Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 1014
August 17, 2015
Hillary’s in danger, Trump is sunk: The hard truths America is ignoring this election season
In January, I began writing a weekly column for Salon. Hillary Clinton was still in pre-campaign mode but already losing ground -- churning out formulaic answers to stock questions, delivering pricey speeches to the privileged, hobnobbing with Wall Street players while we peasants, now a working majority of the body politic, stocked up on torches and pitchforks. I wrote that her political model -- neoliberal economics wed, as it must be, to pay-to-play politics -- felt spent. In March, her emails surfaced. She waited a whole week to stage a brief, dodgy, purposefully chaotic press conference. I thought it a serious problem, especially when viewed in the context of her political history and persona, so I wrote that too. On both points I got hurricane-force blowback from Clinton backers. As is the custom now, a lot of it was personal (why do you hate the Clintons, we hate you, you’re stupid.) or warmed over consultant speak ( the election’s so far off everyone will forget, the issue’s so abstract no one will care). What my critics shared, apart from their devotion to Hillary and contempt for me, was polling data. In surveys taken after the story broke, Clinton held on to her huge lead. (Had I not seen them? How could Salon hire a political columnist who didn’t even read polls?) Last week, I wrote of another politician in trouble (at least if you regard Donald Trump as a politician). I said his debate performance ended any chance he had of being seen as a serious person, let alone a serious presidential candidate. It was a cringe-inducing spectacle, best understood in psychological rather than political terms, a portrait of a man unhinged by narcissistic rage. In the history of presidential debates, it had no equal and anyone not unhinged by rage or ideology should have seen it. I got the same sort of feedback about Trump, albeit from different folks; personal attacks and political clichés wrapped in polling data. For three days after the debate, there was no data, so reporters hedged their bets. Of the few who took a flier most got it wrong, many writing admiringly of Trump’s feistiness and flair. On Sunday, NBC released a poll showing him at 23 percent; up a point among GOP primary voters. Armed with data, everybody got it wrong, again. Trump was proclaimed “Teflon Don,” spokesmodel of the month for an America that’s even madder than you thought. I tell Clintonites upset by my columns that rather than try to get me to stop writing them they should get her to start reading them. One reason they don’t may be the hypnotic power of polls to keep us from seeing what’s in front of our noses. Like Chico Marx asking, “Who you gonna believe, me or you own eyes?” polls make us question what we see. If you didn’t see that Clinton was digging herself a deeper hole every day, or that Trump came across in Cleveland as arrogant, vindictive, uninformed and out of control, you probably read too many polls and think too much about politics. Read all together and in their entirety, polls can tell a bit more of the truth. That NBC poll also put Trump ahead on the question of who did worst in debate: 29 percent picked him; 14 percent picked Rand Paul; 11 percent said Jeb Bush. No one else was in double digits. In a Suffolk Univ. poll, 55 percent of Iowa Republicans said the debate left them less inclined to vote for Trump. In the same way, Hillary’s horse race numbers held steady for a while after the email eruption, but other numbers went south fast, including those in which a majority of voters tell any pollster who asks that she isn’t honest or trustworthy. Sooner or later polls may catch up to where the truth is, or at least was. In the latest ones Clinton trails Walker, Huckabee, Rubio and Carson in Iowa; Walker, Bush and Paul in New Hampshire, and Sanders in New Hampshire. I’ve no faith in their predictive power, but they do affirm a deepening disaffection. I once said by the time Clinton fell behind in polls it would be too late to save her. That overstates the case but this much is clear: She must change and polls alone can’t tell her how. She has to see it for herself, and then believe what she sees. I’m not sure she can. Polls do worse things than get races wrong. Their most insidious effect is on the quality and direction of public debate. They blind us to glaring truths about issues as well as people. A key issue in this race is the integrity, accountability and efficiency of government. Republicans talk more and more about it, Democrats hardly at all. In case you didn’t notice, the fallen state of politics and government is what Trump talks about most; that he does so vividly and bluntly is a big part of what some must consider his charm. Credit Trump this far: When he says he didn’t arrive at his message via a poll, he’s probably telling the truth. He looked at government, stopped talking long enough to listen to a few people, and saw it was an issue voters really care about. Hillary Clinton on the other hand, relying on polls to plot her every step, never talks about it, except to repeat the Democrats’ mantric vow to overturn Citizens United and say a few words in a single speech about getting agencies better computers and improving management. It’s what happens when we let polls obscure core values and gut instincts. Here, even Trump’s gut instinct works better than Clinton’s polls. With issues as with horseraces, polls can eventually catch up to the truth, or get close to it. Scott Rasmussen was the first major pollster to discover how much we care about nonfeasance and malfeasance in government. More recently, Stanley Greenberg has argued that these issues are the key to Democrats winning the votes of the white working class. A big reason other pollsters don’t draw the same conclusion is that they never ask. A big reason for that is that they’re paid not to. The biggest driver of government waste and inefficiency is corruption by special interests, mainly powerful corporate interests. Nearly all major pollsters, including Democratic pollsters, make most of their living off corporate clients. So do most Democratic officeholders: either now in the form of campaign contributions or later in the form of cushy corporate lobbying gigs. So on the topic of the root cause of government dysfunction, Democrats observe a simple rule: don’t ask, don’t tell. Their denial is killing them. After their midterm thrashing, Chuck Schumer, Wall Street’s best friend in the Senate, went to the press club to say his party’s biggest mistake was not to embrace government. It’s the opposite of the truth and could only make sense to a guy who spends too much time reading polls and raising money. Democrats must fix government, not hug it. People are furious at it. If your pollster hasn’t told you, ask a neighbor, or someone at work, or the next person you see on the street. There are of course other reasons for the general decline in public debate. Both parties sidle and stutter step their way into every debate because both say different things to different people and live in fear of getting caught. Democrats tell their donors one thing and their base another. Republicans tell their base one thing and the broader public another. You have to admire how well they run this scam, but shame on us for letting them get away with it for so long. The third big deterrent to honest, open debate is modern media, including social media. Fifty years ago, Marshal McLuhan told us that media pulls us into the past. He once said we live in “Bonanza Land” a reference to a then-popular TV western. Like polling, media can leave us with impressions of the world that are stale and second-hand. It’s one reason so many people say falling crime rates are rising and think their own local schools are doing fine but that most others are failing. The most harmful thing media does is reduce all debate to mere sloganeering. We deal not in fully formed ideas but in tweets and memes and endless ads. TV ads are widely seen as a blight on politics, but the internet, billed as a great democratizing force, is also a disappointment. Politicians hide behind Facebook and Twitter and send endless fundraising pleas via email. Notice how every email takes your side on an issue you care a lot about? Did you by chance sign one or two "petitions"? If not, data miners will build your profile. The email you’ll never get is the one detailing all your member does for banks or insurers or any moneyed interest that funds campaigns and lure them with visions of future rewards. It is progressives, or rather progressivism, that suffers most from how the game is played. A poll identifies an existing consensus. Progressive must build a new one. Media cuts "message" to the bone. New ideas require longer formed analysis and exposition. Moneyed interests pay to maintain the old order, not disrupt it, and support only such innovation as enables them to do so. Reform, the engine of the most vital innovations, is all about disruption. When Democrats put their faith in polls, media and high-dollar fundraising, they render real debate and real progress nearly impossible and help turn all of politics into mere entertainment, a cheap burlesque just waiting for a Donald Trump to steal its spotlight. There is no progress without debate. This presidential race shows how campaigns displace rather than foster debate. As sea levels rise, aquifers shrink and wildfires rage, Republicans in one presidential forum and two debates entertained but a single question on climate change; of five hours, a single minute spent on a call for "energy independence." In his first term, Obama soft peddled the issue because polls showed the country divided on it. He’s better lately, but if the scientists Democrats love to cite are even close to being right, it isn’t nearly enough. After the Cleveland debate, Clinton rightly went after Republicans on women’s issues, in part because they are so close to her heart but also because they poll so well and are so easily framed. No Democrat challenged Republican silence on climate change. If a party can’t push the envelope on the overarching issue of its time when the weather makes the case every day, can it call itself progressive? It’s the same on most big issues. Democrats ask Republicans how they would fix Obamacare but they must answer the same question. Five years after its passage, half the country still opposes it and not just because Fox News tells them to. Single people earning over $46,000 a year get no subsidy but face rising premiums, copays and deductibles. Governments haven’t come close to realizing the savings they need to fund other vital services. Democrats must admit the program’s flaws and fight for a reform that makes health care truly affordable to all. If they aren’t too proud or scared, they can take advantage of the opening Trump gave them when he told a Republican audience how well single payer works in Scotland. The biggest casualty of the campaign may be the Iran pact. The administration assures reporters that despite Schumer’s craven defection the votes are there to preserve it. I pray they are, but they’re hard to count. One reason is that a public that once supported the deal by a comfortable margin is now evenly split. Its foes didn’t hesitate to attack it despite the polls while its defenders, anxious as always to duck a debate, sat mute. Obama has come a long way on foreign policy and national security. The agreement is as important to his legacy as anything he has done. More important it is the clearest choice between the force of arms and the rule of law America has faced since it entered upon the Iraq War. For six weeks its debate has been background noise to Trump’s latest reality show. Shame on every Democrat and every reporter and every press mogul who let it happen. If you’ve been thinking critically while reading along you may have noted a seeming oversight. Not every Democrat deserves such censure. As it happens one who doesn’t is running for president. Bernie Sanders calls unabashedly for a single payer health system, offers full throated support to the Iran pact and has spoken out long enough and loud enough about climate change to earn the blessing of Bill McKibben. His extraordinary success to date is stirring testimony to the good that comes of holding fast to your convictions and waiting for the polls to come to you. He isn’t a perfect candidate-- you’d think that guy who participated in so many protests would approach protesters in a different way—but he is a leader with a clear vision and a clear conscience who is trying to spark the debate we must have. Democratic elites don’t like debates. In 2008 there, were 24 Democratic presidential debates. This year there will be six, only four of which have been set. Party chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz assures us this will be enough for the candidates to air all their differences. She also says any candidate appearing in an unsanctioned debate will be barred from official debates. She says network sponsors agreed to this assault on the 1st amendment. I hope not. At a July town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a voter asked Hillary Clinton her position on the Keystone Pipeline. She said if it were still undecided when she took office she’d let him know then. Perhaps a poll told her it was the right thing to say. She has lately tried to engage Jeb Bush and Marco in some debate like sparring, but so far it isn’t worth a listen. Bernie Sanders is trying to engage Clinton, the Democratic Party and the country in a debate worth having. To draw them in he’ll need all the help he can get.
Ben Affleck’s nanny scandal, monetized? How Christine Ouzounian is set to milk her ambiguous role in his divorce for all it’s worth
My heart broke a bit earlier this summer at the news of Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck’s divorce. After the demise of the relationships of Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale, Miranda Lambert and Blake Shelton, and Kermit and Miss Piggy, suffice to say my perspective on love was shaken as so many couples I admired fell apart. I think it’s natural to seek answers once a relationship has ended, and now it seems we might be able to put a name and face to a factor in Garner and Affleck’s split. According to the usual tabloid gossip sources, Affleck allegedly carried on some sort of fling with the family’s former nanny, Christine Ouzounian. The allegations may not even be true, just vicious. Either way, reputations have been made or broken, and the public and media crave a glimpse into this intimate arrangement. And it seems Ouzounian is more than happy to provide it. Grantland detailed a timeline describing “nannygate” that includes the two being spotted outside Affleck’s house in July, and it’s believed he’s footing the bill for her stay at Hotel Bel Air. Last week photos were posted of Ouzounian en route to Vegas with Affleck alongside Tom Brady as she sported each of Brady’s Super Bowl rings on her fingers. Other recent photos feature the former nanny posing in front of a shiny new white Lexus convertible, which has made her easy for the paparazzi to spot. This does not read like a woman shamed. She seems happy to provide insight and access to her life. In fact, so willing is Ouzounian to be in the public eye that she’s seeking to be on “The Bachelorette,” according to Gawker. Ouzounian may or may not have carried on a relationship with a high-profile married man, but I think it’s fascinating that she seems to be basking in the attention either way. As a culture bombarded by a constant stream of news and gossip, scandals reign supreme in feeding our insatiable appetite for discourse. It’s almost a self-policing social strategy. We whisper (or write essays) about infidelities, try to make sense of them, pass judgment, the whole routine. But we also learn what happens when certain social barriers are broken. In her book “How to Become a Scandal,” author Laura Kipnis writes, “Culture needs scandal, it’s a necessary feature of the system, a social purification ritual, with the socially non-compliant branded and expelled, allowing the system to assert itself and its muscle.” As New York magazine points out, Ouzounian is subverting the social system by not demurring. Her brazen invitation for attention suggests she has nothing to lose — people are going to talk, and it’s almost a dare for us to watch her journey now that she’s crossed certain lines. This, too has precedent. “Think of it as an unspoken sadomasochistic pact,” writes Kipnis, in which “scandalizers parade their irrepressible ids around in public, possibly even soliciting punishment, and the rest of us willingly deliver it.” Knowledge of extramarital affairs exponentially increased in Europe after the Reformation as letter writing grew in popularity. Royals and noblemen penned letters to their mistresses, creating paper trails to their indiscretions. Since the invention of the printing press helped influence a rise in literacy, between-the-sheets activities of lovers were made available to readers on neatly printed pages. Take Tiger Woods’ fall from grace, for example. In 2010, Vanity Fair featured the golf star’s many affairs in the magazine along with seductive photos by Mark Seliger in a piece called “Tiger Woods’s Inconvenient Women.” The stories accompanied by the photos are almost as lascivious as the affairs themselves — a sexy cocktail of power, lust and attention that we may not necessarily want to find ourselves involved with, but that doesn’t stop us from fantasizing about it. What’s missing from these scandals is the attachment we feel to marriages we used to romanticize, the Ben and Jens of the celebrity world. Far too often we rationalize transgressions with adages like “the heart wants what the heart wants,” but in the face of lust and scandal, we're reminded that at the end of the day, the thing the heart really needs is blood.
Comedians are calling out “The Fat Jew” for theft: Why the online backlash against stealing jokes is long overdue
What do you get when you start calling all elements of culture “content?” When entire business plans are based on stealing the work of musicians? When even educated people – professors, say -- denigrate the idea of copyright and intellectual property? When you turn Jeff Koons into one of the art world’s biggest stars? When we lay off the librarians who could tell kids that photos, ideas, images, and passages of prose are created by someone and still belong to them until they choose to give them away? You get a world in which a social media "comedian" like Josh Ostrovsky can become rich. From the Hollywood Reporter:
Ostrovsky, 30, has parlayed social media fame — he has more than 5.6 million followers on his Instagram account, @TheFatJewish — into a full-fledged entertainment career. In July he signed a modeling contract with One Management Agency; he recently launched wine brand White Girl Rosé and will publish his first book, Money Pizza Respect with Grand Central Publishing, a division of Hachette Book Group, later this year. Ostrovsky is also looking for opportunities to bring his brand of comedy to television screens and currently has a pilot in development at Comedy Central. His résumé also includes a hosting gig for a radio show on Apple Music's Beats 1 station and brand deals with Virgin Mobile, Burger King and others.Most of what Ostrovsky does, according to his critics, is steal other people’s work. He goes a bit further than most run-of-the-mill online thieves: For years, Ostrovsky has, according to many accusers, both comedians and fans, been ripping off jokes from comedians and posting them without attribution. (He sometimes offers little cute statements when he’s called out, or says that aggregation is now the name of the game.) And he’s used product placement to make a mint on it; it’s the equivalent of companies that steal a song from a musician and run an ad next to it. Everybody but the actual creator gets something out of the deal. Ostrovsly recently allegedly stole a joke from Davon Magwood, provoking an angry response from the comedian: “If it’s my stuff you’re posting, and if you give me credit, then I get traffic to my site,” Magwood wrote on his blog. “You make money from the traffic you generate and guess what, I’d also … like to be paid and credited for the traffic that I’ve generated.” The kicker: “I’m not producing shit so you can make more money off of my work, no one is.” I keep hearing about how liberating the Internet is, all the artistic careers it makes possible, all the types of “content” it allows us to access. Some of this is true. But it’s also been murder on many creative beings – musicians, journalists, photographers, graphic artists, and now, we're seeing, comedians. And this is why the whole Fat Jew backlash makes me smile a bit — it's making it clear to a lot of people who wouldn’t normally care just what a cesspool that Internet can be, and showing them that the work of creative folks is worth protecting. It’s also provoked the most intense and wide-ranging response from comedians since the mass rebellion against campus political correctness. Patton Oswalt and Ben Rosen (“Thanks FatJewish for straight up stealing my tweet without any credit whatsoever. “) are tearing him down. Here, SideSplitter offers a pretty good list of comedian’s disses. Writer Maura Quint posted an enraged essay on Facebook arguing that, “The people he steals from are struggling writers, comedians, etc… he is a leach, he is a virus… He is pure trash.” This is refreshing given the fact that the profiles of Ostrovsky in The New York Times and Financial Times treat him as an irreverent, lovable rogue. As Luke O’Neil points out on The Daily Beast: “Neither of those profiles, incidentally, use the words ‘plagiarism’ or ‘theft,’ which, in large part, is what has irked so much of the online comedy community about Ostrovksy’s success.” But the tide may be turning on all of this. Often, when creative people rant about being ripped off by tech companies or other revenue-generating elements of the online economy, very little happens. Witness authors complaining about Amazon, or musicians complaining about YouTube or pirate sites. Amazon is bigger than ever, and musicians keep getting screwed. But somehow, this mass indignation by comedians is making real noise. And now Comedy Central has reportedly canceled Ostrovsky’s pilot, although the network's vice president for communications, Jenny Runyan, told Tech Insider that the decision not to progress happened "months ago." As SideSplitter puts it: “That doesn’t fix the countless jokes Ostrovsky has and continues to poach for profit, but hopefully Comedy Central is the first of many big companies that decide not to work with him or pay him $2,500 for a sponsored Instagram post.” Writers, comedians, and others – please keep your posts and tweets coming. And if you are a civilian who’s just begun to notice this stuff, keep your ears open for the other online outrages. Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better. The chattering class -- and the general public -- may be waking up.What do you get when you start calling all elements of culture “content?” When entire business plans are based on stealing the work of musicians? When even educated people – professors, say -- denigrate the idea of copyright and intellectual property? When you turn Jeff Koons into one of the art world’s biggest stars? When we lay off the librarians who could tell kids that photos, ideas, images, and passages of prose are created by someone and still belong to them until they choose to give them away? You get a world in which a social media "comedian" like Josh Ostrovsky can become rich. From the Hollywood Reporter:
Ostrovsky, 30, has parlayed social media fame — he has more than 5.6 million followers on his Instagram account, @TheFatJewish — into a full-fledged entertainment career. In July he signed a modeling contract with One Management Agency; he recently launched wine brand White Girl Rosé and will publish his first book, Money Pizza Respect with Grand Central Publishing, a division of Hachette Book Group, later this year. Ostrovsky is also looking for opportunities to bring his brand of comedy to television screens and currently has a pilot in development at Comedy Central. His résumé also includes a hosting gig for a radio show on Apple Music's Beats 1 station and brand deals with Virgin Mobile, Burger King and others.Most of what Ostrovsky does, according to his critics, is steal other people’s work. He goes a bit further than most run-of-the-mill online thieves: For years, Ostrovsky has, according to many accusers, both comedians and fans, been ripping off jokes from comedians and posting them without attribution. (He sometimes offers little cute statements when he’s called out, or says that aggregation is now the name of the game.) And he’s used product placement to make a mint on it; it’s the equivalent of companies that steal a song from a musician and run an ad next to it. Everybody but the actual creator gets something out of the deal. Ostrovsly recently allegedly stole a joke from Davon Magwood, provoking an angry response from the comedian: “If it’s my stuff you’re posting, and if you give me credit, then I get traffic to my site,” Magwood wrote on his blog. “You make money from the traffic you generate and guess what, I’d also … like to be paid and credited for the traffic that I’ve generated.” The kicker: “I’m not producing shit so you can make more money off of my work, no one is.” I keep hearing about how liberating the Internet is, all the artistic careers it makes possible, all the types of “content” it allows us to access. Some of this is true. But it’s also been murder on many creative beings – musicians, journalists, photographers, graphic artists, and now, we're seeing, comedians. And this is why the whole Fat Jew backlash makes me smile a bit — it's making it clear to a lot of people who wouldn’t normally care just what a cesspool that Internet can be, and showing them that the work of creative folks is worth protecting. It’s also provoked the most intense and wide-ranging response from comedians since the mass rebellion against campus political correctness. Patton Oswalt and Ben Rosen (“Thanks FatJewish for straight up stealing my tweet without any credit whatsoever. “) are tearing him down. Here, SideSplitter offers a pretty good list of comedian’s disses. Writer Maura Quint posted an enraged essay on Facebook arguing that, “The people he steals from are struggling writers, comedians, etc… he is a leach, he is a virus… He is pure trash.” This is refreshing given the fact that the profiles of Ostrovsky in The New York Times and Financial Times treat him as an irreverent, lovable rogue. As Luke O’Neil points out on The Daily Beast: “Neither of those profiles, incidentally, use the words ‘plagiarism’ or ‘theft,’ which, in large part, is what has irked so much of the online comedy community about Ostrovksy’s success.” But the tide may be turning on all of this. Often, when creative people rant about being ripped off by tech companies or other revenue-generating elements of the online economy, very little happens. Witness authors complaining about Amazon, or musicians complaining about YouTube or pirate sites. Amazon is bigger than ever, and musicians keep getting screwed. But somehow, this mass indignation by comedians is making real noise. And now Comedy Central has reportedly canceled Ostrovsky’s pilot, although the network's vice president for communications, Jenny Runyan, told Tech Insider that the decision not to progress happened "months ago." As SideSplitter puts it: “That doesn’t fix the countless jokes Ostrovsky has and continues to poach for profit, but hopefully Comedy Central is the first of many big companies that decide not to work with him or pay him $2,500 for a sponsored Instagram post.” Writers, comedians, and others – please keep your posts and tweets coming. And if you are a civilian who’s just begun to notice this stuff, keep your ears open for the other online outrages. Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better. The chattering class -- and the general public -- may be waking up.
Rubio reaffirms opposition to rape and incest exceptions: He backs abortion ban “irrespective of the circumstances”
It's an exchange that's sure to be replayed endlessly if Marco Rubio winds up as the Republican Party's 2016 presidential nominee. During this month's GOP primary debate in Cleveland, co-moderator Megyn Kelly of Fox News asked the Florida senator to explain how, if he believes "life begins at conception," he could support rape and incest exceptions to abortion bans. Rubio quickly swatted down the notion he'd ever supported such exceptions. "Well, Megyn, first of all, I'm not sure that that's a correct assessment of my record," he responded. Kelly sought clarity: "You don't favor a rape and incest exception?" "I have never said that, and I have never advocated that," Rubio affirmed. As Vox's Jonathan Allen noted, however, Rubio did co-sponsor the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act and the PROTECT Act, both pieces of anti-abortion legislation that included those exceptions. But Rubio, it appears, is perfectly willing to sign onto legislation that lacks rape and incest exemptions. Appearing on Glenn Beck's radio program Monday, Rubio doubled down on his hard-line stance, calling for a near-total abortion ban. "I believe a human being is entitled to life, irrespective of the circumstances in which that human being was conceived and so forth," Rubio said. "Now I recognize that other people don't hold that view and in order to save lives in this country, I have supported bills that had to have exceptions in them, and I know a lot of people who are pro-life but support exceptions because they feel it goes too far." One such "pro-life" figure is current GOP poll leader Donald Trump, who told "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd this weekend that he favored exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother -- a position shared by GOP Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush, but one that is to the left of where many elected conservatives (and the GOP platform) now stand. Though Rubio's ultra-conservative stance is shared by an overwhelming number of Republican officials, inartful defenses of that stance have landed some Republicans in hot water in recent years. In 2012, Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, once seen as one of the most vulnerable Democrats, handily defeated Rep. Todd Akin after he suggested that women's bodies would "shut [a pregnancy] down" if they had experienced "a legitimate rape." That same year, Richard Mourdock, the GOP Senate nominee in Indiana, lost to Democrat Joe Donnelly after calling pregnancies resulting from rape "something that God intended to happen." Rubio, Akin, and Mourdock are well to the right of public opinion on this issue. Most polls show that upwards of three-quarters of voters back exceptions for rape or when the mother's health is endangered. Listen to Rubio's comments below, via Right Wing Watch: It's an exchange that's sure to be replayed endlessly if Marco Rubio winds up as the Republican Party's 2016 presidential nominee. During this month's GOP primary debate in Cleveland, co-moderator Megyn Kelly of Fox News asked the Florida senator to explain how, if he believes "life begins at conception," he could support rape and incest exceptions to abortion bans. Rubio quickly swatted down the notion he'd ever supported such exceptions. "Well, Megyn, first of all, I'm not sure that that's a correct assessment of my record," he responded. Kelly sought clarity: "You don't favor a rape and incest exception?" "I have never said that, and I have never advocated that," Rubio affirmed. As Vox's Jonathan Allen noted, however, Rubio did co-sponsor the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act and the PROTECT Act, both pieces of anti-abortion legislation that included those exceptions. But Rubio, it appears, is perfectly willing to sign onto legislation that lacks rape and incest exemptions. Appearing on Glenn Beck's radio program Monday, Rubio doubled down on his hard-line stance, calling for a near-total abortion ban. "I believe a human being is entitled to life, irrespective of the circumstances in which that human being was conceived and so forth," Rubio said. "Now I recognize that other people don't hold that view and in order to save lives in this country, I have supported bills that had to have exceptions in them, and I know a lot of people who are pro-life but support exceptions because they feel it goes too far." One such "pro-life" figure is current GOP poll leader Donald Trump, who told "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd this weekend that he favored exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother -- a position shared by GOP Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush, but one that is to the left of where many elected conservatives (and the GOP platform) now stand. Though Rubio's ultra-conservative stance is shared by an overwhelming number of Republican officials, inartful defenses of that stance have landed some Republicans in hot water in recent years. In 2012, Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, once seen as one of the most vulnerable Democrats, handily defeated Rep. Todd Akin after he suggested that women's bodies would "shut [a pregnancy] down" if they had experienced "a legitimate rape." That same year, Richard Mourdock, the GOP Senate nominee in Indiana, lost to Democrat Joe Donnelly after calling pregnancies resulting from rape "something that God intended to happen." Rubio, Akin, and Mourdock are well to the right of public opinion on this issue. Most polls show that upwards of three-quarters of voters back exceptions for rape or when the mother's health is endangered. Listen to Rubio's comments below, via Right Wing Watch:
The Obama administration just gave Shell the final okay to start drilling in the Arctic
The bridge danglers have been cleared, the damaged vessel repaired and, with the final okay from the federal government, Shell officially has everything it needs to begin drilling for oil in the Arctic. The Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement issued a modified permit Monday afternoon that gives Shell, which has already drilled 3,000 feet into the seafloor, to penetrate deeper, to the reserves of oil it's betting are located there. “Now that the required well control system is in place and can be deployed, Shell will be allowed to explore into oil-bearing zones for Burger J [the well],” BSEE director Brian Salerno said in a statement. The drilling, he added, is “being held to the highest safety, environmental protection, and emergency response standards.” Shell experienced a number of setbacks on its path to the Arctic; the new permit became necessary after its icebreaker, the Fennica, was damaged in an Alaskan harbor and sent back to Portland for repairs. And the company's original plan, to drill two separate exploration wells, was cut short by the Obama administration determined that the rigs needed to be spaces 15 miles apart to account for wildlife protections -- Shell's proposal had allowed for only nine feet between them. With all of the hurdles cleared, it's now going to be a waiting game to see if Shell's able to live up to its promise to conduct drilling safely -- and to see whether the company ends up striking oil. “Everybody’s watching to see if we’re going to fail or succeed out there,” Ann Pickard, who runs Shell’s Arctic division, told the Wall Street Journal in July. And if they don't find the oil they're looking for, she added, “I would probably recommend that we walk away.” Those worried about the fragile Arctic environment are hoping that first part goes well; while everyone concerned about our reliance on fossil fuels and worsening climate change is hoping that after this, Big Oil will just go home.The bridge danglers have been cleared, the damaged vessel repaired and, with the final okay from the federal government, Shell officially has everything it needs to begin drilling for oil in the Arctic. The Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement issued a modified permit Monday afternoon that gives Shell, which has already drilled 3,000 feet into the seafloor, to penetrate deeper, to the reserves of oil it's betting are located there. “Now that the required well control system is in place and can be deployed, Shell will be allowed to explore into oil-bearing zones for Burger J [the well],” BSEE director Brian Salerno said in a statement. The drilling, he added, is “being held to the highest safety, environmental protection, and emergency response standards.” Shell experienced a number of setbacks on its path to the Arctic; the new permit became necessary after its icebreaker, the Fennica, was damaged in an Alaskan harbor and sent back to Portland for repairs. And the company's original plan, to drill two separate exploration wells, was cut short by the Obama administration determined that the rigs needed to be spaces 15 miles apart to account for wildlife protections -- Shell's proposal had allowed for only nine feet between them. With all of the hurdles cleared, it's now going to be a waiting game to see if Shell's able to live up to its promise to conduct drilling safely -- and to see whether the company ends up striking oil. “Everybody’s watching to see if we’re going to fail or succeed out there,” Ann Pickard, who runs Shell’s Arctic division, told the Wall Street Journal in July. And if they don't find the oil they're looking for, she added, “I would probably recommend that we walk away.” Those worried about the fragile Arctic environment are hoping that first part goes well; while everyone concerned about our reliance on fossil fuels and worsening climate change is hoping that after this, Big Oil will just go home.
Janelle Monáe will not be silenced: “Today” should have aired her stand against police brutality in full
Would you like some completely relevant social commentary with your pleasant morning musical entertainment? Apparently if you're the "Today" show, the answer is, "No thank you." On Friday, singer Janelle Monae appeared on the show as part of its famed outdoor summer concert series. Monae performed her 2010 breakout single "Tightrope," as well as her current hit, "Yoga." And on Instagram Thursday, Monae introduced a new track from Wonderland Records called "Hell You Talmbout," an anthem for the #BlackLivesMatter movement and a call to keep speaking the names of black men and women killed by police officers — including Eric Garner, Michael Brown and Sandra Bland. She said, "This song is a vessel. It carries the unbearable anguish of millions. We recorded it to channel the pain, fear, and trauma caused by the ongoing slaughter of our brothers and sisters. We recorded it to challenge the indifference, disregard, and negligence of all who remain quiet about this issue. Silence is our enemy. Sound is our weapon. They say a question lives forever until it gets the answer it deserves... Won't you say their names?" Earlier this month, Monae also led a march against police brutality in Philadelphia. In her interview on the "Today" show, Monae spoke optimistically about her current musical lineup of "visionary artists," and proudly said, "I feel so complete… The thing that we have in common is community. We really care about our community, and most of our music is to uplift and inspire, and do it in a jamming-ass way." And before she took to the stage, she spoke emphatically about wanting to "show a different perspective of young black artists." But things got strange right after she did an extended, two minute long, cape-clad James Brown-like ending to "Tightrope" — as the song was still winding down, she began to speak to the crowd outside of 30 Rock. "Yes Lord! God bless America!" she said. "God bless all the lost lives to police brutality. We want white America to know that we stand tall today. We want black America to know we stand tall today. We will not be silenced." In a perfect moment of irony, that's exactly when she was cut off, with the camera pulling back and Savannah Guthrie promising, "We'll have much more from Janelle Monáe… but first, this is 'Today.'" For what it's worth, immediately after the performance, Monáe seemed pleased with how it had gone, saying, "Thank you, Today Show!" on Instagram. I don't know if it was a concerted effort to silence her. Live television is a precise business, and it's entirely possible that a performance that may well have already been running long did not allow any room for the airing of a few words to the audience afterward. Certainly after Monáe did "Yoga," the cut to commercial was swift. What might to many look like a deliberate attempt to silence an artist speaking on violence and racial profiling might well have simply been the result of a control room full of people trying to move on to the next segment. But I'd like to think "Today" could have considered more carefully what the best moment for a white woman to cut in on a black woman making a heartfelt statement about race might be, and how that would appear to viewers. And it's interesting that on the "Today" site, the clip ends right when Monáe says "God bless America!" That drastically changes the message from a call to action to a seemingly far more simple declaration of patriotism. And the captions for the performance conspicuously note Monáe's "signature hairdos and tuxedo outfits," but not her activism. It's one thing to make an honest if imperfect judgment call in the moment. It's another, however, to seemingly attempt to whitewash the message that Monae was very clearly trying to get across. And that message, amply demonstrated, is that "Silence is our enemy. Sound is our weapon."
Ann Coulter: Donald Trump can personally perform abortions in the White House if he makes this happen
After Donald Trump released an official statement on his website outlining, specifically, how he will confront the immigration crisis and compel Mexico to fund the construction of a wall along the border it shares with the United States, conservative columnist Ann Coulter swelled with enthusiasm for the real estate magnate: [embedtweet id="632951164733140992"] [embedtweet id="632951630955212800"] [embedtweet id="632951829656158209"] Clearly, the woman approves of his proposed policies -- and I mean really, really approves: [embedtweet id="632954040675078144"] [embedtweet id="632960355015225345"] Conservatives should follow her under this bridge she's been trolling, because this is the only issue that matters: [embedtweet id="632960705369669632"] [embedtweet id="632964129884651520"] It's not just conservatives who benefit from Trump's plan, though, because apparently #BlackLivesMatter when you're trying to create new electoral voting blocks: [embedtweet id="632994996917010432"]After Donald Trump released an official statement on his website outlining, specifically, how he will confront the immigration crisis and compel Mexico to fund the construction of a wall along the border it shares with the United States, conservative columnist Ann Coulter swelled with enthusiasm for the real estate magnate: [embedtweet id="632951164733140992"] [embedtweet id="632951630955212800"] [embedtweet id="632951829656158209"] Clearly, the woman approves of his proposed policies -- and I mean really, really approves: [embedtweet id="632954040675078144"] [embedtweet id="632960355015225345"] Conservatives should follow her under this bridge she's been trolling, because this is the only issue that matters: [embedtweet id="632960705369669632"] [embedtweet id="632964129884651520"] It's not just conservatives who benefit from Trump's plan, though, because apparently #BlackLivesMatter when you're trying to create new electoral voting blocks: [embedtweet id="632994996917010432"]After Donald Trump released an official statement on his website outlining, specifically, how he will confront the immigration crisis and compel Mexico to fund the construction of a wall along the border it shares with the United States, conservative columnist Ann Coulter swelled with enthusiasm for the real estate magnate: [embedtweet id="632951164733140992"] [embedtweet id="632951630955212800"] [embedtweet id="632951829656158209"] Clearly, the woman approves of his proposed policies -- and I mean really, really approves: [embedtweet id="632954040675078144"] [embedtweet id="632960355015225345"] Conservatives should follow her under this bridge she's been trolling, because this is the only issue that matters: [embedtweet id="632960705369669632"] [embedtweet id="632964129884651520"] It's not just conservatives who benefit from Trump's plan, though, because apparently #BlackLivesMatter when you're trying to create new electoral voting blocks: [embedtweet id="632994996917010432"]After Donald Trump released an official statement on his website outlining, specifically, how he will confront the immigration crisis and compel Mexico to fund the construction of a wall along the border it shares with the United States, conservative columnist Ann Coulter swelled with enthusiasm for the real estate magnate: [embedtweet id="632951164733140992"] [embedtweet id="632951630955212800"] [embedtweet id="632951829656158209"] Clearly, the woman approves of his proposed policies -- and I mean really, really approves: [embedtweet id="632954040675078144"] [embedtweet id="632960355015225345"] Conservatives should follow her under this bridge she's been trolling, because this is the only issue that matters: [embedtweet id="632960705369669632"] [embedtweet id="632964129884651520"] It's not just conservatives who benefit from Trump's plan, though, because apparently #BlackLivesMatter when you're trying to create new electoral voting blocks: [embedtweet id="632994996917010432"]After Donald Trump released an official statement on his website outlining, specifically, how he will confront the immigration crisis and compel Mexico to fund the construction of a wall along the border it shares with the United States, conservative columnist Ann Coulter swelled with enthusiasm for the real estate magnate: [embedtweet id="632951164733140992"] [embedtweet id="632951630955212800"] [embedtweet id="632951829656158209"] Clearly, the woman approves of his proposed policies -- and I mean really, really approves: [embedtweet id="632954040675078144"] [embedtweet id="632960355015225345"] Conservatives should follow her under this bridge she's been trolling, because this is the only issue that matters: [embedtweet id="632960705369669632"] [embedtweet id="632964129884651520"] It's not just conservatives who benefit from Trump's plan, though, because apparently #BlackLivesMatter when you're trying to create new electoral voting blocks: [embedtweet id="632994996917010432"]After Donald Trump released an official statement on his website outlining, specifically, how he will confront the immigration crisis and compel Mexico to fund the construction of a wall along the border it shares with the United States, conservative columnist Ann Coulter swelled with enthusiasm for the real estate magnate: [embedtweet id="632951164733140992"] [embedtweet id="632951630955212800"] [embedtweet id="632951829656158209"] Clearly, the woman approves of his proposed policies -- and I mean really, really approves: [embedtweet id="632954040675078144"] [embedtweet id="632960355015225345"] Conservatives should follow her under this bridge she's been trolling, because this is the only issue that matters: [embedtweet id="632960705369669632"] [embedtweet id="632964129884651520"] It's not just conservatives who benefit from Trump's plan, though, because apparently #BlackLivesMatter when you're trying to create new electoral voting blocks: [embedtweet id="632994996917010432"]After Donald Trump released an official statement on his website outlining, specifically, how he will confront the immigration crisis and compel Mexico to fund the construction of a wall along the border it shares with the United States, conservative columnist Ann Coulter swelled with enthusiasm for the real estate magnate: [embedtweet id="632951164733140992"] [embedtweet id="632951630955212800"] [embedtweet id="632951829656158209"] Clearly, the woman approves of his proposed policies -- and I mean really, really approves: [embedtweet id="632954040675078144"] [embedtweet id="632960355015225345"] Conservatives should follow her under this bridge she's been trolling, because this is the only issue that matters: [embedtweet id="632960705369669632"] [embedtweet id="632964129884651520"] It's not just conservatives who benefit from Trump's plan, though, because apparently #BlackLivesMatter when you're trying to create new electoral voting blocks: [embedtweet id="632994996917010432"]After Donald Trump released an official statement on his website outlining, specifically, how he will confront the immigration crisis and compel Mexico to fund the construction of a wall along the border it shares with the United States, conservative columnist Ann Coulter swelled with enthusiasm for the real estate magnate: [embedtweet id="632951164733140992"] [embedtweet id="632951630955212800"] [embedtweet id="632951829656158209"] Clearly, the woman approves of his proposed policies -- and I mean really, really approves: [embedtweet id="632954040675078144"] [embedtweet id="632960355015225345"] Conservatives should follow her under this bridge she's been trolling, because this is the only issue that matters: [embedtweet id="632960705369669632"] [embedtweet id="632964129884651520"] It's not just conservatives who benefit from Trump's plan, though, because apparently #BlackLivesMatter when you're trying to create new electoral voting blocks: [embedtweet id="632994996917010432"]After Donald Trump released an official statement on his website outlining, specifically, how he will confront the immigration crisis and compel Mexico to fund the construction of a wall along the border it shares with the United States, conservative columnist Ann Coulter swelled with enthusiasm for the real estate magnate: [embedtweet id="632951164733140992"] [embedtweet id="632951630955212800"] [embedtweet id="632951829656158209"] Clearly, the woman approves of his proposed policies -- and I mean really, really approves: [embedtweet id="632954040675078144"] [embedtweet id="632960355015225345"] Conservatives should follow her under this bridge she's been trolling, because this is the only issue that matters: [embedtweet id="632960705369669632"] [embedtweet id="632964129884651520"] It's not just conservatives who benefit from Trump's plan, though, because apparently #BlackLivesMatter when you're trying to create new electoral voting blocks: [embedtweet id="632994996917010432"]After Donald Trump released an official statement on his website outlining, specifically, how he will confront the immigration crisis and compel Mexico to fund the construction of a wall along the border it shares with the United States, conservative columnist Ann Coulter swelled with enthusiasm for the real estate magnate: [embedtweet id="632951164733140992"] [embedtweet id="632951630955212800"] [embedtweet id="632951829656158209"] Clearly, the woman approves of his proposed policies -- and I mean really, really approves: [embedtweet id="632954040675078144"] [embedtweet id="632960355015225345"] Conservatives should follow her under this bridge she's been trolling, because this is the only issue that matters: [embedtweet id="632960705369669632"] [embedtweet id="632964129884651520"] It's not just conservatives who benefit from Trump's plan, though, because apparently #BlackLivesMatter when you're trying to create new electoral voting blocks: [embedtweet id="632994996917010432"]After Donald Trump released an official statement on his website outlining, specifically, how he will confront the immigration crisis and compel Mexico to fund the construction of a wall along the border it shares with the United States, conservative columnist Ann Coulter swelled with enthusiasm for the real estate magnate: [embedtweet id="632951164733140992"] [embedtweet id="632951630955212800"] [embedtweet id="632951829656158209"] Clearly, the woman approves of his proposed policies -- and I mean really, really approves: [embedtweet id="632954040675078144"] [embedtweet id="632960355015225345"] Conservatives should follow her under this bridge she's been trolling, because this is the only issue that matters: [embedtweet id="632960705369669632"] [embedtweet id="632964129884651520"] It's not just conservatives who benefit from Trump's plan, though, because apparently #BlackLivesMatter when you're trying to create new electoral voting blocks: [embedtweet id="632994996917010432"]After Donald Trump released an official statement on his website outlining, specifically, how he will confront the immigration crisis and compel Mexico to fund the construction of a wall along the border it shares with the United States, conservative columnist Ann Coulter swelled with enthusiasm for the real estate magnate: [embedtweet id="632951164733140992"] [embedtweet id="632951630955212800"] [embedtweet id="632951829656158209"] Clearly, the woman approves of his proposed policies -- and I mean really, really approves: [embedtweet id="632954040675078144"] [embedtweet id="632960355015225345"] Conservatives should follow her under this bridge she's been trolling, because this is the only issue that matters: [embedtweet id="632960705369669632"] [embedtweet id="632964129884651520"] It's not just conservatives who benefit from Trump's plan, though, because apparently #BlackLivesMatter when you're trying to create new electoral voting blocks: [embedtweet id="632994996917010432"]
How desperate is Rand Paul? He’s calling in Daddy for help
Look at all of you, thinking Rand Paul's presidential campaign was going nowhere but downward, in both polling support and money. Quite a feint that Rand Paul put out there, getting you all clucking. But the last laugh will be his. Because on Friday, Rand Paul trotted out a shock endorsement that threatens to upend the state of the race, the future of the country, the alignment of the planets, the mysteries of God. Ron Paul has endorsed Rand Paul. The two have some connections, so perhaps we should have seen this coming. Ron Paul served in Congress for years, just as Rand Paul has. Each are Republicans but gravitate towards libertarianism. Each has run for president. It's also the case that Rand Paul's mother is literally married to Ron Paul and they have a son and that son is Rand Paul. Still: pretty big endorsement here. "Endorsement" is at least how Reason magazine is putting it, which is an effective framing job although perhaps not the most accurate. Ron Paul has always supported his son's campaign, because he is his son. He was there with Rand at the campaign launch, in a mostly silent role. His role has been nearly totally silent as the campaign has progressed, though. As the Washington Post's Dave Weigel writes, it's more accurate to call this Ron Paul's first pitch on Rand's behalf for donations, over four months into the process. Here's a sampling of some of the slick #content within this email:
Rand is the ONLY one in the race who is standing up for your Liberty, across the board....he is our best hope to restore liberty, limited government and the Bill of Rights and finally end the big spending status quo in Washington, D.C.... Remember, truth is treason in the empire of lies. And nowhere is that more true than when it comes to Washington, D.C. and their media mouthpieces. Even where Rand and I do have minor differences of opinion, I would take Rand's position over any of his opponents' in both parties every time....Rand must be heartened to have his father's full-throated public support and fundraising prowess at his back. But it's the best symbol yet of how Paul's political career has come full-circle: from niche politician to breakout GOP star and back to niche politician -- and one who has little hope of growing his support for the nomination much further. Leading up to the presidential cycle, much of the chatter about Rand Paul surrounded how he would utilize his "wild card" father, if at all. It was Ron Paul's noisy base of supporters who raised him an awful lot of money for his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, and who boosted Rand Paul to his surprising Senate primary victory in 2010. As Rand's ambitions went higher though -- he wanted to run for president with a chance to win, and not as a niche candidate in the style of his father -- he had to move towards the party mainstream without abandoning his libertarian base. That didn't work very well. The rise of ISIS closed off whatever interest Republicans might have had in a slightly less military interventionist foreign policy. Rand sensed the winds changing and has tried several times to appease the party's hawks, who do not and will not ever trust him, in the meantime turning some of his libertarian base against them. He has tried to walk the narrow line between mainstream acceptability and libertarian fire and failed. And now he doesn't have much money, or anything to lose, so he might as well trot out his father despite all the risks that entails. It will be something when Rand Paul fares much, much worse in the early states this time than his father did in the early states in 2012. That's not the way it was supposed to be.
John Oliver exposes the disturbing world of Christian televangelists: “This is about the churches that exploit people’s faith for monetary gain”
On Sunday's "Last Week Tonight," John Oliver took on the fraudulent behind-the-scenes (and occasionally, not so behind-the-scenes) practices of America's megachurches -- specifically, those that have exploited people's faith for monetary gain with the promise that "donations will result in wealth coming back to you." It's called "The Prosperity Gospel," and is built on the idea that every donation a congregant gives its pastor is a "seed" that will one day be harvested. "Wealth is a sign of God's favor," after all. [embedtweet id= 633117977282498560] After learning of these shady practices embedded in megachurch culture, Oliver resolved to embark on a thought experiment: Why not file some paperwork and establish a church of his own ("a disturbingly easy process," Oliver said), call it "Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption" and then ask congregants to meditate on the fraudulence of megachurches? Watch the clip courtesy of HBO below:
Twitter goes wild with #BatTrump hashtag after Donald Trump tells children “I am Batman”
Over the weekend, GOP front-runner Donald Trump made good on his promises to give a select group of children rides in his helicopter at the Iowa State Fair, CNN's Thomas Lake reports. After delivering a stump speech in which he reiterated his increasingly hardline positions on immigration and military action in the Middle East, the real estate magnate announced that "we have quite a few children going to take rides today," only to discover he couldn't find them. "Where are the children?" he asked. "Get them over here!" Fifty children appeared behind him, eager for a ride on his Sikorsky S-76B -- but Trump made them wait as he fielded a few questions from reporters. One asked what other potential nominee he felt was qualified to be president. "Nobody else will do the job that I will do," he answered. "I will bring back jobs, I will strengthen our military, I'll take care of our vets, I'll get rid of Obamacare, which is, by the way, a catastrophe." Just as the children behind him were becoming visibly impatient, Trump decided it was finally time for the main event and escorted them to the helicopter. One child, nine-year-old William Bowman, captured his exchange with Trump on camera. "Mr. Trump," he asked, "are you Batman?" "I am Batman," Trump replied. And with that, the Internet was off and running: [embedtweet id="633082659661590528"] [embedtweet id="633086016233017344"] [embedtweet id="633196749071478784"] [embedtweet id="633115134135808000"] [embedtweet id="633086966947577857"] [embedtweet id="633086298144686080"] [embedtweet id="633082333210525696"] [embedtweet id="633239495115206656"] [embedtweet id="633140203620724736"] [embedtweet id="633118029010763776"] [embedtweet id="633116511532511233"] [embedtweet id="633105828937994242"] Watch the entire segment blow via CNN. Over the weekend, GOP front-runner Donald Trump made good on his promises to give a select group of children rides in his helicopter at the Iowa State Fair, CNN's Thomas Lake reports. After delivering a stump speech in which he reiterated his increasingly hardline positions on immigration and military action in the Middle East, the real estate magnate announced that "we have quite a few children going to take rides today," only to discover he couldn't find them. "Where are the children?" he asked. "Get them over here!" Fifty children appeared behind him, eager for a ride on his Sikorsky S-76B -- but Trump made them wait as he fielded a few questions from reporters. One asked what other potential nominee he felt was qualified to be president. "Nobody else will do the job that I will do," he answered. "I will bring back jobs, I will strengthen our military, I'll take care of our vets, I'll get rid of Obamacare, which is, by the way, a catastrophe." Just as the children behind him were becoming visibly impatient, Trump decided it was finally time for the main event and escorted them to the helicopter. One child, nine-year-old William Bowman, captured his exchange with Trump on camera. "Mr. Trump," he asked, "are you Batman?" "I am Batman," Trump replied. And with that, the Internet was off and running: [embedtweet id="633082659661590528"] [embedtweet id="633086016233017344"] [embedtweet id="633196749071478784"] [embedtweet id="633115134135808000"] [embedtweet id="633086966947577857"] [embedtweet id="633086298144686080"] [embedtweet id="633082333210525696"] [embedtweet id="633239495115206656"] [embedtweet id="633140203620724736"] [embedtweet id="633118029010763776"] [embedtweet id="633116511532511233"] [embedtweet id="633105828937994242"] Watch the entire segment blow via CNN. Over the weekend, GOP front-runner Donald Trump made good on his promises to give a select group of children rides in his helicopter at the Iowa State Fair, CNN's Thomas Lake reports. After delivering a stump speech in which he reiterated his increasingly hardline positions on immigration and military action in the Middle East, the real estate magnate announced that "we have quite a few children going to take rides today," only to discover he couldn't find them. "Where are the children?" he asked. "Get them over here!" Fifty children appeared behind him, eager for a ride on his Sikorsky S-76B -- but Trump made them wait as he fielded a few questions from reporters. One asked what other potential nominee he felt was qualified to be president. "Nobody else will do the job that I will do," he answered. "I will bring back jobs, I will strengthen our military, I'll take care of our vets, I'll get rid of Obamacare, which is, by the way, a catastrophe." Just as the children behind him were becoming visibly impatient, Trump decided it was finally time for the main event and escorted them to the helicopter. One child, nine-year-old William Bowman, captured his exchange with Trump on camera. "Mr. Trump," he asked, "are you Batman?" "I am Batman," Trump replied. And with that, the Internet was off and running: [embedtweet id="633082659661590528"] [embedtweet id="633086016233017344"] [embedtweet id="633196749071478784"] [embedtweet id="633115134135808000"] [embedtweet id="633086966947577857"] [embedtweet id="633086298144686080"] [embedtweet id="633082333210525696"] [embedtweet id="633239495115206656"] [embedtweet id="633140203620724736"] [embedtweet id="633118029010763776"] [embedtweet id="633116511532511233"] [embedtweet id="633105828937994242"] Watch the entire segment blow via CNN. Over the weekend, GOP front-runner Donald Trump made good on his promises to give a select group of children rides in his helicopter at the Iowa State Fair, CNN's Thomas Lake reports. After delivering a stump speech in which he reiterated his increasingly hardline positions on immigration and military action in the Middle East, the real estate magnate announced that "we have quite a few children going to take rides today," only to discover he couldn't find them. "Where are the children?" he asked. "Get them over here!" Fifty children appeared behind him, eager for a ride on his Sikorsky S-76B -- but Trump made them wait as he fielded a few questions from reporters. One asked what other potential nominee he felt was qualified to be president. "Nobody else will do the job that I will do," he answered. "I will bring back jobs, I will strengthen our military, I'll take care of our vets, I'll get rid of Obamacare, which is, by the way, a catastrophe." Just as the children behind him were becoming visibly impatient, Trump decided it was finally time for the main event and escorted them to the helicopter. One child, nine-year-old William Bowman, captured his exchange with Trump on camera. "Mr. Trump," he asked, "are you Batman?" "I am Batman," Trump replied. And with that, the Internet was off and running: [embedtweet id="633082659661590528"] [embedtweet id="633086016233017344"] [embedtweet id="633196749071478784"] [embedtweet id="633115134135808000"] [embedtweet id="633086966947577857"] [embedtweet id="633086298144686080"] [embedtweet id="633082333210525696"] [embedtweet id="633239495115206656"] [embedtweet id="633140203620724736"] [embedtweet id="633118029010763776"] [embedtweet id="633116511532511233"] [embedtweet id="633105828937994242"] Watch the entire segment blow via CNN.
