its analysis of Sept. 15, 2010 showed:

"“The 2000s- that is the period immediately following the Bush tax cuts – were the weakest decade in U.S. postwar history for real, non-residential capital investment. Not only were the 2000s by far the weakest period but the tax cuts did not even curtail the secular slowdown in the growth of business structures. Rather the slowdown accelerated to a full decline”

Get that? A full decline! The fucking Bush cuts (which "Jeb!"  also wants to renew) did not even "curtail the secular slowdown in the growth of business structures". No - the slowdown "accelerated to a full decline"

And these goobers think THEIR cuts will do any better? What are they drinking? Hell, what are they smoking?

To put the capper on it, the FT analysis observed that:

“during each decade from the 1950s to the 1990s, growth in real gross non-residential investment averaged between 3.5 percent and 7.4 percent a decade. During the 2000s it averaged a mere 1%”

Read the preceding then do so again. And then tell me any of these would-be presidents has anything to offer the American public but more tax cut snake oil which never worked whenever it was tried before. (Note to those with short memories: Even Reagan had to raise taxes after his initial cut frenzy! But his added defense spending to the tune of $2.1 trillion is what converted the U.S. into a major debtor nation, with the largest deficits in history.)

Then there was Jeb Bush whining about the 2 percent growth which is becoming structural but which he believes he can jerk up to 4 percent. Does this moron even know WHY the growth remains at 2 percent?  And why no amount of is tax cuts will alter the situation?

The low growth is worldwide and has to do directly with the degradation of energy, meaning what we are getting is resulting in an overall loss or regression in useful net energy. The only thing that will change the outcome is a new form of intense energy (e.g. nuclear fusion) more efficient than the fossil fuels now being used. For more on this issue, see:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/44-trillion-in-deficits-by-2024-minus.html

I could go on and on, but it's just as well this is the last parade of clowns and idiots for at least a month. I really don't think most sane citizens would be able to withstand much more bullshit disguised  as sober debate.

For a sober debate I guess I will have to tune into the Dem debate on CBS  this Saturday!

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/11/the_gop_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_every_single_republicans_economic_plan_is_made_of_wishes_and_fairy_dust/

The Clash in Colorado - Only ONE Serious Candidate Stood Out In This Debate: John Kasich

"Damn, Cruz! Them questions was damn hard!"


When I read the Denver Post pre-debate story yesterday morning, concerning Ohio Guv John Kasich sending shivers down Democratic spines (if he emerged as the R-nominee, which let us admit is doubtful), I had to see for myself. I had to watch at least some of this latest clown cavalcade on CNBC to see who, if anyone, stood out as possessing presidential timbre. Well, they all failed to meet the standard except for Kasich.

The stand up moment came right at the outset when candidates were asked to give their primary weakness in 30 seconds or less. Kasich led off by not really addressing the question but instead pointing out the severe weaknesses of the others in terms of being realistic, especially with their tax-economic policies.

At that point, then again at a later interlude when he had to respond to Trump's misrepresentations about being in charge at Lehman Bros. in 2008, Kasich asserted:

"Folks, we gotta wake up! We cannot elect someone who doesn’t know how to do the job.”

He then torpedoed both the Trump and Carson tax plans as "delusional" - and even moderator John Harwood pointed out to the ever feisty Trump that his tax plan would only create even more mammoth deficits. As for Carson, his "tithing" tax plan was ridiculed as well, including by Kasich, though no one pulled Uncle Ben up on his ignorant remark about "taxing 15 percent of GDP" when in fact, he's proposing a flat tax on individuals. Doesn't he know the difference?

Marco Rubio, aka "the Cisco Kid" -   who the corporo-media touted as the "clear winner"-  was also exposed this morning by Steve Rattner on 'Morning Joe' as having an unworkable tax plan. To get a $2.4 trillion reduction in deficits, Rubio would have to spend $2.4 trillion. Hell, that's a worse balance than the "energy in vs. energy out" for fracking!  Rubio's only "win" came by showing he was a superior debater to the lethargic and out of tune Jeb - which we knew already. (Jeb needs to pack up his Bush bag and go home to mommy.)

Say one thing say the next, at least there was  a bit more illumination than in previous debates (though noise still dominated) as candidates were held accountable over what many economists have viewed as extreme tax and spending policies as well as conflicting promises on Social Security. (A favorite target of the extremist Right since the Social Security Law was passed in 1935, despite the fact most GOP voters depend on it to get by - especially in the South.)

Incredibly, Carson also later received supportive boos from the crowd after he was questioned on his links to a disgraced pharmaceutical company, then concluded his appearance by thanking fellow panelists “for not falling for the traps”.

Why anyone would boo the moderators on Carson's dumb behalf  for conflict of interest issues is beyond me. The guy is a moron, his tax plan was clearly exposed as airy fairy bull pockey - by two of the moderators as well as Kasich. And the gathered Reeptards ought to have been booing HIM when the links to the disgraced PhRMA company were brought out. The question as asked by Carl Quintanilla was:

This is a company called Mannatech, a maker of nutritional supplements, with which you had a 10-year relationship. They offered claims that they could cure autism, cancer, they paid $7 million to settle a deceptive marketing lawsuit in Texas, and yet your involvement continued. Why?

The little douchebag ought to have answered it because it was a deadly serious probe into the little fuck's background.  (Highlighting his support for quackery and mumbo jumbo if it earns him an extra buck).. But all he did was bristle and babble in the aftermath and the peanut-brained audience booed. Aren't you supposed to have at least an I.Q. of 100 to gain entry to a debate?

 But it only showed how out of touch with reality both the peanut gallery and their goofy "heroes" really are. As one Boulder construction worker put it - quoted in today's Denver Post, 'What a bunch of g**damned clowns!" Out of the mouths of real American workers! (Incredibly, students quoted in the same piece often gave the Reeptards a pass. One CU freshman actually said he "respected Carson for his political and scientific understanding". This kid's college admission needs to be rescinded and he ought to go back to kindergarten!)

But see, in this alternative universe of conservative bullshit,  reality has no place and truth is the first casualty. You can see it as a running thread in these idiotic Reepo debates, and even Paul Ryan - new House Speaker- conceded yesterday "Our party has lost its vision".  Yeah, and they did so in dispensing with reality and embracing a schizoid's vision. A vision wherein regulations are meaningless, women are the "enemy" of their "unborn babies" and you can spend as much as you want - especially on defense-  and still cut deficits.

The brainwashed crowds who vote and clamor for these useless clowns will look away from anything substantial  unless it's going after Obama.... or their primary foe that they call "Killary" - because they're terrified she will kill them next year in the general election - which she will . The only one who rose at all above this nonsense was Kasich. But given reality is not an attribute of the extremist Right, don't look for any of their bunch to see it.

The most hilarious aspect of last night's circus was how the tough questioning from CNBC moderators prompted Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Ben Carson and others to unite against the television network, attacking them for bias. (Presumably that was based on the fact the network was not FOX  - which only the previous night featured a 23 min. "technical" delay for the first World Series game)

Teeing off on this "blame the refs" meme was Canuck Clown Ted Cruz's attack on the media when he blurted out:

“The questions that have been asked so far on this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media,”

Then there was Mr. Chris "Crisco"  Christie bellyaching about a question concerning government regulation of Fantasy Football while ISIS was running loose.  Intimating the poor GOOPs got comic questions only.

But minutes after the debate ended, Carson complained about the "difficulty" of the questions while Democrats got "softball questions". So which is it? Maybe all the Reeps' perceptions are totally distorted so none of them can even agree on what they experience.

Cruz's  comment brought some of the biggest cheers of the night from the Colorado crowd. But again let us recall - as I noted in the last blog post- this was a cherry picked crowd where Reince Priebus literally had to comb Boulder for enough real conserrvos to balance the politico elites and media in the audience. Had the audience been truly representative Cruz, as well as Trump, Carson and most of the others would have been hooted off the stage.

The true fact is that the CNBC moderators dared ask challenging questions. These pretenders to the presidency weren’t mad because CNBC failed to do journalism correctly. They were mad because they apparently expected canned propaganda questions and did not get them.

All except Joh Kasich who at least presented sober solutions and had a moderate appeal. Again vindicating the DPost's take that he gave Dems the willies.

But see, the Reeptard extremists hate him because according to the WSJ piece yesterday (p. A4):

"He is a center Right Republican who is willing to defy conservative orthodoxy, use all levers of executive power and stick to his guns in the face of criticism - even from his own party."

In other words, the only realist on the GOP stage who might be a genuine contender and be able to defeat "Killary".   As the WSJ piece goes on:

"This has made some Democrats see him as a potentially strong general election candidate."

The takeaway from the night, delivered this morning by CNBC, after all the candidates carped about the moderators' questions:

"People who want to be President of the United States should be able to answer tough questions"

And that means questions beyond which those these Bozos were already prepared for, i.e. to give "canned" answers. If there was any fault with the CNBC moderators, it was the same as all the others thus far including on the FOX debate: No one is holding any of these guys to account in their wild, invalid claims or outright stupid remarks - such as Carson's against regulation ("I dunno why they got to regulate everything, I mean it's into everything"- well, maybe so your grand daughters don't get salmonella from ingesting 'Blue Bell' ice cream, dope!) Also, no questions were brought up regarding Carson's foolish statements comparing women who get abortions to slave holders (see previous post).

Anyway  the takeaway from this fiasco for me is that only one (at most)  of the ten showed the capacity to be a President : John Kasich. If this guy worries Demos, maybe the Reepos and their primary voters ought to take note!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/64543/the-gop-debates-and-the-ghost-of-tom-joad

And:

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/29/the_inane_spectacle_of_the_gop_debate_cruz_the_showboating_creep_rubio_the_slick_operator_bush_the_desperate_flop/

My Problem With 'Black Lives Matter': They're Cowards And A-Holes

Black Lives Matter activists get in Bernie Sanders' face recently in Seattle. Do they have the balls to do that to Trump, Jeb Bush or Scott Walker?

"These newly ignited firebrands do know that their bullshit is more likely to be tolerated among liberals than among, say, those who gather at a rally for Donald Trump, let alone at a Tea Party gathering, and surely let alone an Oathkeepers ammo swap.

So they hit Bernie, and they call people racists who are really not their main problem. They pitch a fit if someone doesn’t repeat their slogan verbatim, and they hold themselves aloof from any possible criticism because, after all, they’re holding all the race cards by virtue of their skin color."

Jaime O'Neill, 'Asshole Lives Matter', on smirkingchimp.com

After seeing several times more the assault by 'Black Lives Matter' activists on Bernie Sanders in Seattle - and YES,  I call it what it is -  I am convinced Sanders now needs to have a retinue of guards at the ready like some other candidates. It is simply not good enough to found most of your protests on the lowest hanging, most vulnerable 'fruit'.  And it is the epitome of ill manners to disrupt a meeting or speech and inconvenience thousands of others for your own pet cause, no matter how important you believe it to be.

As I pointed out in an earlier post,  these nuisance protesters from 'Black Lives Matter' really need to adjust their own reality goggles and keep their powder dry for the 17 Repukes. As opposed to attacking their own ideological, economic allies  with "friendly fire". Note: I do not deny their right to protest and vigorously,  only to do so in a cowardly, selective fashion by going after the lowest hanging fruit - a 73 year old Socialist who is only in this race at progressives' behest and because Elizabeth Warren refused to run.

Thus, it would have far more redounded to their credibility (and gravitas)  to get in the face of Donald Trump, Jeb Bush or Scott Walker first.  THAT would have shown: a) they are serious in their claims they are out to flag and disrupt every candidate, and b) they have the courage of their convictions akin to their 1960s civil rights protester forbears, i.e. at sit-ins in Selma and Montgomery.

Would they risk more by going after the REAL racists and hardline GOOPrs  first? Of course! But that is the point of serious protest as opposed to easy posturing, yelling and grand standing - as originally  demonstrated by Martin Luther King, Jr.  When you bloviate self-righteously that your group is out to honestly protest and "disrupt all", it means nowhere near as much as actually putting skin in the game - before you disrupt elderly candidates who are really on your side.

Note also they couldn't get one inch past Hillary's Secret Service detachment, which shows me they are only interested in  disrupting soft, friendly, easily accessible targets. In Hillary's case, they weren't able to disrupt her confab and had to settle for a special, private meeting. So already they've shown they will "take what they can get" so equal treatment of all candidates becomes a matter of expediency and convenience- which is cowardly. If they are going to disrupt a Sanders' event they ought to do Hillary the same honor -else grant Sanders a special meeting as they allowed for Hillary. But to accept the private meeting with HRC because they couldn't or wouldn't get past her Secret Service contingent is cowardice of the highest form.

 As liberal talk radio  host Bill Press put it on Chris Hayes 'All In' three nights ago: "They are making the perfect the enemy of the good."    Adding:

"You target the people who disagree with you, not your friends."  Bingo!

Alicia Garza, co-creator of Black Lives Matter sounded all full of herself and sanctimonious on the same 'All In' episode, assuring Chris Hayes she was an equal opportunity disrupter. To which I say ''Bull shit!' She also promised that  "all candidates will be disrupted", but I will believe it when I see it.

That means Garza immediately ceasing with the easy Dem disruptions and dispatching her troops after Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker,  and Mike Huckabee! 

But I seriously doubt she or her organization will do that because I don't believe they have the courage of those 60s protestors to really put skin on the line in their disruptions.  Grandstanding by interrupting an elderly Socialist Jew - in the midst of Libs who're too damned polite and politically correct to do anything but stand down-  is lots easier than going after the Donald, or a Bush. In those situations the mob, racist supporters would put those black "activist" lives in real jeopardy.

Maybe also these 'Black Lives Matter' folks ought to keep tighter reins on who joins their ranks. Evidently they had no problems letting in  a former Tea Bagger And Xtian evangelical puppet - Marissa Johnson - who had the fucking nerve to call the gathered  pro-Sanders whites "racists and white supremacists". As Jaime O'Neill noted in his recent smirkingchimp.com blog article,  "not so long ago she identified with the Tea Party and Sarah Palin."  Can a pro-Palin, knuckle dragger idiot change colors or stripes overnight? I doubt it.

See the first link below for more on this. Other libs may shy away from calling these assholes out, but I won't and clearly Jaime O'Neill doesn't either!


See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jaime-oneill/63447/asshole-lives-matter

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/13/larry_wilmore_mocks_black_lives_matter_activists_at_sanders_rally_black_manners_matter_as_well/

Excerpt:

“You know things aren’t going well when black women get up in your event and start reciting old Destiny’s Child,”

That REEPO Debate: More Fun Than A Barrel Of Monkeys

Okay, I admit it'd be hard to surpass a barrel of yelping, cackling monkeys all going at each other  -in terms of hilarity. But the Republican (prime time) debate last night came pretty close. It also showed, probably better than anything else - how batshit crazy and out of touch the whole lot of them are. But were there some kernels of hope for a Lefty? Definitely, and I plan to pick those out from the general stream of deranged nuttiness..

Let's start from the beginning where the question was asked - unfairly I believe: Was there any candidate who was unwilling to pledge support to the eventual Republican nominee and swear off a third-party run?  Of course, Trump raised his hand to assorted catcalls from the peanut gallery - also provoking an outburst from Rand Paul explaining the Donald's "only hedging his bets because he's used to buying politicians".

Rand may have a point, but let's face it: this would be the best thing to happen for the Dem nominee, whoever it is. Even Bernie Sanders could be handed a landslide victory if the Donald is the opponent, or runs as an Independent - taking at least as many votes from the GOP as Perot did back in 1992.

Now, back to the other deranged aspects of which there were many, but I highlight the standouts:

Next, Foxie  News darling Megyn Kelly put Ben Carson in her sights, with the cameras catching him in 'deer in the head lights' mode.  Megyn recounted previous basic mistakes Carson made in various forums, including: suggesting the Baltic states are not part of NATO,  not knowing the main political parties in Israel and (no kidding!) believing Alan Greenspan had been Treasury Secretary instead of former Chairman of the Federal Reserve.  Any one of these bonehead errors would ordinarily disqualify a candidate as surely as Rick Perry (in 2012) failing to recall the DOE as one  of the main federal agencies.

Megyn correctly asked if all his drops weren't "basic mistakes"  and "raise legitimate questions on whether you're ready to be president?"

Ben asserted "I could take issue with all those but we don't have time" then changed the subject and lamely said "we will have an opportunity to explore all those issues". Uh no, Ben. See, you were supposed to have a ready answer for your incompetence and you blew it.

After watching Ben's inauspicious performance on stage it might be better if he instantly - and voluntarily  - changed places with Carly Fiorina at the "happy hour" debate.  At least Fiorina looked halfway presidential, Carson looked like he couldn't qualify for dogcatcher in Dogpatch, NC.

Carson's ridiculous answers - even with limited time - showed me the man needs to spend his time another way, perhaps helping out in soup kitchens in Baltimore- especially as penance after his outrageous putdowns of progressives.. In concert they raise serious questions about how well he understands the country not to mention the international scene.

Did he reassure anyone? Not at all, just made them wince even more - and as I told wifey: "How the hell did this bozo even make it onto the stage. How did he ever become a Hopkins neurosurgeon?"

 Marco Rubio's turn came next and 'Cisco Kid' was asked how he could claim to be presidential caliber given his limited experience. This had to be one of the softball questions and Rubio  delivered his usual canned nonsense about "being Senator from one of the most diverse states". Maybe, but that's not the same as governance. Realizing that perhaps, he added "this cannot be a resume competition". Uh, yes it can!

Jeb Bush didn't do much better, and was reminded of his previous gaffes. But the question also let this POS brag how he "balanced every budget"  and was nicknamed "Veto Corleone" but no word on the deplorable state his budget cuts left Florida's ecology sinking in literal slime and pollution.  Bush also showed he either didn't understand Common Core (which he supposedly backs) or was trying a last minute attempt to wiggle out of supporting it. He claimed he favored "state solutions" when the whole idea of Common Core is a centralized educational template that would ultimately be issued from the federal gov't. You can't have each state doing its own Common Core. That defeats the very definition.

Megyn Kelly then went for Trump's jugular - perhaps because she was irate after reading a blog post of mine on how 'the Donald' paddled Katy Tur in her interview with him. So Megyn was out for revenge.  Megyn, bless her agitated soul, eyed Trump like a female boa eyes a paralyzed mouse and said menacingly:

“You’ve called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals,” as if she was barely able to contain her revulsion.  Trump shot back "Only Rosie O'Donnell" but Megyn shot back 'No, it wasn't!"

To toss in some more acid, she recalled that Trump's "made several disparaging comments on women's looks and once told a contestant on 'The Celebrity Apprentice'  that it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees.” She asked: "Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president and how will you answer the charge when Hillary Clinton is likely to be the Democratic nominee that you are part of the war on women.?”

Of course, the Donald was way too smart to take the bait, and instead launched into a minute's worth of fulsome bollocks on how he "doesn't have time for political correctness" and "this country doesn't have time either"

In fact, the only times  I thought Trump was truly on the ropes were when he was questioned on his Repub bona fides, namely his past published remarks in favor of single payer health care - which he now claimed to have rejected (unconvincingly). Then he was asked about his donations to the Clintons whereupon he delivered the lamo answer "I donate to everybody and always expect something in return". When asked what he got in return for a donation to Hillary,  he snapped: "I got her to come to my daughter's wedding!" 

  Could Trumpie be a liberal "Trojan horse" as some wild conservo conspiracy theories allege?  That might be in the minds of some voters and viewers after this exchange. But seriously? The real issue for voters ought to be Trump's decorum and political competence. To my mind while he survived the debate - and may even get a 'bump'- he aroused more questions than answers.

Ted Cruz came next and averred he knew "where $18 trillion in debt came from" - but really didn't.

Christie was  then given a chance to convince voters why he ought to be Prez given how New Jersey's balance sheet has basically ended up in a sea of red. If Christie couldn't handle his own state economically how could he manage the nation? Of course, 'Mr. Crisco'  the Doughnut Boy dumped it all on the previous D -administration.

Then there was Scott Walker, who stood at his podium with a half drunk, quizzical stare:  a visage that resembled Alfred E. Neumann with parts of Dean Martin grafted on. Asked a question (by Megyn Kelly)  on his recent decision to outlaw abortions even for women facing  critical complications the maggot didn't blink an eye. Nor would be do so for a young female who'd been raped. As far as the drunken stupor Scott - with the Alfred Neumann -Dino Martin stare- it was no biggie. "Most Americans" would agree with his position. Let's not forget this turd had originally not embraced such an extreme position on abortion rights and only changed his stripes after entering the race.

 Huckabee's turn was next and was as extremist and insane as one would expect him to be, bloviating about how he'd invoke the 5th and 14th amendments to defend the "personhood rights of the unborn child". Those who've read my earlier posts on the Huckster grasp that I view him as unhinged, and that response he delivered ought to now convince everyone else too.

The 5th amendment against bearing witness against oneself, for a fetus or zygote? Seriously? The entity isn't even conscious, you nitwit! And the 14th amendment, the same one used to liberate the slaves in the Confederacy?  Are you serious? Who is the fetus a slave to? Its mommy?

By far the most constructive interlude in this circus  arrived in a raw and revealing exchange (baited by the Foxites)  between Chris Christie and Rand Paul over national security, federal eavesdropping and the collection of personal data. Christie pounded his fat chest in self-righteous indignation - as most pro security tools do - bragging on his U.S. attorney bona fides after 9/11 and actually dealing with the pain and fallout. Fine as far as it goes but missing Paul's point that you don't need to scoop up every record to catch the bad guys.

When Christie shot back 'How else would you do it?" Paul responded, 'By getting a warrant!" which is exactly correct, and for once Paul and I agreed on the issue of the 4th amendment - which I wish more Reepos embraced as fiercely as they do the 2nd.

Christie was wrong when  - after Paul's 'get a warrant' response - he dismissed it as a “ridiculous answer,” because  "It’s impossible to know who’s who at the start". But, in fact, there are ways to separate good guys from bad and yes, from the start.

Former NSA code breaker Bill Binney commenting on Keith Alexander's NSA spying testimony and breaking up plots two years ago, put it bluntly:

"I  don’t understand this being bamboozled into thinking that you have to do this to find bad guys. That’s false. There’s very simple principles you can use to find out who is the bad guy and who isn’t and you can do this without violating anybody’s privacy”.-

So Rand Paul was quite justified in firing back to Christie's nonsense:

.

“You fundamentally misunderstand the Bill of Rights,”

That spontaneous back-and-forth was literally debate gold, because it was simultaneously fiery, spontaneous  and substantive, a perfect distillation of the two sides of an essential argument about the value of our civil liberties. (One that, too often, hasn't come up often enough since the insinuation of the "Patriot Act" into the national fabric.) It was, to my mind, what a real debate ought to feature much more of.

 Some FOX lubbers will hurl brickbats at the network for - as one commentator called it  - presiding over an "inquisition" rather than a debate. But come on. They were basically foxed...uh boxed into a corner, given they've always been tagged as the REPUBLICAN network. Hence, in order to show more objectivity and not be accused  of pro-Democratic partisanship, the question panel had to be provocative.  As Frank Bruni put it:

 "They took each of the 10 Republicans onstage to task. They held each of them to account. They made each address the most prominent blemishes on his record, the most profound apprehensions that voters feel about him, the greatest vulnerability that he has."

Which was terrific because it meant you were hearing from the candidates themselves, not merely regurgitated slop from their handlers and focus group gurus. This ensured the debate was lively, and also made it possible to pick out the genuine morons and crazies - which alas, was all of them excepting Ohio gov John Kasich - who actually sounded rational in his response about using state Medicaid.

Bruni again:

"On this night, the network that pampers Republicans provoked them instead. It was great television, and even better politics."

Indeed. And in using this technique FOX did us all a solid favor by showing just how unhinged all of these clowns really are. The frightening thing, as Janice noted, is that one could actually become President if the Dems don't pay close enough attention and play their cards right - as opposed to assuming it'll be a cakewalk.

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/07/fear_loathing_at_the_gop_debates_behold_the_the_autocratic_xenophobic_war_hungry_spectacle_of_the_modern_republican_party/

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/richard-eskow/63349/the-gop-debate-its-what-oligarchy-looks-like

No, Trump Isn't The Only Crackpot In the GOP Clown Cavalcade

Scott Walker - got away with a number of wacko assertions and actions while the media was all over Trump.

IN the land of the batshit crazy the guy that screeches the loudest and craziest is king. Well, maybe not quite - if you're only paying attention to the squeakiest wheel-  and ignoring  the others that might be just as batshit nuts. (Which could support Chris Hayes' thesis that the Donald's nutso spiels on immigration etc, are giving cover to his GOOPr compadres to tilt even more wacky Right).

After Trump's latest outburst on John McCain, asserting he really "wasn't a war hero because he got captured",  the whole media eye was focused on 'the Donald' while letting the other GOP screwballs get away with rhetorical murder. But what can anyone of intelligence expect from the corpora-press which has the attention of deformed ants and is incapable of blinking, walking and chewing gum at the same time, which is to say in this case, following three screwballs at once.

The Des Moines Register, to its credit, put Trump in his place with a blistering editorial ('Trump Should Pull the Plug On His Bloviating Side Show') where we read that Trump's recent comments:

"threaten to derail not just his campaign, but the manner we choose our nominees for president....his name calling has turned him into the distraction with traction- a feckless blowhard who can generate headlines...not by provoking thought but by provoking outrage."

Which is a no-holds barred calling out, including for Trump to bow out, but misses the point. That is, where is the responsibility of  the idiot Trump supporters for fueling and spurring on this obnoxious gasbag?  I mean, think of it, were it not for these supporters (''crazies" as McCain called them) Trump would have no oxygen, no credibility (via polls) at all. He'd be stuck somewhere around the 1 percent marker along with Lindsey Graham.

So, one cannot call out Trump as a "distraction with traction" and "threatening how we choose our nominees for president" without also calling out the numskulls and looneytunes who prop him up and fill his campaign venues. THEY are also responsible, and indeed, like the pro-Confederacy jokers, disclose how far our country has gone into the crapper. So far apart from Thomas Jefferson's ideal that the "minds of the people must be improved", i.e. to hold their government accountable.

Then there is the blind eye turned to the other crackpots, as I noted. Which makes one believe that it's fine to raise a hullabaloo about one whackjob candidate insulting one guy (McCain) but not other bozos insulting whole classes of citizens. (Ok, Trump did this too with his Mexican remarks, but his recent insult to McCain has left the other clowns - namely Jeb Bush and Scott Walker- to do their own thing).

Bush, for example, when asked at one gathering over the weekend if he'd allow a "path to citizenship" for immigrants, gave a flat out "NO!" for an answer. This is the character who wants Hispanics to believe that because he can speak a bit of good Spanish he's almost one of them. Don't be fooled for a second. This slime ball is no better than his disgusting warmonger brother, only better at concealing the imp within.

Then there's Scott Walker, the candidate who decided to quit college just months short of a degree, disclosing an unserious nature and an inability to complete a complex objective. Not only did this jackass (the same weekend as Trump's gaffe) sign a state budget that erodes tenure for college professors,  he also signed a 20-week abortion ban into law with zero exceptions for rape or even severe fetal abnormalities.

Even worse, which should command every thinking American's attention (and that of the Des Moines Register) is that Walker - if elected- would do whatever he "deemed necessary to terminate the Iran nuclear deal from day one even it means a military attack".

In other words, this stupid turd is gung ho to bring about the very scenario depicted in the horrific movie Threads,
The film is about 1hr and 47 mins long (and last I checked was available online), Brit-made, and if it doesn't scare the bejeezus out of you, you are either already brain dead, or a zombie and amongst the walking dead.

'Threads 'isn't for the squeamish or faint-hearted but I do think all those yammering for war or confrontation with Iran need to see it and let its message soak in. In fact, I think every critically-thinking red blooded citizen ought to see it, if for no other reason to be motivated to let reps and current presidential candidates  know this thing isn't on - not now or ever. If we could contain the Soviet Union with its 12,700 ICBMs for over 40 years , we ought to be able to contain Iran.

Though based on a hypothetical Soviet-Russian invasion of Iran, which possibility is no longer - since the present day Russians have plowed enormous investment monies into Iran and its reactors, the projected invasion of a U.S. and NATO strike force is accurate to any unfolding future scenario say if Walker got in and did what he said. From the initial strikes on a nuke reactor at Isfahan, to the accidental sinking of the Russian ship Kirov in the Straits of Hormuz, to the accidental exchange of 2 tactical nuclear weapons (with radiation blowing over Pakistan) and the escalation to a full scale nuclear war - with 3,000 megatons exchange (210 megatons on the UK alone) this movie will keep you on the edge of your seat.  Oh, then there's the scene at the end- following the timeline after the exchange and  nuclear winter- when a bat-eared infant with a pig face is born from a survivor.

But why did the media not hold Walker up to scrutiny the same way as they did Trump. Or, is the prospect of setting off a nuclear war less significant than saying a guy is no war hero?

In fact, Walker's whole spiel about what he would do regarding terminating the Iran deal is laughable. It was like looking at some drunken frat boy giving his rendition of a drunken presidential candidate at one of his former frat's beer keggers. It show why, when the clown was still a Milwaukee Alderman, most serious people dismissed him as either ignorant or brainless. No one believed he'd rise any further - certainly not to governor-  but I guess too many overestimated the IQs of Wisconsin voters who didn't do their due diligence.

Last night on 'All In',  Hayes' guest Matt Duss put the Walker episode into perspective, observing:

"Walker says here's what I'm going to do....put sanctions back...and I'm gonna talk to our allies...like he's going to make a few calls to our allies in Europe and they're just going to say 'Okay, you know you're right! This deal that we painstakingly negotiated two years...you're right it's just horrible...so forget it let's scrap it'   This is just unserious. It's completely ridiculous".

Which suggests the problem of the most bombastic getting the most attention while less bombastic (but crazier) get no notice at all, is again  - a problem of the media. If the media then paid less attention to Trump's bombastic balderdash and more to truly insane declarations and actions like Scott Walker's,  American voters would be prepared to think more and react less. But since the media only focuses on the campaign circus and most outrageous rhetoric and behavior, the crazier statements (made with less oomph) get ignored.

Look also at candidate Lindsey Graham this morning on CBS Early Show claiming Obama is "the Neville Chamberlain of our time because he believes over the next fifteen years Iran is gonna change its behavior....'cause this deal doesn't do a damn thing requiring them to change their behavior".

Showing what a stooge he is, and as he was exposed in a recent piece ('Why The Iran Deal Is A Risk Worth Taking')  in TIME by Joe Klein. Klein noted how warmonger Israeli PM Bibi "tells gullible American visitors what they want to hear" about Iran, the bomb and all, and one Israeil intelligence operative then laughing at "the brazen idiocy of it all" (implying Bibi is an idiot for telling it, but Americans are bigger idiots for buying it).  And then there's Lindsey Graham who "used the same line at an Iowa state dinner"

In other words, Graham didn't really believe it either. So he's another two faced turd who employs rhetoric when it suits his fancy. He talks about the big Iran  "nuclear threat" and Obama being "a new Neville Chamberlain"  to get constituents to dumb down just like Bibi does with  the gullible 'Muricans visiting him who are foolish enough to give him their ears and attention.

Yes, the manner in which we choose our presidential nominees is indeed "threatened" - but primarily by the media.   This corpora-media seeks to pose presidential campaigns as horse races as opposed to serious political processes in which all policy positions by whatever candidate need to be given their due and scrutinized. Not just those of the loudest or most brash.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/pierre-tristam/63095/donald-trump-isn-t-the-exception-he-s-the-republican-prototype