Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 915
December 23, 2015
Rubio’s lying on his resume: His bogus boast that he has more experience than Obama in ’08 is mere fantasy
With two young, first-term senators from minority backgrounds running for the Republican presidential nomination, it was inevitable that they would face comparisons to President Obama and his own audacious political rise. Most politicians would happily allow themselves to be lumped in with a president who defied odds and expectations and comfortably won two terms in the White House, but for Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, there is a certain amount of danger in those comparisons. The Republican Party and the conservative movement have spent the better part of the past eight years loudly complaining about what happens when you elect an “inexperienced,” “untested,” and “rookie” president who wasn’t “ready on day one.” The party’s voters have been taught to believe that first-term senators make bad presidents. Both Cruz and Rubio have tried to defuse these comparisons. Earlier this year, Cruz defiantly insisted that he’s spent his short Senate career “leading the fight on conservative principles,” unlike Sen. Obama, who was a non-entity who “did not engage in a whole lot of issues of consequence.” The argument didn’t make a ton of sense, given that first-term senators are all backbenchers and Cruz’s “leadership” consisted mainly of grandstanding and obstructionism, but he nonetheless insisted that his “experience” was infinitely superior to Obama’s at the time. Now Rubio is fielding questions from voters who want to know what makes him so different from the last first-term senator elected president. And, like Cruz, Rubio is trying to make the case that he has far more experience than Obama did. Here’s NBC News’ report on Rubio’s campaign swing through South Carolina: 
With two young, first-term senators from minority backgrounds running for the Republican presidential nomination, it was inevitable that they would face comparisons to President Obama and his own audacious political rise. Most politicians would happily allow themselves to be lumped in with a president who defied odds and expectations and comfortably won two terms in the White House, but for Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, there is a certain amount of danger in those comparisons. The Republican Party and the conservative movement have spent the better part of the past eight years loudly complaining about what happens when you elect an “inexperienced,” “untested,” and “rookie” president who wasn’t “ready on day one.” The party’s voters have been taught to believe that first-term senators make bad presidents. Both Cruz and Rubio have tried to defuse these comparisons. Earlier this year, Cruz defiantly insisted that he’s spent his short Senate career “leading the fight on conservative principles,” unlike Sen. Obama, who was a non-entity who “did not engage in a whole lot of issues of consequence.” The argument didn’t make a ton of sense, given that first-term senators are all backbenchers and Cruz’s “leadership” consisted mainly of grandstanding and obstructionism, but he nonetheless insisted that his “experience” was infinitely superior to Obama’s at the time. Now Rubio is fielding questions from voters who want to know what makes him so different from the last first-term senator elected president. And, like Cruz, Rubio is trying to make the case that he has far more experience than Obama did. Here’s NBC News’ report on Rubio’s campaign swing through South Carolina:
One question hung over the senator all day — the question of his youth and inexperience, which echo President Obama's at the time he was elected. At both town halls on Saturday, Rubio was asked by a crowd member to explain how he'd do better than Obama, with a similar amount of experience, but Rubio dispatched the question with ease. In Anderson, he argued he, unlike Obama, had done something in office, pointing to his effort to undermine Obamacare by effectively defunding the law's risk corridors.NBC's insistence that he expertly "dispatched" the issue notwithstanding, this is a pretty bad answer from Rubio. First of all, Obama did accomplish some stuff as a senator – he worked on legislation preventing the proliferation of WMDs that was incorporated into larger bill that passed into law, and he worked with Republican colleagues on oversight of Hurricane Katrina relief funds. It was small-bore stuff, but again, first-term senators aren’t really expected to do big stuff. That brings us to another reason why Rubio’s argument is so bad. Rubio differs from Cruz and Obama in that he actually was called on to work on a far-reaching and important piece of legislation: the 2013 Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform bill. But he can’t really bring that up as proof of his experience and accomplishments because it’s politically radioactive to conservative voters. There’s also the fact that, as a member of the Gang of Eight, Rubio was apparently a less-than-stellar negotiator who didn’t recognize when he had leverage and made concessions where they weren’t necessary (something that might not have happened if he'd had more, ahem, experience). Instead of citing this real, but politically fraught, accomplishment, Rubio falls back on this notion that he secured a crippling blow against the Affordable Care Act by “defunding the law’s risk corridors.” The problems with this argument stack high, but the most glaring issue is that Rubio didn’t have much of anything to do with the legislative strategy that led to the funding shortfall in Obamacare’s risk corridors. Rubio wrote some letters and issued a few press releases, but all the legislative wrangling was done by other, more senior lawmakers. He’s taking all the credit for it despite not having done the work. So, ironically, while Rubio does have a legitimate claim to experience with the immigration bill, he can’t bring it up because it will hurt him politically. Instead he poaches the accomplishments of others to convince wary conservative voters that he’s more “experienced” than the last first-term senator who was elected president.
With two young, first-term senators from minority backgrounds running for the Republican presidential nomination, it was inevitable that they would face comparisons to President Obama and his own audacious political rise. Most politicians would happily allow themselves to be lumped in with a president who defied odds and expectations and comfortably won two terms in the White House, but for Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, there is a certain amount of danger in those comparisons. The Republican Party and the conservative movement have spent the better part of the past eight years loudly complaining about what happens when you elect an “inexperienced,” “untested,” and “rookie” president who wasn’t “ready on day one.” The party’s voters have been taught to believe that first-term senators make bad presidents. Both Cruz and Rubio have tried to defuse these comparisons. Earlier this year, Cruz defiantly insisted that he’s spent his short Senate career “leading the fight on conservative principles,” unlike Sen. Obama, who was a non-entity who “did not engage in a whole lot of issues of consequence.” The argument didn’t make a ton of sense, given that first-term senators are all backbenchers and Cruz’s “leadership” consisted mainly of grandstanding and obstructionism, but he nonetheless insisted that his “experience” was infinitely superior to Obama’s at the time. Now Rubio is fielding questions from voters who want to know what makes him so different from the last first-term senator elected president. And, like Cruz, Rubio is trying to make the case that he has far more experience than Obama did. Here’s NBC News’ report on Rubio’s campaign swing through South Carolina: One question hung over the senator all day — the question of his youth and inexperience, which echo President Obama's at the time he was elected. At both town halls on Saturday, Rubio was asked by a crowd member to explain how he'd do better than Obama, with a similar amount of experience, but Rubio dispatched the question with ease. In Anderson, he argued he, unlike Obama, had done something in office, pointing to his effort to undermine Obamacare by effectively defunding the law's risk corridors.NBC's insistence that he expertly "dispatched" the issue notwithstanding, this is a pretty bad answer from Rubio. First of all, Obama did accomplish some stuff as a senator – he worked on legislation preventing the proliferation of WMDs that was incorporated into larger bill that passed into law, and he worked with Republican colleagues on oversight of Hurricane Katrina relief funds. It was small-bore stuff, but again, first-term senators aren’t really expected to do big stuff. That brings us to another reason why Rubio’s argument is so bad. Rubio differs from Cruz and Obama in that he actually was called on to work on a far-reaching and important piece of legislation: the 2013 Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform bill. But he can’t really bring that up as proof of his experience and accomplishments because it’s politically radioactive to conservative voters. There’s also the fact that, as a member of the Gang of Eight, Rubio was apparently a less-than-stellar negotiator who didn’t recognize when he had leverage and made concessions where they weren’t necessary (something that might not have happened if he'd had more, ahem, experience). Instead of citing this real, but politically fraught, accomplishment, Rubio falls back on this notion that he secured a crippling blow against the Affordable Care Act by “defunding the law’s risk corridors.” The problems with this argument stack high, but the most glaring issue is that Rubio didn’t have much of anything to do with the legislative strategy that led to the funding shortfall in Obamacare’s risk corridors. Rubio wrote some letters and issued a few press releases, but all the legislative wrangling was done by other, more senior lawmakers. He’s taking all the credit for it despite not having done the work. So, ironically, while Rubio does have a legitimate claim to experience with the immigration bill, he can’t bring it up because it will hurt him politically. Instead he poaches the accomplishments of others to convince wary conservative voters that he’s more “experienced” than the last first-term senator who was elected president.
Santa, I want an AK-47 for Christmas: Mass shootings, terrorism has made for a very happy holiday for gun industry
It's Christmastime, which, for most of us, means dreams of drinking eggnog before a warm fireplace, singing carols, and enjoying the Christmas tree's sparkling lights through the longest nights of the year. But if you're a member of gun-nut America, it apparently means dreaming about the day some ISIS terrorist shows up at your local shopping mall so you can finally, finally know what it feels like to pop a cap in someone without doing time for it. Gun sales are shooting through the roof this Christmas. Mass shootings are generally good for business for gun manufacturers, but this year, which featured 355 mass shootings in 336 days, was a veritable marketing bonanza for the gun industry. Even though there is no evidence to support the idea that armed citizens prevent mass shootings — and, in fact that the murder rate correlates strongly with higher levels of gun ownership — the fantasy of being a badass who does a barrel roll and kicks the bad guy out with a direct shot to the head will not be quelled by reality. "Last month, the FBI ran more than 2.2 million firearm background checks on potential buyers, a 24 percent increase from November 2014," Today reports. "On Black Friday, a record 185,345 background checks were processed by the FBI." Mind you, these are the numbers that came in before the San Bernardino shooting escalating right-wing nut fantasies of turning into James Bond simply by holding a gun in your hand. Now with terrorism in the mix, sales will likely go through the roof. Hopefully the folks at Smith & Wesson will have the good taste not to openly toast ISIS for a profitable year at the annual holiday party. So while you might be getting your power fantasies out in a safe manner, by watching "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" for the fifth time, conservative America is getting little more hands-on by piling deadly weapons under the Christmas tree. "Like any good husband, I asked for the list of Christmas items that you'd like to have and one of the items was a firearm," Christmas shopper Louis Cole told "Today." "Above jewelry was a firearm." No surprise there. As I've noted before, guns function in right-wing circles as a form of jewelry, albeit a kind more likely to blow body parts off than a lovely tennis bracelet might. Guns are worthless at keeping people safe. If there's a gun in your house, you're exponentially more likely to be shot with it — through accident, murder, or suicide — than to protect yourself with it. You might as well have cyanide capsules around that you plan to shove in an intruder's mouth, while hoping that no one in your own home mistakes them for vitamins. But owning a gun is great if you want to play dress-up and pretend you're a mighty warrior when you're not. Sure, there are safer ways to get the same thrill: Video games, Dungeons & Dragons, becoming a LARPer so you can hit people with fake swords while dressed as a medieval knight. But in all those cases, you have to admit that it's just a fantasy. The great selling point of guns, which cost a lot more than video games, is that you can pretend your hero fantasies are real. That any day now, that bad guy is going to come across your radar and you'll get to have a real-life shoot-em-up experience that no video game will ever get you. Of course, as piles of research show, that actually doesn't happen very often. Most gun owners will list through life, spending thousands of dollars arming themselves for the conflict with the bad guy that will never come. No wonder some of them grow impatient and decide to round up someone knocking on your door or playing music too loud to a "deadly threat" so they can finally, after all these years, get to use their toy for what it was designed for, taking life. 
It's Christmastime, which, for most of us, means dreams of drinking eggnog before a warm fireplace, singing carols, and enjoying the Christmas tree's sparkling lights through the longest nights of the year. But if you're a member of gun-nut America, it apparently means dreaming about the day some ISIS terrorist shows up at your local shopping mall so you can finally, finally know what it feels like to pop a cap in someone without doing time for it. Gun sales are shooting through the roof this Christmas. Mass shootings are generally good for business for gun manufacturers, but this year, which featured 355 mass shootings in 336 days, was a veritable marketing bonanza for the gun industry. Even though there is no evidence to support the idea that armed citizens prevent mass shootings — and, in fact that the murder rate correlates strongly with higher levels of gun ownership — the fantasy of being a badass who does a barrel roll and kicks the bad guy out with a direct shot to the head will not be quelled by reality. "Last month, the FBI ran more than 2.2 million firearm background checks on potential buyers, a 24 percent increase from November 2014," Today reports. "On Black Friday, a record 185,345 background checks were processed by the FBI." Mind you, these are the numbers that came in before the San Bernardino shooting escalating right-wing nut fantasies of turning into James Bond simply by holding a gun in your hand. Now with terrorism in the mix, sales will likely go through the roof. Hopefully the folks at Smith & Wesson will have the good taste not to openly toast ISIS for a profitable year at the annual holiday party. So while you might be getting your power fantasies out in a safe manner, by watching "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" for the fifth time, conservative America is getting little more hands-on by piling deadly weapons under the Christmas tree. "Like any good husband, I asked for the list of Christmas items that you'd like to have and one of the items was a firearm," Christmas shopper Louis Cole told "Today." "Above jewelry was a firearm." No surprise there. As I've noted before, guns function in right-wing circles as a form of jewelry, albeit a kind more likely to blow body parts off than a lovely tennis bracelet might. Guns are worthless at keeping people safe. If there's a gun in your house, you're exponentially more likely to be shot with it — through accident, murder, or suicide — than to protect yourself with it. You might as well have cyanide capsules around that you plan to shove in an intruder's mouth, while hoping that no one in your own home mistakes them for vitamins. But owning a gun is great if you want to play dress-up and pretend you're a mighty warrior when you're not. Sure, there are safer ways to get the same thrill: Video games, Dungeons & Dragons, becoming a LARPer so you can hit people with fake swords while dressed as a medieval knight. But in all those cases, you have to admit that it's just a fantasy. The great selling point of guns, which cost a lot more than video games, is that you can pretend your hero fantasies are real. That any day now, that bad guy is going to come across your radar and you'll get to have a real-life shoot-em-up experience that no video game will ever get you. Of course, as piles of research show, that actually doesn't happen very often. Most gun owners will list through life, spending thousands of dollars arming themselves for the conflict with the bad guy that will never come. No wonder some of them grow impatient and decide to round up someone knocking on your door or playing music too loud to a "deadly threat" so they can finally, after all these years, get to use their toy for what it was designed for, taking life.
It's Christmastime, which, for most of us, means dreams of drinking eggnog before a warm fireplace, singing carols, and enjoying the Christmas tree's sparkling lights through the longest nights of the year. But if you're a member of gun-nut America, it apparently means dreaming about the day some ISIS terrorist shows up at your local shopping mall so you can finally, finally know what it feels like to pop a cap in someone without doing time for it. Gun sales are shooting through the roof this Christmas. Mass shootings are generally good for business for gun manufacturers, but this year, which featured 355 mass shootings in 336 days, was a veritable marketing bonanza for the gun industry. Even though there is no evidence to support the idea that armed citizens prevent mass shootings — and, in fact that the murder rate correlates strongly with higher levels of gun ownership — the fantasy of being a badass who does a barrel roll and kicks the bad guy out with a direct shot to the head will not be quelled by reality. "Last month, the FBI ran more than 2.2 million firearm background checks on potential buyers, a 24 percent increase from November 2014," Today reports. "On Black Friday, a record 185,345 background checks were processed by the FBI." Mind you, these are the numbers that came in before the San Bernardino shooting escalating right-wing nut fantasies of turning into James Bond simply by holding a gun in your hand. Now with terrorism in the mix, sales will likely go through the roof. Hopefully the folks at Smith & Wesson will have the good taste not to openly toast ISIS for a profitable year at the annual holiday party. So while you might be getting your power fantasies out in a safe manner, by watching "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" for the fifth time, conservative America is getting little more hands-on by piling deadly weapons under the Christmas tree. "Like any good husband, I asked for the list of Christmas items that you'd like to have and one of the items was a firearm," Christmas shopper Louis Cole told "Today." "Above jewelry was a firearm." No surprise there. As I've noted before, guns function in right-wing circles as a form of jewelry, albeit a kind more likely to blow body parts off than a lovely tennis bracelet might. Guns are worthless at keeping people safe. If there's a gun in your house, you're exponentially more likely to be shot with it — through accident, murder, or suicide — than to protect yourself with it. You might as well have cyanide capsules around that you plan to shove in an intruder's mouth, while hoping that no one in your own home mistakes them for vitamins. But owning a gun is great if you want to play dress-up and pretend you're a mighty warrior when you're not. Sure, there are safer ways to get the same thrill: Video games, Dungeons & Dragons, becoming a LARPer so you can hit people with fake swords while dressed as a medieval knight. But in all those cases, you have to admit that it's just a fantasy. The great selling point of guns, which cost a lot more than video games, is that you can pretend your hero fantasies are real. That any day now, that bad guy is going to come across your radar and you'll get to have a real-life shoot-em-up experience that no video game will ever get you. Of course, as piles of research show, that actually doesn't happen very often. Most gun owners will list through life, spending thousands of dollars arming themselves for the conflict with the bad guy that will never come. No wonder some of them grow impatient and decide to round up someone knocking on your door or playing music too loud to a "deadly threat" so they can finally, after all these years, get to use their toy for what it was designed for, taking life.
December 22, 2015
Now Ted Cruz is the enemy: Rupert Murdoch and WSJ open fire in new GOP civil war
For decades, there's been a split within the Republican Party over what to prioritize: social issues or the economy? The establishment wing of the party cares more about interest rates than Planned Parenthood or the “religious freedom” of county clerks. They’re happy to court evangelical voters, but it’s a marriage of convenience – the ideological rift remains. Social conservatives are animated by religious concerns – everything else is tangential. On most issues, they’re out of step with the country, but that has never mattered: For the committed, political martyrdom is preferable to compromise (or winning elections). Religious conservatives have supported the Republican Party almost exclusively since the 1980s. But that support was always conditional: Eventually, the GOP had to deliver on some of the cultural issues, like same-sex marriage or abortion. So far they haven’t, and the conservative base knows it. The GOP has embraced this segment of the party for practical reasons, and there’s no doubt that it helped them in the short-term. But the union is becoming more fractured by the day, as the religious right continues to lose the culture war. From abortion to drug law reform to contraception to gay marriage, Republicans have surrendered to majority opinion – and the cultural momentum now seems inexorable. In this election, the right is clamoring for an “outsider,” if only to protest against an establishment that has taken them for granted. And this internal dissent has upended the Republican presidential race. Candidates like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz owe much of their success to this resentment. It appears the GOP’s intrafamilial squabble has spilled onto the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. As Politico reported, the Journal has turned its guns on Ted Cruz, the ascendant outsider candidate. Cruz is a talented demagogue; he knows his evangelical base and he’s made every effort to woo them. Although a sitting U.S. senator, Cruz has positioned himself as the anti-establishment candidate, someone who will force the “Washington cartel” to deliver the goods to religious conservatives. This was clear enough in September when Cruz vowed to shut down the government over funding for Planned Parenthood, a move he knew had no chance of succeeding. The Journal has become increasingly critical of the Texas senator, and for very good reasons. It represents the establishment, and its editorial page studiously defends deregulation, supply side economics and interventionism, all of which are essential to mainstream Republicanism – they’ve never been particularly concerned with the culture wars. Like the pro-business Republicans who read their Op-Eds, however, the WSJ editorial board knows the GOP can’t win a general election with Cruz at the top of the ticket. According to the latest polls, both Clinton and Sanders would easily defeat Cruz in a general election, and the gap is likely to widen as independents and moderates pay closer attention to Cruz’s shenanigans. Republican insiders also know Cruz is a huckster. His brinksmanship in the Senate tells you everything you need to know about his seriousness as a legislator. Cruz is a creation of the conservative media-industrial complex, and as popular as he may be inside that bubble, he’s positively toxic outside of it. The Journal insists its criticisms of Cruz are “rooted in nothing more than substantive policy differences,” particularly as it relates to immigration, trade and national security issues. “It’s not a personal thing,” said editorial page editor Paul Gigot, “It’s a business thing. It’s a professional thing. We call them as we see them.” Naturally, the paper has been friendlier to Marco Rubio, who has become the default establishment candidate post-Jeb. This prompted Cruz to glibly For decades, there's been a split within the Republican Party over what to prioritize: social issues or the economy? The establishment wing of the party cares more about interest rates than Planned Parenthood or the “religious freedom” of county clerks. They’re happy to court evangelical voters, but it’s a marriage of convenience – the ideological rift remains. Social conservatives are animated by religious concerns – everything else is tangential. On most issues, they’re out of step with the country, but that has never mattered: For the committed, political martyrdom is preferable to compromise (or winning elections). Religious conservatives have supported the Republican Party almost exclusively since the 1980s. But that support was always conditional: Eventually, the GOP had to deliver on some of the cultural issues, like same-sex marriage or abortion. So far they haven’t, and the conservative base knows it. The GOP has embraced this segment of the party for practical reasons, and there’s no doubt that it helped them in the short-term. But the union is becoming more fractured by the day, as the religious right continues to lose the culture war. From abortion to drug law reform to contraception to gay marriage, Republicans have surrendered to majority opinion – and the cultural momentum now seems inexorable. In this election, the right is clamoring for an “outsider,” if only to protest against an establishment that has taken them for granted. And this internal dissent has upended the Republican presidential race. Candidates like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz owe much of their success to this resentment. It appears the GOP’s intrafamilial squabble has spilled onto the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. As Politico reported, the Journal has turned its guns on Ted Cruz, the ascendant outsider candidate. Cruz is a talented demagogue; he knows his evangelical base and he’s made every effort to woo them. Although a sitting U.S. senator, Cruz has positioned himself as the anti-establishment candidate, someone who will force the “Washington cartel” to deliver the goods to religious conservatives. This was clear enough in September when Cruz vowed to shut down the government over funding for Planned Parenthood, a move he knew had no chance of succeeding. The Journal has become increasingly critical of the Texas senator, and for very good reasons. It represents the establishment, and its editorial page studiously defends deregulation, supply side economics and interventionism, all of which are essential to mainstream Republicanism – they’ve never been particularly concerned with the culture wars. Like the pro-business Republicans who read their Op-Eds, however, the WSJ editorial board knows the GOP can’t win a general election with Cruz at the top of the ticket. According to the latest polls, both Clinton and Sanders would easily defeat Cruz in a general election, and the gap is likely to widen as independents and moderates pay closer attention to Cruz’s shenanigans. Republican insiders also know Cruz is a huckster. His brinksmanship in the Senate tells you everything you need to know about his seriousness as a legislator. Cruz is a creation of the conservative media-industrial complex, and as popular as he may be inside that bubble, he’s positively toxic outside of it. The Journal insists its criticisms of Cruz are “rooted in nothing more than substantive policy differences,” particularly as it relates to immigration, trade and national security issues. “It’s not a personal thing,” said editorial page editor Paul Gigot, “It’s a business thing. It’s a professional thing. We call them as we see them.” Naturally, the paper has been friendlier to Marco Rubio, who has become the default establishment candidate post-Jeb. This prompted Cruz to glibly For decades, there's been a split within the Republican Party over what to prioritize: social issues or the economy? The establishment wing of the party cares more about interest rates than Planned Parenthood or the “religious freedom” of county clerks. They’re happy to court evangelical voters, but it’s a marriage of convenience – the ideological rift remains. Social conservatives are animated by religious concerns – everything else is tangential. On most issues, they’re out of step with the country, but that has never mattered: For the committed, political martyrdom is preferable to compromise (or winning elections). Religious conservatives have supported the Republican Party almost exclusively since the 1980s. But that support was always conditional: Eventually, the GOP had to deliver on some of the cultural issues, like same-sex marriage or abortion. So far they haven’t, and the conservative base knows it. The GOP has embraced this segment of the party for practical reasons, and there’s no doubt that it helped them in the short-term. But the union is becoming more fractured by the day, as the religious right continues to lose the culture war. From abortion to drug law reform to contraception to gay marriage, Republicans have surrendered to majority opinion – and the cultural momentum now seems inexorable. In this election, the right is clamoring for an “outsider,” if only to protest against an establishment that has taken them for granted. And this internal dissent has upended the Republican presidential race. Candidates like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz owe much of their success to this resentment. It appears the GOP’s intrafamilial squabble has spilled onto the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. As Politico reported, the Journal has turned its guns on Ted Cruz, the ascendant outsider candidate. Cruz is a talented demagogue; he knows his evangelical base and he’s made every effort to woo them. Although a sitting U.S. senator, Cruz has positioned himself as the anti-establishment candidate, someone who will force the “Washington cartel” to deliver the goods to religious conservatives. This was clear enough in September when Cruz vowed to shut down the government over funding for Planned Parenthood, a move he knew had no chance of succeeding. The Journal has become increasingly critical of the Texas senator, and for very good reasons. It represents the establishment, and its editorial page studiously defends deregulation, supply side economics and interventionism, all of which are essential to mainstream Republicanism – they’ve never been particularly concerned with the culture wars. Like the pro-business Republicans who read their Op-Eds, however, the WSJ editorial board knows the GOP can’t win a general election with Cruz at the top of the ticket. According to the latest polls, both Clinton and Sanders would easily defeat Cruz in a general election, and the gap is likely to widen as independents and moderates pay closer attention to Cruz’s shenanigans. Republican insiders also know Cruz is a huckster. His brinksmanship in the Senate tells you everything you need to know about his seriousness as a legislator. Cruz is a creation of the conservative media-industrial complex, and as popular as he may be inside that bubble, he’s positively toxic outside of it. The Journal insists its criticisms of Cruz are “rooted in nothing more than substantive policy differences,” particularly as it relates to immigration, trade and national security issues. “It’s not a personal thing,” said editorial page editor Paul Gigot, “It’s a business thing. It’s a professional thing. We call them as we see them.” Naturally, the paper has been friendlier to Marco Rubio, who has become the default establishment candidate post-Jeb. This prompted Cruz to glibly
America is addicted to terror: Why our obsession with irrational fear is tearing this country apart
I’m a constantly anxious person. I worry that I said something stupid in a meeting or that I left my car window down. I worry about the safety of my children walking to school. I’m even afraid about saying something wrong on Facebook. However, despite my innate anxiety, I have no fear of terrorism. I know that I have a better chance of getting hit by lightning or slipping in the tub than of even meeting a member of Daesh (an alternative name for ISIS, which the group detests -- so we should all use it). People have been talked into existential, paralyzing fright by exploitive politicians and ratings-hungry, fake news outlets, like CNN and Fox News, among others. We have let ourselves become fearful over almost nothing. But my own irrational fear is far outweighed by my anger. I’m angry that we are so easily manipulated as a species and as a country. Every election cycle, we see newly minted, terrifying boogeymen out to destroy America, so we give up a little more of our power and dignity to those who promise to make it all better. If you think I’m overstating it, I would remind you of the Great Ebola Panic of 2014. Just before the last midterm election (convenient timing), our nation was both obsessed over and terrified about the “threat of Ebola” (picture the word dripping with green slime for effect). "Close the Borders, Now!" screamed irrational, cowardly headlines, written (one presumes) by toddlers hiding underneath a pink "My Little Pony" blanket. It’s the essence of irrational. I’m still waiting for my apology from the many news outlets that lobbed article after article, featuring innumerable talking heads, liars and cheats. Where is the Ebola that I was promised? Television news was particularly irresponsible. The fiction of Ebola must have impacted the midterm elections but in ways we will never be able to guess or quantify. Some television stations probably made more money and someone got a book deal, but in the end, all the fear and handwringing was over nothing. I want my 2014 back. Terrorism is real, just as Ebola is a real and dangerous illness. America had a few cases of Ebola, just as we’ve had a few cases of terrorism since 9/11. In incidents like San Bernardino, every death is a tragedy, but your chances of being personally affected by similar incidents are effectively zero. Neil deGrasse Tyson summed it up with a pretty good tweet : “3,400: Americans who died by Terrorism since 2001. 3,400: Americans who died by household Firearms since five weeks ago.” Our abject, irrational hysteria is a much bigger problem than terrorism. We lost 15 people in California. Paris lost 130 to religiously motivated violence or, if you prefer, Islamic terrorism (sure, I’ll say it). Yet in an average year, hundreds of people die from falling off a ladder in America. You are safer going to Paris than changing a light bulb in your own home, even after the attack. America does not have a terrorism problem, but we do have an overall gun violence problem. To address it, you’d have to face both the mundane daily gun violence and the acts of terrorism by white people, like Dylann Roof. Daily shootings are boring and no one wants to do what it takes to fix the problem, as in enacting meaningful gun law reform, and we don’t treat terrorist acts by white people the same as those perpetrated by scary, brown people. Terrorism committed by white guys just doesn’t move units. It’s a bizarre personality tick that exposes shallow nature of our nonstop hyperventilation about terrorism. I don’t want to hold my own side blameless, because irrational fear can transcend party. Many Democrats also cite terrorism as a serious threat to America. Liberals have some different and favored irrationalities too, like genetically modified foods. These foods have been deemed safe by scientific consensus, but we can’t let it go for many of the same knee-jerk reasons. Yet, the most irrational fears at this moment are coming from the right. They are most afraid of a host of demons both real and imagined. Their fear of a thing is far more destructive than the thing itself. I understand the feelings of conservatives, because I spent most of my life on that side. I feel just as afraid as any Midwestern soccer mom, blue-collar conservative or die-hard GOP voter. Fear is a natural reaction to a chaotic world, but we do not have to wallow in it. We can overcome it. When I decided to try to let more facts and reason inform my politics, I did not stop feeling fear and even hidden feelings of loathing for “other” people and ideas. I cope with my own fear now by distrusting it. Our reptilian brains are programmed for fear and survival, but we cannot allow this nonstop carnival of terror to make us lesser people. Americans like to be scared. We watch scary movies, and chant into mirrors to summon imaginary monsters. In childhood we dress up, trick and terrify ourselves. We have created the perfect villain in Daesh, a manufactured army, more heat than light, more thug than nationality. The worst part is that our enemy is small and nearly powerless. They hold minimal territory, have fewer fighters than any country facing them and are using the latest in 12th century technology. The small amount of modernity they employ is stolen. They are a small band of primitive and superstitious villains and bozos. America defeated the Nazis. We flew to the moon, and we invented the “snuggie.” How the hell are we afraid of 20,000 homeless guys? There is only one sensible response to terrorism, and it is not fear. It is mockery. Terrorists are more afraid of satire and mockery than any other weapon we possess. I mock this latest scare. For example, you know they all have small dicks, because they’re terrified of sexually empowered women. I also dismiss the enablers of terrorism. I don’t mean the Saudis, but rather, I’m talking about the blowhard presidential candidates and infotainment peddlers who exploit our fears for votes and ratings. Their behavior emboldens our enemies and gives them power where they formerly had none. That sounds downright treasonous to me. And speaking of treason, one of the side effects of this irrationality is that we are considering elevating an orange buffoon to the highest office in our nation. Fear makes us actually consider the farfetched nonsense of Donald Trump and even worse, the inflated hate monger, Ted Cruz. We may never recover from this moment if we cannot get a little goddamn perspective back into our lives. We have witnessed terrorist acts and violence, but those isolated incidents are nothing compared to the damage we are doing to ourselves. We are shredding our national self-esteem and violating our own deepest values over almost nothing. I know fear, and I too have let it drive me to irrational behavior. But this latest bout of national fretting has reached beyond what is decent. We are acting like cowards, and I am ashamed. We need not be conquered by a handful of dehydrated, religious fanatics to lose our country if we’re willing to destroy it ourselves.I’m a constantly anxious person. I worry that I said something stupid in a meeting or that I left my car window down. I worry about the safety of my children walking to school. I’m even afraid about saying something wrong on Facebook. However, despite my innate anxiety, I have no fear of terrorism. I know that I have a better chance of getting hit by lightning or slipping in the tub than of even meeting a member of Daesh (an alternative name for ISIS, which the group detests -- so we should all use it). People have been talked into existential, paralyzing fright by exploitive politicians and ratings-hungry, fake news outlets, like CNN and Fox News, among others. We have let ourselves become fearful over almost nothing. But my own irrational fear is far outweighed by my anger. I’m angry that we are so easily manipulated as a species and as a country. Every election cycle, we see newly minted, terrifying boogeymen out to destroy America, so we give up a little more of our power and dignity to those who promise to make it all better. If you think I’m overstating it, I would remind you of the Great Ebola Panic of 2014. Just before the last midterm election (convenient timing), our nation was both obsessed over and terrified about the “threat of Ebola” (picture the word dripping with green slime for effect). "Close the Borders, Now!" screamed irrational, cowardly headlines, written (one presumes) by toddlers hiding underneath a pink "My Little Pony" blanket. It’s the essence of irrational. I’m still waiting for my apology from the many news outlets that lobbed article after article, featuring innumerable talking heads, liars and cheats. Where is the Ebola that I was promised? Television news was particularly irresponsible. The fiction of Ebola must have impacted the midterm elections but in ways we will never be able to guess or quantify. Some television stations probably made more money and someone got a book deal, but in the end, all the fear and handwringing was over nothing. I want my 2014 back. Terrorism is real, just as Ebola is a real and dangerous illness. America had a few cases of Ebola, just as we’ve had a few cases of terrorism since 9/11. In incidents like San Bernardino, every death is a tragedy, but your chances of being personally affected by similar incidents are effectively zero. Neil deGrasse Tyson summed it up with a pretty good tweet : “3,400: Americans who died by Terrorism since 2001. 3,400: Americans who died by household Firearms since five weeks ago.” Our abject, irrational hysteria is a much bigger problem than terrorism. We lost 15 people in California. Paris lost 130 to religiously motivated violence or, if you prefer, Islamic terrorism (sure, I’ll say it). Yet in an average year, hundreds of people die from falling off a ladder in America. You are safer going to Paris than changing a light bulb in your own home, even after the attack. America does not have a terrorism problem, but we do have an overall gun violence problem. To address it, you’d have to face both the mundane daily gun violence and the acts of terrorism by white people, like Dylann Roof. Daily shootings are boring and no one wants to do what it takes to fix the problem, as in enacting meaningful gun law reform, and we don’t treat terrorist acts by white people the same as those perpetrated by scary, brown people. Terrorism committed by white guys just doesn’t move units. It’s a bizarre personality tick that exposes shallow nature of our nonstop hyperventilation about terrorism. I don’t want to hold my own side blameless, because irrational fear can transcend party. Many Democrats also cite terrorism as a serious threat to America. Liberals have some different and favored irrationalities too, like genetically modified foods. These foods have been deemed safe by scientific consensus, but we can’t let it go for many of the same knee-jerk reasons. Yet, the most irrational fears at this moment are coming from the right. They are most afraid of a host of demons both real and imagined. Their fear of a thing is far more destructive than the thing itself. I understand the feelings of conservatives, because I spent most of my life on that side. I feel just as afraid as any Midwestern soccer mom, blue-collar conservative or die-hard GOP voter. Fear is a natural reaction to a chaotic world, but we do not have to wallow in it. We can overcome it. When I decided to try to let more facts and reason inform my politics, I did not stop feeling fear and even hidden feelings of loathing for “other” people and ideas. I cope with my own fear now by distrusting it. Our reptilian brains are programmed for fear and survival, but we cannot allow this nonstop carnival of terror to make us lesser people. Americans like to be scared. We watch scary movies, and chant into mirrors to summon imaginary monsters. In childhood we dress up, trick and terrify ourselves. We have created the perfect villain in Daesh, a manufactured army, more heat than light, more thug than nationality. The worst part is that our enemy is small and nearly powerless. They hold minimal territory, have fewer fighters than any country facing them and are using the latest in 12th century technology. The small amount of modernity they employ is stolen. They are a small band of primitive and superstitious villains and bozos. America defeated the Nazis. We flew to the moon, and we invented the “snuggie.” How the hell are we afraid of 20,000 homeless guys? There is only one sensible response to terrorism, and it is not fear. It is mockery. Terrorists are more afraid of satire and mockery than any other weapon we possess. I mock this latest scare. For example, you know they all have small dicks, because they’re terrified of sexually empowered women. I also dismiss the enablers of terrorism. I don’t mean the Saudis, but rather, I’m talking about the blowhard presidential candidates and infotainment peddlers who exploit our fears for votes and ratings. Their behavior emboldens our enemies and gives them power where they formerly had none. That sounds downright treasonous to me. And speaking of treason, one of the side effects of this irrationality is that we are considering elevating an orange buffoon to the highest office in our nation. Fear makes us actually consider the farfetched nonsense of Donald Trump and even worse, the inflated hate monger, Ted Cruz. We may never recover from this moment if we cannot get a little goddamn perspective back into our lives. We have witnessed terrorist acts and violence, but those isolated incidents are nothing compared to the damage we are doing to ourselves. We are shredding our national self-esteem and violating our own deepest values over almost nothing. I know fear, and I too have let it drive me to irrational behavior. But this latest bout of national fretting has reached beyond what is decent. We are acting like cowards, and I am ashamed. We need not be conquered by a handful of dehydrated, religious fanatics to lose our country if we’re willing to destroy it ourselves.
A new hope for R.E.M. fans: Is Peter Buck hinting at a chance for a reunion?
This time last year, R.E.M. fans sighed a collective resigned sigh over former frontman Michael Stipe's declaration that a reunion of the beloved band, which disbanded in 2011, would "never happen." As Stipe told CBS's "This Morning" at the time, "There's no point. I love those guys very much and I respect them hugely as musicians and as songwriters and everything but I just don’t want to do that thing that people do...I despise nostalgia. I'm not good at looking back." And that, we assumed, was that. But last week, former guitarist Peter Buck — still busy with the Baseball Project supergroup he founded with Mills, Scott McCaughey, Steve Wynn and Linda Pitmon, among other things — told the San Diego Union Tribune, in an interview about his Todos Santos Music Festival, that perhaps all was not lost after all. When the newspaper asked Buck if R.E.M. would consider reuniting for a benefit tour for the charity of their choice, Buck gave an almost-definite, totally-99.999 percent-sure answer:
“I had dinner last week with (former R.E.M. members) Mike (Mills) and Michael (Stipe), and I think the feeling is that we did exactly what we set out to do — more probably,” Buck told the Union Tribune. “And we reached a point where, if we kept going, what would it mean to us? “I think our last record (the 2011 album ‘Collapse Into Now’) is pretty good. But was it our best record? Will we ever make our best record again? Probably not. I can’t see us saying: ‘Let’s get together for four months again and go on the road again.’ I can’t see it."Probably they won't ever make their best record again is not a "definitely not," right? He's not saying "no," exactly — just that he can't see it. R.E.M. fans, send a vision to Peter Buck. Help him see the beauty of an R.E.M. headlining tour — and hey, why not a new album? — in his future. He's leaving the door ever-so-slightly open — go ahead, give it a nudge. After all, the 2016 lineup of Todos Santos will feature the debut of Buck's latest musical project Filthy Friends, a collaboration with Corin Tucker. Maybe Tucker's recent Sleater-Kinney reunion vibes are rubbing off? This time last year, R.E.M. fans sighed a collective resigned sigh over former frontman Michael Stipe's declaration that a reunion of the beloved band, which disbanded in 2011, would "never happen." As Stipe told CBS's "This Morning" at the time, "There's no point. I love those guys very much and I respect them hugely as musicians and as songwriters and everything but I just don’t want to do that thing that people do...I despise nostalgia. I'm not good at looking back." And that, we assumed, was that. But last week, former guitarist Peter Buck — still busy with the Baseball Project supergroup he founded with Mills, Scott McCaughey, Steve Wynn and Linda Pitmon, among other things — told the San Diego Union Tribune, in an interview about his Todos Santos Music Festival, that perhaps all was not lost after all. When the newspaper asked Buck if R.E.M. would consider reuniting for a benefit tour for the charity of their choice, Buck gave an almost-definite, totally-99.999 percent-sure answer:
“I had dinner last week with (former R.E.M. members) Mike (Mills) and Michael (Stipe), and I think the feeling is that we did exactly what we set out to do — more probably,” Buck told the Union Tribune. “And we reached a point where, if we kept going, what would it mean to us? “I think our last record (the 2011 album ‘Collapse Into Now’) is pretty good. But was it our best record? Will we ever make our best record again? Probably not. I can’t see us saying: ‘Let’s get together for four months again and go on the road again.’ I can’t see it."Probably they won't ever make their best record again is not a "definitely not," right? He's not saying "no," exactly — just that he can't see it. R.E.M. fans, send a vision to Peter Buck. Help him see the beauty of an R.E.M. headlining tour — and hey, why not a new album? — in his future. He's leaving the door ever-so-slightly open — go ahead, give it a nudge. After all, the 2016 lineup of Todos Santos will feature the debut of Buck's latest musical project Filthy Friends, a collaboration with Corin Tucker. Maybe Tucker's recent Sleater-Kinney reunion vibes are rubbing off?
The ultimate “SNL” Christmas: Every brilliant holiday sketch from the last four decades
If you missed the "Saturday Night Live" Christmas special, you're not alone. Have some fun remembering some of these favorite moments and throw out some quotes at your holiday meal. Nothing quite says the celebration of the birth of Christ like "You're A Rat Bastard, Charlie Brown!" And why bother sitting down to read your kids "T'was the Night Before Christmas" when you can let award winning performer John Malkovich do it for you! It's the most wonderful time of the year! Enjoy! 1. Steve Martin's A Holiday Wish - he has a lot of ideas. 2. Schweddy Balls - you haven't lived until you've seen my wholesome southern mother quote this at a holiday meal. Good times.... good times... 3. Mister Robinson’s Neighborhood - Eddie Murphy is a comic god. 4. President Ford's Christmas Eve at the White House - Chevy Chase's classic role as Ford the clutz - holiday style. 5. You're A Rat Bastard, Charlie Brown - the Philip Seymour Hoffman is spot on. 6. Dick in a box - the classic song that reminds us all that it's the thought that counts. 7. The Christmas Whistle – John Goodman is touched by the whistle… but he wants to give it the hell back. 8. John Malkovich Reads T’was The Night Before Christmas - As only Malkovich can do... 9. I Wish it was Christmas today - the classic song with the Casio keyboard that anyone can figure out with Tracy Morgan dancing in the most hilarious way. 10. Glengarry Glen Christmas - let's be honest, every time Alec Baldwin is on SNL it's going to be awesome. 11. Bring It on Down To Wrappinville - Justin Timberlake is genius. 12. Its The Most Wonderful Time of The Year! (with Mark Jenson) - Why is he spinning in a circle? No one knows.... 13. Do It In My Twin Bed - for anyone home for the holidays who hooks up with someone they went to high school with... you'll sympathize. 14. Irwin Mainway and his Mainway Toys - if you're looking for the perfect gift for your children this holiday, maybe stay away from these people. 15. SNL's Church Mass extravaganza! - Not your typical Catholic Mass! 16. It is a whole new Christmas and Santa has sure changed a lot. 17. White Christmas – its so terrible it’s hilarious. “Can’t we have anything” says Vibe Magazine. 18. Three Wise Guys – “Where is this place? Jesus Christ!” 19. Vincent Price Christmas - The Katherine Hepburn impression is spot on! 
Bernie Sanders backers beware: It’s up to you to keep movement alive if Hillary Clinton takes primary
Ryan Cooper of The Week posted an interesting piece Tuesday morning about the dilemma facing Bernie Sanders’ supporters. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, and there are several reasons why that’s so. Cooper writes:
“It’s been obvious from the start of the 2016 presidential race that just about the entire Democratic Party establishment is in the tank for Hillary Clinton. The head of the Democratic National Committee is one of her 2008 campaign co-chairs, and the DNC has refused to allow more than six debates, deliberately scheduled them at comically bad times to prevent Clinton challengers from getting much attention, and most recently cut off Bernie Sanders’ campaign from its own data.”Cooper continues: “The DNC’s obvious bias is bad. It’s also utterly predictable. Clinton has deep ties to party elites thanks to her husband being a former president and her serving as secretary of state for the current president. It’s something less than shocking that the party’s elites are putting their thumbs on the scales against an avowed socialist primary competitor.” Clinton is a competent candidate, and she could easily win the Democratic nomination without the overwhelming support of the establishment and the corporate sector, but that’s not really the point. What’s frustrating, particularly for Sanders supporters, is that the deck is so clearly stacked in her favor. Worse still, if Clinton does indeed win, the preferences of Sanders voters (roughly 10 to 15 percent of the overall population, as Cooper notes) will find little representation in government. Clinton is the face of the Democratic establishment, and we know more or less what a Clinton presidency would look like. Campaign rhetoric aside, Clinton is a corporatist Democrat with a lengthy record of centrism and capitulation to Republicans, particularly in the realm of foreign policy. Her most recent foreign policy speech at the Brookings Institution, for instance, was characteristically hawkish, and not what you’d hope to hear from a Democratic candidate for president. Her ISIS strategy is similarly maximalist, and mostly indistinguishable from the mainstream Republican position. As I wrote last month, on both foreign policy and economic issues, Sanders offers a refreshingly sane alternative to the status quo, one that no other candidate represents. It’s a persistent failure of our two-party system that so many citizens, on both sides of the political spectrum, are practically disenfranchised by the two major parties, which differ more in rhetoric than in policy. At any rate, the real question for Sanders supporters is what to do after Clinton wins, assuming that’s what happens. Cooper writes: “Whether the movement that Sanders is building has any staying power will depend on what happens after he all but assuredly loses the primary to Clinton. That’s when the real works begins. Sanders’ fans would be doing themselves an enormous disservice if they give up after the primaries are over.” This is a crucial point: Sanders has energized a significant bloc of voters on the left, and if they retreat into the shadows after the presidential campaign, nothing will have been gained. Some Bernie supporters will surely stay home for the general election if Clinton is the nominee, and while that’s understandable, it would be a mistake in swing states, where votes really matter. And as uninspiring as it is, it’s nevertheless true that Clinton would be preferable to any of the GOP candidates. There are tactical considerations beyond the presidential election, however, and that’s what Sanders supporters should focus on after this campaign. Republicans are consistently losing national elections, but they do very well in congressional elections and at various state-level offices. Gerrymandering has a lot to do with this, but the problem is also turnout. Conservatives, in general, vote more than liberals and progressives, and that has to change. Recognizing this, Cooper writes:
“Therefore, for Sanders’ supporters, I suggest that the overriding electoral priority ought to be to continue to participate in the political system. Demonstrate that there is a bloc of votes out there for social democracy; tactics come second. Vote for the left-most candidate in the primaries, vote for the Working Families Party, vote for some single-issue candidate, or even try and get yourself elected to something. If you feel like voting for a doomed protest candidate, or writing in Eugene Debs, or some other form of ‘throwing your vote away,’ go head, and don’t listen to any party hacks who try and bully you out of it.”It’s hard to disagree with this. It’s critical that the voters animated by the Sanders campaign, many of whom were previously indifferent to the process, continue to participate beyond 2016. Otherwise the Sanders movement will have been in vain.Ryan Cooper of The Week posted an interesting piece Tuesday morning about the dilemma facing Bernie Sanders’ supporters. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, and there are several reasons why that’s so. Cooper writes:
“It’s been obvious from the start of the 2016 presidential race that just about the entire Democratic Party establishment is in the tank for Hillary Clinton. The head of the Democratic National Committee is one of her 2008 campaign co-chairs, and the DNC has refused to allow more than six debates, deliberately scheduled them at comically bad times to prevent Clinton challengers from getting much attention, and most recently cut off Bernie Sanders’ campaign from its own data.”Cooper continues: “The DNC’s obvious bias is bad. It’s also utterly predictable. Clinton has deep ties to party elites thanks to her husband being a former president and her serving as secretary of state for the current president. It’s something less than shocking that the party’s elites are putting their thumbs on the scales against an avowed socialist primary competitor.” Clinton is a competent candidate, and she could easily win the Democratic nomination without the overwhelming support of the establishment and the corporate sector, but that’s not really the point. What’s frustrating, particularly for Sanders supporters, is that the deck is so clearly stacked in her favor. Worse still, if Clinton does indeed win, the preferences of Sanders voters (roughly 10 to 15 percent of the overall population, as Cooper notes) will find little representation in government. Clinton is the face of the Democratic establishment, and we know more or less what a Clinton presidency would look like. Campaign rhetoric aside, Clinton is a corporatist Democrat with a lengthy record of centrism and capitulation to Republicans, particularly in the realm of foreign policy. Her most recent foreign policy speech at the Brookings Institution, for instance, was characteristically hawkish, and not what you’d hope to hear from a Democratic candidate for president. Her ISIS strategy is similarly maximalist, and mostly indistinguishable from the mainstream Republican position. As I wrote last month, on both foreign policy and economic issues, Sanders offers a refreshingly sane alternative to the status quo, one that no other candidate represents. It’s a persistent failure of our two-party system that so many citizens, on both sides of the political spectrum, are practically disenfranchised by the two major parties, which differ more in rhetoric than in policy. At any rate, the real question for Sanders supporters is what to do after Clinton wins, assuming that’s what happens. Cooper writes: “Whether the movement that Sanders is building has any staying power will depend on what happens after he all but assuredly loses the primary to Clinton. That’s when the real works begins. Sanders’ fans would be doing themselves an enormous disservice if they give up after the primaries are over.” This is a crucial point: Sanders has energized a significant bloc of voters on the left, and if they retreat into the shadows after the presidential campaign, nothing will have been gained. Some Bernie supporters will surely stay home for the general election if Clinton is the nominee, and while that’s understandable, it would be a mistake in swing states, where votes really matter. And as uninspiring as it is, it’s nevertheless true that Clinton would be preferable to any of the GOP candidates. There are tactical considerations beyond the presidential election, however, and that’s what Sanders supporters should focus on after this campaign. Republicans are consistently losing national elections, but they do very well in congressional elections and at various state-level offices. Gerrymandering has a lot to do with this, but the problem is also turnout. Conservatives, in general, vote more than liberals and progressives, and that has to change. Recognizing this, Cooper writes:
“Therefore, for Sanders’ supporters, I suggest that the overriding electoral priority ought to be to continue to participate in the political system. Demonstrate that there is a bloc of votes out there for social democracy; tactics come second. Vote for the left-most candidate in the primaries, vote for the Working Families Party, vote for some single-issue candidate, or even try and get yourself elected to something. If you feel like voting for a doomed protest candidate, or writing in Eugene Debs, or some other form of ‘throwing your vote away,’ go head, and don’t listen to any party hacks who try and bully you out of it.”It’s hard to disagree with this. It’s critical that the voters animated by the Sanders campaign, many of whom were previously indifferent to the process, continue to participate beyond 2016. Otherwise the Sanders movement will have been in vain.Ryan Cooper of The Week posted an interesting piece Tuesday morning about the dilemma facing Bernie Sanders’ supporters. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, and there are several reasons why that’s so. Cooper writes:
“It’s been obvious from the start of the 2016 presidential race that just about the entire Democratic Party establishment is in the tank for Hillary Clinton. The head of the Democratic National Committee is one of her 2008 campaign co-chairs, and the DNC has refused to allow more than six debates, deliberately scheduled them at comically bad times to prevent Clinton challengers from getting much attention, and most recently cut off Bernie Sanders’ campaign from its own data.”Cooper continues: “The DNC’s obvious bias is bad. It’s also utterly predictable. Clinton has deep ties to party elites thanks to her husband being a former president and her serving as secretary of state for the current president. It’s something less than shocking that the party’s elites are putting their thumbs on the scales against an avowed socialist primary competitor.” Clinton is a competent candidate, and she could easily win the Democratic nomination without the overwhelming support of the establishment and the corporate sector, but that’s not really the point. What’s frustrating, particularly for Sanders supporters, is that the deck is so clearly stacked in her favor. Worse still, if Clinton does indeed win, the preferences of Sanders voters (roughly 10 to 15 percent of the overall population, as Cooper notes) will find little representation in government. Clinton is the face of the Democratic establishment, and we know more or less what a Clinton presidency would look like. Campaign rhetoric aside, Clinton is a corporatist Democrat with a lengthy record of centrism and capitulation to Republicans, particularly in the realm of foreign policy. Her most recent foreign policy speech at the Brookings Institution, for instance, was characteristically hawkish, and not what you’d hope to hear from a Democratic candidate for president. Her ISIS strategy is similarly maximalist, and mostly indistinguishable from the mainstream Republican position. As I wrote last month, on both foreign policy and economic issues, Sanders offers a refreshingly sane alternative to the status quo, one that no other candidate represents. It’s a persistent failure of our two-party system that so many citizens, on both sides of the political spectrum, are practically disenfranchised by the two major parties, which differ more in rhetoric than in policy. At any rate, the real question for Sanders supporters is what to do after Clinton wins, assuming that’s what happens. Cooper writes: “Whether the movement that Sanders is building has any staying power will depend on what happens after he all but assuredly loses the primary to Clinton. That’s when the real works begins. Sanders’ fans would be doing themselves an enormous disservice if they give up after the primaries are over.” This is a crucial point: Sanders has energized a significant bloc of voters on the left, and if they retreat into the shadows after the presidential campaign, nothing will have been gained. Some Bernie supporters will surely stay home for the general election if Clinton is the nominee, and while that’s understandable, it would be a mistake in swing states, where votes really matter. And as uninspiring as it is, it’s nevertheless true that Clinton would be preferable to any of the GOP candidates. There are tactical considerations beyond the presidential election, however, and that’s what Sanders supporters should focus on after this campaign. Republicans are consistently losing national elections, but they do very well in congressional elections and at various state-level offices. Gerrymandering has a lot to do with this, but the problem is also turnout. Conservatives, in general, vote more than liberals and progressives, and that has to change. Recognizing this, Cooper writes:
“Therefore, for Sanders’ supporters, I suggest that the overriding electoral priority ought to be to continue to participate in the political system. Demonstrate that there is a bloc of votes out there for social democracy; tactics come second. Vote for the left-most candidate in the primaries, vote for the Working Families Party, vote for some single-issue candidate, or even try and get yourself elected to something. If you feel like voting for a doomed protest candidate, or writing in Eugene Debs, or some other form of ‘throwing your vote away,’ go head, and don’t listen to any party hacks who try and bully you out of it.”It’s hard to disagree with this. It’s critical that the voters animated by the Sanders campaign, many of whom were previously indifferent to the process, continue to participate beyond 2016. Otherwise the Sanders movement will have been in vain.
Hillary Clinton is just Republican lite: Sorry, boomers, but this millennial is still only voting Bernie Sanders
My last article, in which I take the position of "Bernie or bust," seemed to set off a fierce debate, and drew heavy criticism from Hillary supporters. I would like to address some of those concerns, and elaborate points that I made. I'll start with a briefly recap of my main point: If Hillary gets the nomination, and is elected, she will inadequately address the problems this country faces, that are angering people, by negotiating from the center/right and then moving right as a compromise, to give us mere half measures or quarter measures. I fear, given her New Democrat background, that she will likely use social programs and financial reform as bargaining chips. I strongly believe that Hillary will kill the momentum that has been generated over the last eight years by Barack Obama, the first liberal (not progressive) Democrat to be president in years--and that will do more damage to the Democratic brand than four years of a Republican president would do to the country. I am not saying that four years of a Republican would not be worse for the country than four years of Hillary in the immediate; I am saying that four years of Hillary will do more long-term damage by prolonging the Democratic realignment. Americans want real change--and they're looking to the Democrats to provide it. But if we only put a band-aid on issues like the wealth gap and financial reform, which is essentially Hillary's plan, Americans will not be satisfied. As much as politically-minded people remind us that change is slow, what Hillary offers is too slow. Her kind of change is weakness. If the New Deal taught us anything it's that unprecedented sweeping government action can happen quickly. FDR achieved significant reforms within the first hundred days of his presidency. Hillary's supporters have not learned from Obama's biggest blunder: negotiating from the middle with opponents on the far right. These people insist that we have to just keep making slow progress because all we can hope for are small gains. They point to the weakness of the Democratic Party since the 1970's as evidence of their position. However, this is a common misunderstanding of history and the lesson of the Democrats' decline from the 1970s to the 2000s. Democrats must stop blaming their losses during these years on Democratic inaction, or strategy errors (like when Hillary-in-the-general-election supporters "recall" how Ralph Nader voters in 2000 hurt Al Gore, and argue that Bernie or Bust is naive). The fact is that the country had changed, and the Democrats couldn't tap into it. Civil rights brought about a conservative realignment. The south, which was the political force behind the New Deal, recoiled at the overhaul that was the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. They left the Democratic Party over the next few decades joined the GOP, giving Republicans the advantage in electoral politics. This history shouldn't, however, teach us to have less ambition, or to settle for less when we can get more. We should still pursue big changes and broad, far-reaching legislation. We should just do so with the understanding that at a certain point we will push too far for the average voter. The best we can hope for is that by the time that happens, and the country starts to swing the other way, we have achieved something strong enough to withstand the coming realignment (like Social Security, which has withstood the Reagan realignment). In the '90s the Democrats figured out the prevailing narrative and adapted. Ultimately, they accepted the GOP rhetoric and economic platform--that's what the New Democrats were; Reagan Democrats. While this move got Bill Clinton elected president (along with the fact that George H.W. Bush couldn't fix the Reagan economy), since then, we have had a hard time recovering. Getting anything passed has not been easy since we willingly tied our legs together... But now we face a different situation than we have in 50 years. The country is moving left out of desperation for change after years of Republican dominance. The GOP is unable to tap into this shift, like the Democrats of yesterday. Now, we must show courage and not settle for anything less than a New Deal-style overhaul. Only an overhaul will do. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate proposing such an initiative. It is not worth electing a Democrat if our party isn't willing to go the distance. Hillary is the wrong candidate for 2015. If this were 1994, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat, but it is not. And so she will not get my vote, and I will instead write in "Bernie Sanders" across that section of my ballot. I will now address everyone's favorite counterpoint. The argument I keep hearing is "the SCOTUS is up for grabs in 2016 so we must vote Hillary if she gets nominated." As I said, but did not elaborate on in my first piece, this is more true for 2020 and 2024. Let's assume we live in a world where Hillary has won the primary, and angry progressive's didn't turn out for her in the general so she lost. It is true we might lose Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is 82-years-old, somewhere between 2016 and 2020. However, there is nothing to suggest that any of the other justices approaching retirement (Scalia, Breyer and Kennedy) will step down with her. The other justices are all in their late 70s. Scalia, the second oldest at 79 years of age, has indicated that nothing short of dementia will lead to his resignation. Justice Breyer announced in September of this year that he will retire "eventually," indicating nothing imminent. Then there is Justice Kennedy, also 79. When he will retire is anyone's guess (which does feed concerns that he'll retire between 2016 and 2020), but as a Reagan appointee, he will be unlikely to retire with a Democrat in the White House, which means that if Hillary wins the primary and is elected, he will likely try to wait her out. And I worry that he may not have to wait long. As I have said previously, we must win the presidency in 2020. I worry about Hillary's ability to win reelection, were she to win in 2016. With the country shifting left, and abandoning the GOP's narrative, Hillary with her center right/conservative record, her Republican-lite policy proposals, and her Republican talking points on minimum wage, Wall Street reform, college tuition, and foreign policy, will be an even harder sell than she is now. Already, more Americans view her unfavorably than view her favorably, and the Elizabeth Warren Democrats are not excited by her. 2020 is not only a census year (which determines the House for the next decade), but those justices I mentioned previously are getting up there in age. Even if we lose Ginsburg and a conservative is appointed by a Republican president in 2016, we will survive. If Ginsburg can hold on for even two years, that makes a difference. The GOP is fading in presidential politics, and 2020 will likely go blue if it goes red now. The main reason is the realignment. Republicans have been dominant for so long, they have lost touch with American voters, and are not appealing to new demographics--especially Latinos. It is worth mentioning that while the GOP is doing well at the state level, that will change slowly as the nation realigns. The GOP is tacking to the right to hold onto the increasingly radicalized, ever-shrinking, socially conservative, southern white people that make up their base. It is also likely that the GOP will not hold the Senate in 2016. This should provide some peace of mind to those Democrats worried about new ultra-right wingers on the court. A Democratic Senate will give us the ability to further mitigate the problem of a post-Ginsburg court as the Senate has to confirm any candidate the president would appoint. Why am I so sure of this turnover? The Republicans have two factors working against them: 1. They stand to lose more seats than they have to gain. 2. As with the presidential race, the GOP's shift to the hard right at a time when the moderates are moving left, will hurt them. Unlike House districts, senators represent the entire state, not just a gerrymandered district (this is why the Tea Party did so well in 2010 in the House, but their gains did not translate to the Senate). That brings us to the DNC. As H.A. Goodman has previously written, this race is really about sending a message to the DNC and to the DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (who served as co-chair for Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign for president) over their perceived shielding of the front runner from criticism. Unlike in previous election years, the Democratic candidates for president risk being barred from participating in the sanctioned debates if they part in unsanctioned debates. For a candidate like Hillary with huge name recognition, and huge sums of money (most of which is from large donors--and many of those being from Wall Street) there is more to lose from the debates than to gain. She can get her message out without being held accountable for her past policy positions and blunders. For voters, however, the more information and exposure to the candidates, the better. More debates mean a healthier primary election because they mean a more informed voter base. I cannot implicitly support this kind of undemocratic action from DNC by casting my ballot for someone who, if you take away the name and party affiliation, is essentially a moderate Republican. And as much as the 'mature' finger-waggers insist theirs is the only way, the evidence supporting their position is thin. I am all for working within the party to bring about change in the primaries, so long as that process is fair. However, if the DNC's apparent strategy to give the primary to Clinton manages to work, and that in turn costs the Democrats in 2016 due to disaffected Bernie supporters not voting for her, or Hillary's general inability to excite voters, that is on them, not me. I will not be scared or berated into voting for Hillary if she gets the nod. For the reasons I stated in my last piece, and elaborated on here, I think losing the election is a safer choice for people with progressive goals than a Hillary presidency.My last article, in which I take the position of "Bernie or bust," seemed to set off a fierce debate, and drew heavy criticism from Hillary supporters. I would like to address some of those concerns, and elaborate points that I made. I'll start with a briefly recap of my main point: If Hillary gets the nomination, and is elected, she will inadequately address the problems this country faces, that are angering people, by negotiating from the center/right and then moving right as a compromise, to give us mere half measures or quarter measures. I fear, given her New Democrat background, that she will likely use social programs and financial reform as bargaining chips. I strongly believe that Hillary will kill the momentum that has been generated over the last eight years by Barack Obama, the first liberal (not progressive) Democrat to be president in years--and that will do more damage to the Democratic brand than four years of a Republican president would do to the country. I am not saying that four years of a Republican would not be worse for the country than four years of Hillary in the immediate; I am saying that four years of Hillary will do more long-term damage by prolonging the Democratic realignment. Americans want real change--and they're looking to the Democrats to provide it. But if we only put a band-aid on issues like the wealth gap and financial reform, which is essentially Hillary's plan, Americans will not be satisfied. As much as politically-minded people remind us that change is slow, what Hillary offers is too slow. Her kind of change is weakness. If the New Deal taught us anything it's that unprecedented sweeping government action can happen quickly. FDR achieved significant reforms within the first hundred days of his presidency. Hillary's supporters have not learned from Obama's biggest blunder: negotiating from the middle with opponents on the far right. These people insist that we have to just keep making slow progress because all we can hope for are small gains. They point to the weakness of the Democratic Party since the 1970's as evidence of their position. However, this is a common misunderstanding of history and the lesson of the Democrats' decline from the 1970s to the 2000s. Democrats must stop blaming their losses during these years on Democratic inaction, or strategy errors (like when Hillary-in-the-general-election supporters "recall" how Ralph Nader voters in 2000 hurt Al Gore, and argue that Bernie or Bust is naive). The fact is that the country had changed, and the Democrats couldn't tap into it. Civil rights brought about a conservative realignment. The south, which was the political force behind the New Deal, recoiled at the overhaul that was the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. They left the Democratic Party over the next few decades joined the GOP, giving Republicans the advantage in electoral politics. This history shouldn't, however, teach us to have less ambition, or to settle for less when we can get more. We should still pursue big changes and broad, far-reaching legislation. We should just do so with the understanding that at a certain point we will push too far for the average voter. The best we can hope for is that by the time that happens, and the country starts to swing the other way, we have achieved something strong enough to withstand the coming realignment (like Social Security, which has withstood the Reagan realignment). In the '90s the Democrats figured out the prevailing narrative and adapted. Ultimately, they accepted the GOP rhetoric and economic platform--that's what the New Democrats were; Reagan Democrats. While this move got Bill Clinton elected president (along with the fact that George H.W. Bush couldn't fix the Reagan economy), since then, we have had a hard time recovering. Getting anything passed has not been easy since we willingly tied our legs together... But now we face a different situation than we have in 50 years. The country is moving left out of desperation for change after years of Republican dominance. The GOP is unable to tap into this shift, like the Democrats of yesterday. Now, we must show courage and not settle for anything less than a New Deal-style overhaul. Only an overhaul will do. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate proposing such an initiative. It is not worth electing a Democrat if our party isn't willing to go the distance. Hillary is the wrong candidate for 2015. If this were 1994, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat, but it is not. And so she will not get my vote, and I will instead write in "Bernie Sanders" across that section of my ballot. I will now address everyone's favorite counterpoint. The argument I keep hearing is "the SCOTUS is up for grabs in 2016 so we must vote Hillary if she gets nominated." As I said, but did not elaborate on in my first piece, this is more true for 2020 and 2024. Let's assume we live in a world where Hillary has won the primary, and angry progressive's didn't turn out for her in the general so she lost. It is true we might lose Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is 82-years-old, somewhere between 2016 and 2020. However, there is nothing to suggest that any of the other justices approaching retirement (Scalia, Breyer and Kennedy) will step down with her. The other justices are all in their late 70s. Scalia, the second oldest at 79 years of age, has indicated that nothing short of dementia will lead to his resignation. Justice Breyer announced in September of this year that he will retire "eventually," indicating nothing imminent. Then there is Justice Kennedy, also 79. When he will retire is anyone's guess (which does feed concerns that he'll retire between 2016 and 2020), but as a Reagan appointee, he will be unlikely to retire with a Democrat in the White House, which means that if Hillary wins the primary and is elected, he will likely try to wait her out. And I worry that he may not have to wait long. As I have said previously, we must win the presidency in 2020. I worry about Hillary's ability to win reelection, were she to win in 2016. With the country shifting left, and abandoning the GOP's narrative, Hillary with her center right/conservative record, her Republican-lite policy proposals, and her Republican talking points on minimum wage, Wall Street reform, college tuition, and foreign policy, will be an even harder sell than she is now. Already, more Americans view her unfavorably than view her favorably, and the Elizabeth Warren Democrats are not excited by her. 2020 is not only a census year (which determines the House for the next decade), but those justices I mentioned previously are getting up there in age. Even if we lose Ginsburg and a conservative is appointed by a Republican president in 2016, we will survive. If Ginsburg can hold on for even two years, that makes a difference. The GOP is fading in presidential politics, and 2020 will likely go blue if it goes red now. The main reason is the realignment. Republicans have been dominant for so long, they have lost touch with American voters, and are not appealing to new demographics--especially Latinos. It is worth mentioning that while the GOP is doing well at the state level, that will change slowly as the nation realigns. The GOP is tacking to the right to hold onto the increasingly radicalized, ever-shrinking, socially conservative, southern white people that make up their base. It is also likely that the GOP will not hold the Senate in 2016. This should provide some peace of mind to those Democrats worried about new ultra-right wingers on the court. A Democratic Senate will give us the ability to further mitigate the problem of a post-Ginsburg court as the Senate has to confirm any candidate the president would appoint. Why am I so sure of this turnover? The Republicans have two factors working against them: 1. They stand to lose more seats than they have to gain. 2. As with the presidential race, the GOP's shift to the hard right at a time when the moderates are moving left, will hurt them. Unlike House districts, senators represent the entire state, not just a gerrymandered district (this is why the Tea Party did so well in 2010 in the House, but their gains did not translate to the Senate). That brings us to the DNC. As H.A. Goodman has previously written, this race is really about sending a message to the DNC and to the DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (who served as co-chair for Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign for president) over their perceived shielding of the front runner from criticism. Unlike in previous election years, the Democratic candidates for president risk being barred from participating in the sanctioned debates if they part in unsanctioned debates. For a candidate like Hillary with huge name recognition, and huge sums of money (most of which is from large donors--and many of those being from Wall Street) there is more to lose from the debates than to gain. She can get her message out without being held accountable for her past policy positions and blunders. For voters, however, the more information and exposure to the candidates, the better. More debates mean a healthier primary election because they mean a more informed voter base. I cannot implicitly support this kind of undemocratic action from DNC by casting my ballot for someone who, if you take away the name and party affiliation, is essentially a moderate Republican. And as much as the 'mature' finger-waggers insist theirs is the only way, the evidence supporting their position is thin. I am all for working within the party to bring about change in the primaries, so long as that process is fair. However, if the DNC's apparent strategy to give the primary to Clinton manages to work, and that in turn costs the Democrats in 2016 due to disaffected Bernie supporters not voting for her, or Hillary's general inability to excite voters, that is on them, not me. I will not be scared or berated into voting for Hillary if she gets the nod. For the reasons I stated in my last piece, and elaborated on here, I think losing the election is a safer choice for people with progressive goals than a Hillary presidency.
The Miss Universe truthers are out there: Steve Harvey conspiracy theories show how paranoid we’ve become
What started out weird has now gotten a bit weirder. When Steve Harvey announced that Miss Colombia Ariadna Gutierrez was the 2015 Miss Universe rather than Miss Philippines Pia Wurtzbach – the real winner – on Sunday, it became the biggest flub in the pageant’s history. It also seemed like, as Harvey insisted, an honest mistake. Harvey announced that Gutierrez was actually the first runner-up, and gave Wurtzbach the crown. He apologized, and that seemed like that might be that. But over the next two days, the Truthers went to work: There is now a thriving social-media movement arguing that the mix-up was a publicity stunt. And to make it even stranger, some of the conspiracy theorists are working hard to insist that they’re not conspiracy theorists. "You guys buying this??” the San Diego newscaster Raoul Martinez posted on Facebook. “I'm no conspiracy theorist, but this smells fishy to me. Sounds like a big PUBLICITY STUNT to get everyone talking about Miss Universe, when normally (let's be honest, now!) NO ONE would be talking about Miss Universe." "I generally don't buy into conspiracy theories,” Louisiana sportswriter Les East Tweeted, “but this is the most attention the Miss Universe pageant has gotten since, well, ever." The speculation seems to alternate between thinking that the Miss Universe pageant needed the attention and that Harvey himself did. Another line of speculation says the Teleprompter misled Harvey by naming Miss Colombia as the winner. “Steve Harvey took the blame for perhaps the most epic beauty pageant host blunder of all time on Sunday night’s Miss Universe 2015 Pageant, but some are pointing to a backstage Snapchat video as proof the mistake may have been someone else's,” Fox News suggested. “A seven-second behind-the-scenes video shows Harvey immediately after naming the wrong winner -- Miss Colombia instead of Miss Philippines -- pointing to a cue card and talking to an unidentified person saying: ‘The teleprompter said Miss Universe – Colombia.’ “ (The video has since been taken down.) There’s even some speculation that Donald Trump might be behind it all, according to Britain’s Independent:
The Miss Universe franchise faced drama this year when US presidential candidate Donald Trump sold the pageant to WME/IMG. The beauty contest's former home, broadcaster NBC, cut all ties with Trump after his negative comments about immigrants, which also resulted in Univision dropping the pageant. But some were convinced that Trump (even if he no longer owns the pageant) was still involved, somehow... because the story needs a villian. [sic]These Truthers don’t appear to be as unhinged as those who insist that the Sandy Hook shootings were a hoax. But they seem to be overlooking something. For years we’ve been telling ourselves, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.” But that’s not really so. For example, don’t they understand that the show and its announcer need to maintain their credibility? Do Harvey and the pageant want people second-guessing every call they make? Does Harvey – if this was his diabolical plan – really want people wondering if he’s gotten things right on every episode of “Family Feud”? Harvey may not be a star of the first order, but is this really the kind of publicity he’s looking for? If the Miss Universe organization knows something, it’s not saying. After the mess, the group posted this: "The excitement of live TV was evident tonight on The Miss Universe stage with over 10 million live fan votes tabulated. Unfortunately, a live telecast means that human error can come into play. We witnessed that tonight when the wrong winner was initially announced. Our sincerest apologies to Miss Universe Colombia 2015, Ariadna Gutierrez-Arévalo, Miss Universe Philippines 2015, Pia Alonzo Wurtzbach, their families and fans."What started out weird has now gotten a bit weirder. When Steve Harvey announced that Miss Colombia Ariadna Gutierrez was the 2015 Miss Universe rather than Miss Philippines Pia Wurtzbach – the real winner – on Sunday, it became the biggest flub in the pageant’s history. It also seemed like, as Harvey insisted, an honest mistake. Harvey announced that Gutierrez was actually the first runner-up, and gave Wurtzbach the crown. He apologized, and that seemed like that might be that. But over the next two days, the Truthers went to work: There is now a thriving social-media movement arguing that the mix-up was a publicity stunt. And to make it even stranger, some of the conspiracy theorists are working hard to insist that they’re not conspiracy theorists. "You guys buying this??” the San Diego newscaster Raoul Martinez posted on Facebook. “I'm no conspiracy theorist, but this smells fishy to me. Sounds like a big PUBLICITY STUNT to get everyone talking about Miss Universe, when normally (let's be honest, now!) NO ONE would be talking about Miss Universe." "I generally don't buy into conspiracy theories,” Louisiana sportswriter Les East Tweeted, “but this is the most attention the Miss Universe pageant has gotten since, well, ever." The speculation seems to alternate between thinking that the Miss Universe pageant needed the attention and that Harvey himself did. Another line of speculation says the Teleprompter misled Harvey by naming Miss Colombia as the winner. “Steve Harvey took the blame for perhaps the most epic beauty pageant host blunder of all time on Sunday night’s Miss Universe 2015 Pageant, but some are pointing to a backstage Snapchat video as proof the mistake may have been someone else's,” Fox News suggested. “A seven-second behind-the-scenes video shows Harvey immediately after naming the wrong winner -- Miss Colombia instead of Miss Philippines -- pointing to a cue card and talking to an unidentified person saying: ‘The teleprompter said Miss Universe – Colombia.’ “ (The video has since been taken down.) There’s even some speculation that Donald Trump might be behind it all, according to Britain’s Independent:
The Miss Universe franchise faced drama this year when US presidential candidate Donald Trump sold the pageant to WME/IMG. The beauty contest's former home, broadcaster NBC, cut all ties with Trump after his negative comments about immigrants, which also resulted in Univision dropping the pageant. But some were convinced that Trump (even if he no longer owns the pageant) was still involved, somehow... because the story needs a villian. [sic]These Truthers don’t appear to be as unhinged as those who insist that the Sandy Hook shootings were a hoax. But they seem to be overlooking something. For years we’ve been telling ourselves, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.” But that’s not really so. For example, don’t they understand that the show and its announcer need to maintain their credibility? Do Harvey and the pageant want people second-guessing every call they make? Does Harvey – if this was his diabolical plan – really want people wondering if he’s gotten things right on every episode of “Family Feud”? Harvey may not be a star of the first order, but is this really the kind of publicity he’s looking for? If the Miss Universe organization knows something, it’s not saying. After the mess, the group posted this: "The excitement of live TV was evident tonight on The Miss Universe stage with over 10 million live fan votes tabulated. Unfortunately, a live telecast means that human error can come into play. We witnessed that tonight when the wrong winner was initially announced. Our sincerest apologies to Miss Universe Colombia 2015, Ariadna Gutierrez-Arévalo, Miss Universe Philippines 2015, Pia Alonzo Wurtzbach, their families and fans."What started out weird has now gotten a bit weirder. When Steve Harvey announced that Miss Colombia Ariadna Gutierrez was the 2015 Miss Universe rather than Miss Philippines Pia Wurtzbach – the real winner – on Sunday, it became the biggest flub in the pageant’s history. It also seemed like, as Harvey insisted, an honest mistake. Harvey announced that Gutierrez was actually the first runner-up, and gave Wurtzbach the crown. He apologized, and that seemed like that might be that. But over the next two days, the Truthers went to work: There is now a thriving social-media movement arguing that the mix-up was a publicity stunt. And to make it even stranger, some of the conspiracy theorists are working hard to insist that they’re not conspiracy theorists. "You guys buying this??” the San Diego newscaster Raoul Martinez posted on Facebook. “I'm no conspiracy theorist, but this smells fishy to me. Sounds like a big PUBLICITY STUNT to get everyone talking about Miss Universe, when normally (let's be honest, now!) NO ONE would be talking about Miss Universe." "I generally don't buy into conspiracy theories,” Louisiana sportswriter Les East Tweeted, “but this is the most attention the Miss Universe pageant has gotten since, well, ever." The speculation seems to alternate between thinking that the Miss Universe pageant needed the attention and that Harvey himself did. Another line of speculation says the Teleprompter misled Harvey by naming Miss Colombia as the winner. “Steve Harvey took the blame for perhaps the most epic beauty pageant host blunder of all time on Sunday night’s Miss Universe 2015 Pageant, but some are pointing to a backstage Snapchat video as proof the mistake may have been someone else's,” Fox News suggested. “A seven-second behind-the-scenes video shows Harvey immediately after naming the wrong winner -- Miss Colombia instead of Miss Philippines -- pointing to a cue card and talking to an unidentified person saying: ‘The teleprompter said Miss Universe – Colombia.’ “ (The video has since been taken down.) There’s even some speculation that Donald Trump might be behind it all, according to Britain’s Independent:
The Miss Universe franchise faced drama this year when US presidential candidate Donald Trump sold the pageant to WME/IMG. The beauty contest's former home, broadcaster NBC, cut all ties with Trump after his negative comments about immigrants, which also resulted in Univision dropping the pageant. But some were convinced that Trump (even if he no longer owns the pageant) was still involved, somehow... because the story needs a villian. [sic]These Truthers don’t appear to be as unhinged as those who insist that the Sandy Hook shootings were a hoax. But they seem to be overlooking something. For years we’ve been telling ourselves, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.” But that’s not really so. For example, don’t they understand that the show and its announcer need to maintain their credibility? Do Harvey and the pageant want people second-guessing every call they make? Does Harvey – if this was his diabolical plan – really want people wondering if he’s gotten things right on every episode of “Family Feud”? Harvey may not be a star of the first order, but is this really the kind of publicity he’s looking for? If the Miss Universe organization knows something, it’s not saying. After the mess, the group posted this: "The excitement of live TV was evident tonight on The Miss Universe stage with over 10 million live fan votes tabulated. Unfortunately, a live telecast means that human error can come into play. We witnessed that tonight when the wrong winner was initially announced. Our sincerest apologies to Miss Universe Colombia 2015, Ariadna Gutierrez-Arévalo, Miss Universe Philippines 2015, Pia Alonzo Wurtzbach, their families and fans."
