GOP Debate 4 in review: The unelite 8.

So we just wrapped up the 4th Republican debate of this primary season. The theme this time was "less candidates....more bullshit".

Actually to be honest, I'm a little split on the handling of the debate itself. For the most part the moderators threw soft balls and never bothered with follow ups to the most insane of lies.  But then on the issues of the candidates tax plans, they seemed to unleash hell on the candidates.

So I mean I guess I cant totally accuse them of laying down on the job.

Now just like the last 3 times, the format is the same. For those just tuning in:
The way this works, I'm going to start with the Candidate I think has the bleakest future and move up. However after each number showing the candidates present prospects, I will also list a second number in () after the name, which is the "number" based on the polls going into the debate. So for example #1 Clinton, (8) would mean the candidate (Clinton in this fictional case) who currently looks the best, came in to the debate with the worst support in the polls.

Now please note in this debate several of the candidates had a statistical tie for 1st, hence why there will be no Number 2.

Also like last time there will be a 3rd number following the second, this is where I placed the candidates standing in my evaluation of the first debate. So using Clinton again #1 Clinton (8/6) would mean I think Clinton did the best, came into the debate in 10th, but I had thought should have been entering at 8th in my previous analysis.

#8 Ben Carson (1/10)

So yea, Ben Carson is at the bottom again.

Not shocking, given that this has been a no good horrible very bad week.

First there was the question on minimum wage, in which Carson tripped over himself. By which I mean he stated he wouldnt raise it. Except that, per his campaign press release today, he actually totally would.

Or at least the "real?" minimum wage, his "starter minimum wage", which he introduced all the way back in Debate 1, and never mentioned again, wouldnt be raised.  So for all the people who were shocked when Carson seemingly reversed course on the minimum wage last night...well as of this morning he would like you to know he didnt.....it just sounded like he did cause he wasnt talking about YOUR minimum wage...he was talking about the other guys.

This by the way was Carson's FIRST question of the night.... and it didnt get any better for him.

For example there was this question on Taxes

"First off, Dr. Carson, to you. You say you are in favor of a tax system, I guess akin to tithing, sir, with a flat tax rate of up to 15 percent because you said, if everybody pays this, I think God is a pretty fair guy, so tithing is a pretty fair process. But Donald Trump says that is not fair. That wealthier taxpayers should pay a higher rate because it’s a fair thing to do. So whose plan would God endorse then, Doctor?[...]"

Which got this answer:

"Everybody should pay the same proportion of what they make. You make $10 billion, you pay a billion. You make $10, you pay one. You get same rights and privileges."

Anyone notice the problem there? According to the premise of the question Carson would be taxing at 15%....as he admitted he would have to do in the last debate.

The examples he gives however all seem to assume a 10% tax (his original amount before CNBC called him on his bullshit)

Basically he just flunked the math on his own damn tax plan.

Oh, and then he added this:

"And, the other thing is, I do care about the poor people. And in the system that we’re putting together, there will be a rebate for people at the poverty level. "

Which means, that Ben Carson's flat tax would not in fact be a flat tax. It would tax the rich at a higher rate. And if that sounds familiar it should....it is, as the question pointed out, Donald Trump's tax plan.

Thats right, Ben Carson accidentally ( i assume) endorsed his opponents tax plan while attempting to bash that same plan in favor of his own (which he himself couldnt do the math for).

And we anit even close to done.

Next up Carson was asked about his opposition to the iraq war, and putting troops in Syria.

To which he said this: "We also must recognize that it’s a very complex place. You know, the Chinese are there, as well as the Russians, and you have all kinds of factions there."

This was news to many people....including the Chinese.

Which he followed with this:
"But we have to look at this on a much more global scale. We’re talking about global jihadists. And their desire is to destroy us and to destroy our way of life. So we have to be saying, how do we make them look like losers? Because that’s the way that they’re able to gather a lot of influence.

Presumably this plan is going to involve special forces sneaking into ISIS bases after dark and drawing dicks on peoples faces.....cause that will make them look like losers right?

Actually to be fair to Carson, he did elaborate.

"And I think in order to make them look like losers, we have to destroy their caliphate. And you look for the easiest place to do that? It would be in Iraq. And if — outside of Anbar in Iraq, there’s a big energy field. Take that from them. Take all of that land from them. We could do that, I believe, fairly easily, I’ve learned from talking to several generals, and then you move on from there."

Ah, so what we really need to do is invade Iraq to get oil. BECAUSE THAT WORKED SO WELL LAST TIME, that the then presidents brother is now too scared to mention the former presidents name in the same sentence as Iraq. And even republicans now seem to think the entire war was a massive mistake. Just saying.

But wait theres more.

When asked about "too big to fail" banks and preventing economic collapse Carson tossed out this gem

'And I think this all really gets back to this whole regulation issue which is creating a very abnormal situation. This country was — declared its independence in 1776. In less than 100 years, it was the number-one economic power in the world."

Now theres two problems here....first its not true....but the second problem is the bigger one.

I wonder what we had in the first say 90 or so years of this countries history that would have impacted the economy that we no longer have? Its on the tip of my tongue but I cant quite put my finger on it....

Oh yea......now I remember.......AWKWARD!

#7 Donald Trump (1/5)

So Trumps been hanging around in or near the top, mostly because nobody wanted to pick a fight with him. NOT ANYMORE. After delivering a rather lengthy tirade against the TPP and how it benefits China, Donald Trump got straight up shut up by Rand Paul..an event I will cover more in detail in Paul's entry.

He also didnt really react well to John Kasich getting in his face either as durring their arguement Trump popped off this line when pleading for moderator interventon:

"[I] built an unbelievable company worth billions and billions of dollars. I don’t have to hear from this man, believe me. I don’t have to hear from him."
In other words, Trump wants to know why security hasn't escorted this peasant away (like they did Jorge Ramos) for daring to debate His Highness Sir Donald of Trump....

But that really just the shit flavored icing on the cake for Trump last night, as he also took the position WAGES are too high....people need to be paid LESS to make more money. (again math and republicans dont get along much). Also that we should leave Putin and ISIS alone...because they will attack each other, then we swoop in and attack the winner (which sounds good, until you realize ISIS and Putin actually dont seem to have an issue with each other, so have no reason to attack each other)

By the way speaking of Terrorist, Trump agian pledged to finish the wall, And "the wall will be successful. And if you think walls don’t work, all you have to do is ask Israel."
You know, Israel, the same Israel that has seemingly daily rocket and/or terrorist attacks from the Palestinians....who are on the other side of the wall.......yea......

And lastly he wants to know "Why does she keep interrupting everybody?" a statement that got him loudly booed...although I cant tell if that was cause of the sexist connotation (given that everyone was interrupting everyone and only "she" bothered trump) or if people are just tired of him being a whiny little bitch every time some tries to disagree with him.

Now if it looks like I'm not doing much on trump....your right, I'm not. Because much of this debate was focused on Policy and well Trump usually stays quite during those parts and this was no exception.....and this time based on some of the coverage on FOX after the fact, people noticed, so that's actually one of the reasons he winds up down here.

#6 Ted Cruz (4/9)

Well for the second straight debate in a row, Ted Cruz contributed the soundbite most likely to be replayed on a loop indefinitely.....but this time it really, and undisputedly makes him sound like an idiot.

Cruz was asked how he would pay for his massive tax cuts....his answer 

"[T]oday, we rolled out a spending plan. $500 billion in specific cuts — five major agencies that I would eliminate. The IRS, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and HUD"

In the words of Rick Perry, when he got tripped up over the exact same kind of statement 4 years ago. "Oops"

As a side note, he followed that up without the slighest hint of irony when he said

"You want to look at specificity? It’s easy for everyone to say, “cut spending”. It’s much harder and riskier to put out, chapter and verse, specifically the programs you would cut to stop bankrupting our kids and grandkids."

Yea it is difficult....as he just clearly demonstrated.

Nor was that the only really really stupid thing he said. He was asked about how to grow the economy and he identified 3 "levers" needed to do it...and ended with this:
Every time we’ve pursued all three of those — whether in the 1920s with Calvin Coolidge or the 1960s with JFK or the 1980s with Ronald Reagan — the result has been incredible economic growth."

Yea, see its that first one thats kinda a problem here.....I think even middle history students remember how the 20's ended.....with the GREAT FUCKING DEPRESSION.  Not really an awesome go to example for economic growth...just saying.

He also had this bit on Washington Corruption....which I admit wont get him in trouble in the primary, but if by some nightmare he ever makes it to the general, he will get hounded mercilessly for (I know cause its already happened to him in the past)

"And, I’ll give you an example of that, which is the Congressional exemption from Obamacare, which is fundamentally wrong, and I’ll tell you this, if I’m elected president, I will veto any statute that exempts members of congress."
Now I admit on its face, it doesn't seem bad. But as it turns out, its a lie....and if you dont believe me, ask Ted Cruz 9 months ago:

#5 Jeb Bush (5/7)

Ok so Jeb! spend long portions of the debate not even trying to talk....which is odd cause when he did talk he was bitching about not having more time to talk.

Granted, when he finished bitching, he said some pretty odd things. For example:

 "It is tragic that you see Iraq, and other countries now talking to Russia. It wasn’t that long ago that Russia had no influence in the region at all."

Yea, like in 2003....before your brother invaded. Incidently by the way, Jeb! never mentioned his brothers name....in fact he never mentioned even having a brother.  And he went to great pains to do so, and not only in the first quote. For example:

"On the regulatory side I think we need to repeal every rule that Barack Obama has in terms of work in progress, every one of them."
that, presumably would lead to the same regulation standards that were around when your brother was in office....odd that you dont want to mention that part if you actually think this is a good idea. Or maybe he's just aware that most people still associate "Bush Economy" with the Great Recession....so he's trying to work around that by convincing people hes an only child.

When he wasnt trying to commit retroactive fratricide, he managed to come on in favor of a sane approach to immigration, including allowing people to stay in the US, and doing investment and research into alternative energies. Now I might agree with him on these issues....but the GOP base is going to fucking hate him for this. So you cant really call it a great debate performance. 

#4 Carly Fiorina (6/1)

Ms. Fiorina was on fire last time....but this time, not so much. Mostly because she promised to repeal Obamacare.....and replace it with nothing. Ensuring we go back to the old system.....you know the one everyone hated so much it lead to outcry used to create Obamacare? Points for honesty at least, Shes about the only republican willing to admit that, in 7 years, they aint come up with shit.

She also mentioned Reagan for walking away/backing down from the Russians at Reykjavik., and trying to ignore them, instead of treating them as a threat, and "being strong".and the context it came up in (in which Rand Paul was trying to praise Reagan's strength, and she refuted it) could easily make it look like an attack on Reagan (even though in context it wasnt, crosstalk makes the context very hard to follow, in fact watching the debate live, even I thought it was an attack on him)...which will likely kill her support with the Republican base. 

#3 Marco Rubio (3/3)

Theres always that one guy who shows up to every debate, and thats really all I can say about him.

Well this time around that was Marco Rubio. And its not a bad thing. He talked alot, and laid out some policies. Maybe you like them, maybe you dont. But he avoiding saying anything stupid.

Of course, on the flip side, he also basically said nothing memorable either. So even though he laid out policy, I cant really remember any of it with reading the debate transcript.

Still he gave the impression of being involved and having answers and not being an idiot. So overall we can call that a win.    

#2 John Kasich (8/2)

Much like Rubio, Kasich spent most of the debate laying out unmemorable policy...just as he as in every other debate.

However, while doing so, he managed to pick a fight with basically every other candidate on the stage.

My overall impression of Kasich this time around is that he was basically a pitbull and attacked everyone who got too close to him. So he gets the higher spot that Rubio because everyone is more likely to remember he was at the debate simply because he made sure to be involved in almost every question...even when he wasnt supposed to be.

    

#1 Rand Paul (7/4)

I got to say, I'm a bit shocked by it myself, but its hard to argue anyone other than Rand Paul won this debate. Admittedly that is mostly for the second half of the debate but still.

Paul spent the first quarter of the debate basically asleep, by which I mean he was giving pretty much the exact same answers hes given to every question for the last 6 years, and I'm actually pretty sure he could give those anwsers in his sleep if he needed to.

His second quarter saw him attempt to pick a fight with Marco Rubio, but it kind of fell flat, and he got burried under every other candidate on the stage interrupting.

But then the second half started. Specifically the Second half started with a question to Donald Trump on the newly signed TPP. And trump engaged in a several minute long back and forth with the moderator over how the TPP was designed to advance China over the US.

And then, when he was done, Rand Paul struck.

"Hey, Gerard [one of the moderators], you know, we might want to point out China is not part of this deal."

The moderator by the way, backed him up on that.

Donald Trumps reply meanwhile........nothing. He didnt even attempt one. In fact he said nothing about anything until directly asked a question several minutes later.

Thats right Donald Trump had absolutely nothing to say following the Rand Paul initiated knockout punch disguised as a live fact check on air.

Its worth noting that, and Rand Paul continued to explain China's non involvement in the TPP, the buffer music played to go to commercial....and Paul kept talking....and he won, the commercial break was pushed back.

Of course, coming back from commercial, the debate turned to national security, and literally every answer Rand Paul gave got massive applause from the audience as he explained how to be "Stong" without fighting unnecessary wars.

its actually worth noting one of the applause lines he got was for "I think the first war in Iraq was a mistake…"

Yea thats right, Rand Paul just got cheered at the GOP primary for condemning Iraq.  That one is going to make some headlines (or it would if his rhetorical chin check of trump wasnt getting all the coverage)

But yea, by any metric Rand Paul got the most applause of any candidate in the second half of the debate....and outside of his usual and old worn out libertarian bullshit on the Fed and money, managed to avoid saying anything new that was also really fucking stupid.

So yea....there you have it....the winner of the 4th debate....Rand Paul. 

Not so Gifted Hands. Ben Carson's history of lying.

So if you read my last few blogs you might have noticed, its getting hard out there for a Doctor with no political experience running for president.

Mostly because he keeps getting caught in lies. Previously I covered Ben Carson's lying about his getting robbed at gun point, or his 10% tax plan, there was also his lie about Mannatech, where his claim he didnt work for them was debunked by the infomericals he made for them. Oh and lets not forget his lie about needing to space out your vaccines.

Well it turns out, we are just getting started (or ending depending on your point of view) on Carson's lie's and at this point the wheels are totally off the bus on the Carson Campaign as he has just had another no good, very bad week.

Ok so, like most people of my Generation I had to read Ben Carson's book "Gifted Hands" when I was in school. Well now that he's running for President, that book, and many of his previous statements are receiving new scrutiny....and well it turns out, that book may actually be partly fiction.

Now the statement that is getting all the attention is this one:

“I felt so proud, my chest bursting with ribbons and braids of every kind. To make it more wonderful, we had important visitors that day. Two soldiers who had won the Congressional Medal of Honor in Viet Nam were present. More exciting to me, General William Westmoreland (very prominent in the Viet Nam war) attended with an impressive entourage. Afterward, Sgt. Hunt introduced me to General Westmoreland, and I had dinner with him and the Congressional Medal winners. Later I was offered a full scholarship to West Point.”

A story he repeated in a later book (released last year)"You have a Brain"

That position allowed me the chance to meet four-star general William Westmoreland, who had commanded all American forces in Vietnam before being promoted to Army Chief of Staff at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. I also represented the Junior ROTC at a dinner for Congressional Medal of Honor winners, marched at the front of Detroit’s Memorial Day parade as head of an ROTC contingent, and was offered a full scholarship to West Point.”

Well as it turns out, that story has a few major problems. The first, obvious is that West Point has free tuition.....meaning that a "scholarship" is pointless. Which is why they dont actually exist.

So yea, given that, its basically impossible Carson was offered one.

And thats not even the only lie in that statement. See the Army is a little OCD about record keeping for their higher ranking officers, including General Westmoreland, and according to his records, General Westmoreland was no where near Detroit at the time this encounter with Carson supposedly happened.

So yea, not only was Carson offered a non existent scholarship, he was offered it by a guy who could appear in two places at once.

Granted, as we learned under W. lying about military service, isnt a disqualifier to be president....if your a republican, so I lying about potential military service likely isnt either.

[EDIT] After publishing this originally I came across this from WTOP based on a press conference
Carson made this weekend over his supposed scholarship offer At his news conference Friday night, Carson said, “It was an offer to me. It was specifically made.” He said he could not recall specifically who made the offer. “It’s almost 50 years ago. I bet you don’t remember all the people you talked to 50 years ago,” he said.

Actually you probably do if it really was someone that famous as Gen Westmoreland....oh wait I forgot this explanation comes with a tacit admission you lied about that part....twice, in writing when you claimed you did remember. [END EDIT]

Problem is, those arnt the only lies or just flat out weird statements Carson's been caught making recently.

See Gifted Hands also makes the claim that unlike the calm, relaxed to the point of sounding like hes almost asleep person he is now, Young Ben Carson had some serious anger issues.

Specially the time he tried to stab a classmate of his named "Bob". The stabbing only failed because the knife broke on "Bob's" belt buckle. The attempted stabbing is laid out in his book as the event that caused him to find Jesus, and it was the faith in Jesus that relaxed him and helped him become the mellow guy he is today.

Now Ben Carson admits Bob isnot the guys real name, and changing names to protect the people involved in pretty common in Autobiographies, so he gets a full pass on this, this cant be held against him as a lie but it is why "Bob" is in quotes.

But the problem is, no one who knew Carson at the time ever heard about this story until it was published in Gifted Hands, none of them have any idea who "Bob" could be either.

 Which of course led to reporters asking questions....which in turn led to this tweet by FOX's Megyn Kelly after she taped an interview with Carson:

"BREAKING NEWS on #KellyFile: @RealBenCarson identifies person he tried to stab as a young man as a "close relative."

See thats why none of his friends remembered him stabbing them....turns out the guy was actually a relative, despite the story Carson's been telling for 13 years.

Incidentally, none of his close relatives remember Carson trying to stab them either.

Also, it does have to be asked.....who tries to stab someone in the belt buckle? Like most stabbings are in the chest or stomach.....those arnt covered by a belt buckle. Just saying. What person would aim for an area covered by a belt buckle. Also how shitty was your knife if it broke on the buckle? I own a knife I got for like $10, its cheap as hell, and it wouldnt break on a belt buckle.

If your going to lie, and it appears Carson clearly has here (just like he did about being robbed) you'd think youd make the lie sound remotely believable.

Speaking of events no one else can remember, Carson has recently started claiming that during race riots that occurred in Detroit following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr, he helped shelter white students by hiding them in the school's biology lab.

Now the riot DID happen. So points there I guess. But as to Carson's role no one else at the school at the time remembers this/saw it/ or ever heard about it until he stared mentioning it on the campaign trail last month and no one has been able to identify or come forward as one of the white students he saved.....Carson for his part, also cant actually remember the names of the white students. But at least we know they werent named "Bob"

But look, like I said in most of these cases, its only the lack of other peoples memories of ANY of it that suggest Carson is a liar. And well the thing is, Carson's character is impeccable. No really, if you dont believe me, there is this story from "Gifted Hands"

"The day before I'd been informed that the final examination papers in a psychology class, Perceptions 301, 'were inadvertently burned'....So I, with about 150 other students, went to the designated auditorium for the repeat exam....[The questions] were incredibly difficult....Soon half the class was gone, and the exodus continued. Not one person turned in the examination before leaving.

"....Suddenly the door of the classroom opened....The professor came toward me. With her was a photographer for the Yale Daily News who paused and snapped my picture. 'What's going on?' I asked. 'A hoax,' the teacher said. 'We wanted to see who was the most honest student in the class.' She smiled again. 'And that's you.' "

See Carson was once "outed" as the most honest kid in his class. So clearly he would never lie, right?

Although really I'm not sure how sticking around to take a test makes you honest. Hard working, dedicated, sure....but honest?  I dont get that.  Especially since you'd think making a test much harder would be an act of dishonestly by the teacher, and the kids who left (and presumably went to complain) and wouldnt let the professor get away with in would be the more honest ones, and the ones less prone to accepting bullshit.

But then again, it doesnt have to make logical sense.....because like everything else that comes out of Carson's mouth....its not true,

Per a Wall Street Journal check of the Yale Daily News' records, they never once published a picture of Carson that they supposedly took for this story. Probably because, as the same investigation found out, the class doesnt exist. As in not only was there NEVER a class called "Perceptions" offered during Carson's years at Yale....at the time, Yale didnt even offer a Psychology 301 course.

Carson by the way, is standing by every single one of the lies I have mentioned as "fact" just as he's doing with the lies I mentioned at the start of the blog post. And honestly if you listen to him talk about them, he does in fact seem to believe them. He also likes to claim these events are eall "well documented"....although as I've pointed out, no one has been able to turn up documentation for any of them.

Which isnt surprising really, as I'm starting to suspect Ben Carson is delusional.

Ok, so one story that came up this week that wasnt directly about him lying was about the commencement address he gave in 1998 at Andrews University in which he said:

“My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain, Now all the archaeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs’ graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big — when you stop and think about it, and I don’t think it’d just disappear over the course of time — to store that much grain.[...]"When you look at the way that the pyramids are made, with many chambers that are hermetically sealed, they'd have to be that way for various reasons. And various of scientists have said, 'Well, you know there were alien beings that came down and they have special knowledge and that's how--' you know, it doesn't require an alien being when God is with you."

Now when Ben Carson says this is his own personal theory, he aint kidding. With the possible exception of Sid Meier's Civilization video game series, no one else on the planet actually thinks this is remotely true

Furthermore, according to Carson, all scientists believe in Alien life, as that is apparently the only other possible explanation for building the pyramids. There is no possible way man could have done this....even though books written for 2nd and 3rd graders detail exactly how the pyramids were built

Now maybe you think he mispoke or was taking out of context, or even became more educated in the last 17 years....yea not so much. He was actually asked about it directly by CBS on Wednesday and he said "It's still my belief, yes."

Now to be fair, there is still one further possibility other than serve delusions that could explain this. Which is that I, along with all of you, are idiots and just cant understand this complex things.

See Carson was also asked on CNN about remarks he made last year, implying many Americans are stupid:

"They can twist and turn things as much as they want. But what they don't understand—and they miscalculated. They were doing a great job in terms of fundamentally changing this nation. In terms of infiltrating the school systems. In terms of infiltrating the media. All of this—they've done a great job. Everything was perfect. Except they underestimated the intelligence of the American people. The people are not as stupid as they think they are. Many of them are stupid. Okay. But I'm talking about overall.[...]Even if all the media tries to shut you down—which they have tried very much to do with me. But they can't because the good Lord has provided me with mechanisms like my syndicated column and like Fox News. We'd be Cuba if there were no Fox News."

And heres the exchange about that on CNN a couple of days ago

Camerota (the interviewer):It sounds like what you’re saying are liberals, You mean that if Fox News didn’t exist, we would be a communist country?”

Carson:“No. Again, there you go with sensationalism, That’s what you try to do. You hope somehow that will resonate with people who don’t think for themselves. I’ve got news for you, people are a lot smarter than you think they are, and they know exactly what I’m talking about.”

Camerota: “Dr. Carson, you said it! Dr. Carson, I’m quoting — I’m not even quoting you, I’m playing your words. You are the person who said there are a lot of people who are stupid and without Fox News, we would be Cuba.”

Carson: “I can’t believe that you used to work on Fox News!”

By the way, I love this line. Im not sure if Carson is suggesting he expected a softball interview because she worked at FOX and implicitly FOX goes easy on republicans, or if Carson is saying he expected her to agree with him because she worked at FOX before and they are all ideologically brainwashed. (note by the way for fairness, 3 of the lies I listed above were exposed by FOX or other News Corp owned companies so yea in either case it seems carson would still be wrong),

And now we get to the "money shot" of the exchange:

Carson: “Are you honestly telling me that you didn’t know what I was talking about when I said that? Are you honestly telling me? If you are, you might fit in that category,”

There you have it folks straight from the Horses ass. If you dont understand the crazy shit coming out of Ben Carson's mouth the problem is not that the good doctor may be out of his mind, the problem is you, and the other 99.02% of Americans who dont support Carson (per his most recent poll numbers, at 23% of the Republican vote, with Republicans being 39% of the electorate) YOU are an Idiot.

Or Ben Carson is a delusional liar......your choice.

Where the GOP field stands after debate #3

Ok so having finally seen the 3rd debate (thanks CNBC for basically making it unavailable to anyone) its time for a debate review.

Now for those who didnt read my first two debate analysis or just flat out cant remember the "rules" here they are again:

The way this works, I'm going to start with the Candidate I think has the bleakest future and move up. However after each number showing the candidates present prospects, I will also list a second number in () after the name, which is the "number" based on the polls going into the debate. So for example #1 Clinton, (10) would mean the candidate (Clinton in this fictional case) who currently looks the best, came in to the debate with the worst support in the polls.

Now please note in this debate several of the candidates were tied in the polls in both 4th place and last place (a 3 way) hence why you may see the number 4 and 8 more than once and no 5, 9 or 10.

Also like last time there will be a 3rd number following the second, this is where I placed the candidates standing in my evaluation of the first debate. So using Clinton again #1 Clinton (10/8) would mean I think Clinton did the best, came into the debate in 10th, but I had thought should have been entering at 8th in my previous analysis.

10. Carson (2/9)
I cant sugar coat this one.....this debate was an almost unprecedented disaster as far as Dr. Carson goes.

See it turns out everything we knew about Dr. Carson was a lie.....and if you dont believe me, just ask him yourself. 10% flat tax? well actually not so much. supports oil subsidies? again not really. Worked with Mannatech? Nope. Is anti gay? Not really.....

And that was only the beginning. See he finally had to admit his 10% thing wouldnt work (or at least admit to it in a debate, having previously admitted as much in an interview weeks ago) but then claimed that 15% would work....only to get fact checked by the moderator who actually did the math live.....and had no answer for her at all.

Later Carson was asked how he can be anti gay and serve on the board of Costco (a company with very pro gay policies)

His answer to that one was that just because your against gay marriage/treating gay people equally doesnt make you homophobic

I wonder if he thinks it makes you a racist if you just happen to believe some darker skinned individuals should be considered property and not people?

Seriously, Dr. Carson, you *were* a well respected brain surgeon.....I think its well past time you take what little public respect you still have left from that and get out of politics while you still can.

9. Cruz (6/4)
So yea....now we get to the star debate....and not in a good way.

So I admit upfront, Cruz is suffering a little here from the fact the debate took place a few days ago. Normally I do these things the next day so as just judge the results on the debate itself, but I have to make an exception here.

The CNBC debate got a lot of criticism....mostly directed at unfair questions.....to the point the RNC has pulled out of all future NBC debates. Now the problem is most of those unfair questions were not in fact unfair at all. They were asking the candidates about their positions and policies. The go to soundbite though for how "unfair" everything is came from Ted Cruz:

“Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?” “Ben Carson, can you do math?” “John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?” “Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign?” “Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?
How about talking about the substantive issues the people care about?”

Problem is, these ARE the issues people care about. Making sure a candidate running for president has policy (Trump), that their policy works (Carson), if they disagree with other candidates on policy and why (Kasich), and why people dont support them (Bush)

Now yes, I skipped over Rubio.....that single question was slightly unfair....but it comes up to pretty much any senate candidate running for president.  (and for the record, there actually were some very bad or unfair questions....but the ones Cruz and the RNC singled out arnt them)

Now on its own....that wouldnt be that bad. But then the RNC when and made Ted Cruz's rant here their poster child for their decision to ban NBC from hosting any more debates.

And its worth noting, outside of the far right, pretty much everyone else, left, moderate and "near right" thinks that decision was a horrible mistake that could undermine the whole parties message on being tough on ISIS, Putin, or well *anything*

And now that whole idea has Ted Cruz's face plastered all over it.

Though to be fair, even without the RNC magnifying the pain...Cruz didnt have a great night. That still would have been his only memorable moment...but its possible he'd have placed as high as 7th and not 9th in this list.

8. Huckabee (7/10)
So there was a debate, and Huckabee was there....but thats basically it. Dude didnt have a single original thought to say. In fact most of what he said was to follow up with his agreement with other candidates polices.

Well except when he said we should “cure the four big cost-driving diseases…diabetes, heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer’s” Now I'm all for researching the fuck out of these horrible and deadly diseases but I dont actually think they are at all linked to the economy....especially more so than tax rates, spending levels, ect like the Huckster was implying.

Its I suppose an admirable goal....but being used here for the absolutely silliest of reasons....and to cover up the fact Huckabee doesnt have an economic policy.

7. Bush (4/7)
Jeb Bush had two big moments here....both bad.

The first came when he tried to piggyback off a flordia paper suggesting Marco Rubio should resign for missing votes in the senate......and Rubio basically totally kicked his ass in reply, by calling him out for his previous support of other senators with worse records, then saying Bush only went after him cause they want the same job.....to which Bush had NOTHING as a reply.

Then he was asked if he still supported a position he took 4 years ago....about not taking a 10 to 1 cuts to tax increases deal. He then spend the next 3 minutes trying to explain why he both did and didnt still hold his previous position....if he'd taken one.....and then ending with a metaphor about making out with a Democrat who agreed with the position he did and didnt take.

It was just awkward weird and bad....

6. Chris Christie (8/3)
Christie really only had one major contribution to the debate, his screed against Social Security and his totally accurate portrayal of it having been totally emptied out and spend by politicians in what was basically theft.

The problem for Christie.....the politician who actually did it was a guy named Ronald Reagan.

It wasnt a crippling blow for him, per say in this debate but as he did leave a massive trap for himself should a moderator ever question him on it (which of course depends on media reaction the NBC debate ban) he could be in big trouble with the primary electorate.

But that being his own notable moment, and it not having been a major issue yet, keeps him right in the middle of the "nothing special" debate  performance crowd.

5. Trump (1/2)
So Trump DOMINATED the entire first debate....and most of the second. But was basically not heard from much in this debate.

Possibly because a much higher percentage of the questions here focused on policy ideas....which you might remember was the section of the debate where Trump went quite last time.

Yea, he got some points for his attack on Super Pacs....and likely a lot of people (me included) agree with him. But when your the Frontrunner, and no one can really remember your debate performance and you fade into the background.....well you got to call that one a fail.

4. Rand Paul (8/6)
Just like in the last two of these I did, Rand Paul serves his function of being the line between those who had a good debate and those who had a bad one. Just like his previous debates, he said nothing new, its the same speech he's given for years...but hey at least it works for him as he consistently gives average debate performances, enough to keep him in the debates...not good enough for him to win the nomination, which as I stated before, I dont think he actually wants to do.

So yea, the fact that Rand Paul is in 4th, is basically indicative of the fact most everyone else had a bad night.

3. Marco Rubio (3/1)
Rubio was on track to win the night in my opinion, having very deftly exposed an attempted attack on his record (or lack of) by Jeb Bush earlier and having stayed out of the fray about the allegedly unfair questions, and did a good job deflecting his own personal financial difficulties.....and then the second hour hit.

Rubio kicked off the second hour by praising the Benghazi committee for all the new and damning information it revealed in the Hillary testimony......a point of view so out of touch with reality, that not only would ALL liberals and moderates disagree, but so did most conservatives, including the committee chairmen himself who said the hearings revealed nothing new.

Then, in full delusion mode, Rubio attempted to point out that Hillary/the Democrats hadnt called the attacks terrorism when they happened. Apparently, Rubio wasnt watching the Presidential debates in 2012 when another Republican with the initials M.R. tried to make the same attack against another democratic presidential candidate....an attack that failed so badly it put the final nail in the coffin of the other M.R.'s presidential campaign.

 Now this one delusion was the only dark spot on an otherwise good campaign performance, so it was only fair to kick him down to "just above the dividing line (Paul)" as overall he did well...just not as good as those above him.

2. Kasich (8/5)
Everything Kasich said was solid. Nothing he said was stupid...except his balanced budget amendment idea....but that likely would be agreed to by all republicans on the stage so doesnt hurt him much.

And got to give him credit....he managed to answer every question....while also making sure every question (even about weed) turned into a question about the economy in a way that seemed to make sense (unlike Huckabee and his diseases)...so that Kasich could brag about his role in balancing the budget in the Clinton years and promise to do it again.

So yea, definitely won the "politician of the night" award.

1. Fiorina (4/8)

Much like Kasich, she was on a roll. Basically hit every question and avoided saying much of anything stupid.

Like Kasich one exception....where she talked about reducing the tax code down to 3 pages....because according to her, most Americans can only understand 3 pages of information at a time. Which did come across to me at least as slightly insulting, no matter your stand on the length of the tax code

Now I almost gave the top spot to Kasich (who as you may recall got top billing on my first debate analysis) since Fiorina rambled..(a reoccurring problem for her) and her responses all sound like memorized mini speeches she delivers and not thought out answers...so her "style" on that for lack of a better term comes across as robotic and perhaps not educated on the issues....just able to regurgitate a speech....albeit a regurgitation that sounded a lot less stupid than her last debate performance (even if disagree with her on the issues...she at least seemed to have an answer for them)

But what got her the top spot in my opinion was that she was the recipient of one of the most unfair questions of the night (that Ted Cruz skipped over in his rant)...and she managed to hit a homerun with her answer anyways: Heres the question.

"Mrs. Fiorina, it’s interesting that you bring up Mr. Perkins, because he said a lot of very questionable things. Last year, in an interview, he said that he thinks wealthy people should get more votes than poor people.

I think his quote was that, “if you pay zero dollars in taxes, you should get zero votes. If you pay a million dollars, you should get a million votes.” Is this the type of person you want defending you?"

Perkins by the way was the guy who fired her from HP calling her massively incompetent and other things in the same vein....Fiorina had mentioned in her response a question about being fired that Perkins later changed his mind and thought she had done better than he originally said and the question above was the follow up.

And lets be honest, asking someone about the political positions of a supporter who doesn't work for the campaign is about as unfair a question as you can get....so how did Fiorina reply:

"Well, this is one of the reasons why Tom Perkins and I had disagreements in the boardroom, Becky.

Nevertheless, one of the things that I think people don’t always understand is how accountable a CEO actually is.

So you know, I had to report results every 90 days in excruciating detail. I had to answer every single question about every single result and every single projection in public until there were no more questions.

And if I misrepresented those results or those projections in any way, I was held criminally liable. Imagine — imagine — if a politician were held to that standard of account.

I will run on my record all day long.

Basically she called the guy crazy...said that was part of the reason they didnt work well together, insulating herself from the incompetent charge (and therefore negating the previous question shes been asked about it)...then said that she was fired because she gets held to a much higer standard...which she wants to see applied to politicians tapping in on american disillusionment with Washington.

Seriously, while I think the lady would be a horrible horrible president...that really was the reply on the night and a clinic on how to defend against a tough question without looking like a crybaby like ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE on the stage (notably Cruz and Rubio) did.

So yea....shockingly to me, the winner of Debate #3 the woman whos delusional rants in Debate #2 basically made her look like she was headed back to the kiddie table: Carly Fiorina.

 So yea, to end; for those keeping track at home, Trump won debate 1, Rubio debate 2, and Fiorina now debate 3.

Granted, due to the RNC boycott that resulted from this debate...and the problems thats going to bring the GOP as a whole....maybe no one wins in this debate.

Snakes in the Fox House....Captain America vs FOX

So I assume like most Americans in this day and age, your familiar with Captain America?

You know, this guy? 

Well it turns out he's actually pretty anti american...no really watch this:

And they got a point, I mean the Supreme Serpent sounds just like a right winger right?

in fact heres the actual comic panel where the Supreme Serpent is talking:

Oh wait, my bad....this is awkward. Thats not the Panel FOX was quoting.....thats actually the REST of the Supreme Serpents Speech. You know, the part they didnt want you the viewer to know about.

Which is even more awkward, when you consider that it is FOX claiming they are the ones holding the same view as the Serpents, which appear to be extremely violent....not the other way around. The Serpents do not claim to be holding the views of FOX and Friends.

Oh...and its not just violence against illegals that is the only problem here. Here's another problem:

That would appear to be the Serpents attacking a professed LEGAL immigrant.....because he came to their town.

So apparently FOX and friends believes that violence against LEGAL immigrants is part of their right wing beliefs....

But actually believe it or not, thats not the biggest problem for FOX in this second panel.

You probably noticed the art style in that second panel looks DRASTICALLY different than in the first.  Which it should....because its from a different comic book. Its from Avengers 32....published in 1966.

Which is a little awkward, given that FOX and friends claims the Serpents are a new group who were created to fight the new Captain America.

Of course, lets be fair, maybe they mean the Serpents have never fought Cap before....not that they are new.

From 1966

From 1997

Well, so much for that theory.

So what's changed that suddenly, for the first time in 50 years, that having Cap oppose the Sons of the Serpent makes him Unamerican?

Oh wait, I actually figured this out. See in all the above images Captain America looks a little different than he does now:

Captain America 2015.

If your not good with details, let me help you out. At the moment, Captain America is black. In every previous picture ive show you, he was white.

So you know, when he was a white guy punching out ignorant racists it wasnt worth mentioning.

But now that the man under the hood is Black.....well now he's getting uppity and its a major attack on an american ideology.

Or at least that is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the fact that FOX and Friends (and many other right wing sources) have suddenly decided that a 50+ year old story line is suddenly major news....and the only thing thats changed is the protagonists skin color.

Which brings us to our final irony. Despite appearances, the Sons of the Serpents are not a racist right wing group.

For example, here is the unmasking of the Original Supreme Serpent back in 1966:

Thats right, the groups founder was a foreign military official....specifically an [implied] communist Chinese general.

And the whole point of the group? actually to stir up distrust among Americans so as to weaken them for a war.

The second incarnation of the group was led by this guy:

Who, as you may notice is black.....as for the record was the leader of the next incarnation of the Serpents. In both case, both men were using faked racism as a cover for their true agendas, either increasing the ratings of their television show (by reporting on the attacks) or to drive up crime rates (and racism being the explanation for the seemingly random crimes) in an attempt to drive down property value so it could be bought more cheaply. 

Now all 3 groups made mention of the same idea....that some part of the fictional marvel universe version of the American media would defend their actions....there by giving the group more attention and increasing their effectiveness in scaring people for their real purpose...which was always exploiting the fuck out of the people they just scared for the groups gain.

A belief, that FOX and Friends (and other right wing sources) has just brought out of Fiction and into reality.

Which is going to look awkward when, true to form, this incarnation of the Sons of the Serpent have their true goals exposed, and its revealed that, as always they were only appearing to be violent racists to trick stupid people into supporting them while they fucked over those same stupid people.

But hey, you got to admire the FOX and Friends crew.....it takes a special kind of fucking retarded to get conned by something that was outed as a con half a century ago in a book deemed appropriate for and theoretically aimed at young children (as all 60's comic books were legally required to be).

Because remember folks, it wasn't Marvel comics that said the Sons of the Serpents represent the views of conservatives who watch FOX....it was FOX that did that. 

  

Hillary 2016: Brought to you by your lying corrupt media

So, um quick question, who do you think most people would say won the Democratic debate this week?

Now if your not sure, lets see if I can help you out.

Heres the analysis from debate hosts CNN, declaring Hillary the unquestioned winner, which says "Hillary Clinton proved without a doubt Tuesday night why she is the Democratic Party's presidential front-runner."

They also had a second article claiming: It was a victorious comeback for Hillary Clinton, a front-runner who has been on the downswing.


The National Journal, was running a story called "Hillary Clinton Won" and says straight out "Hil­lary Clin­ton won. She won be­cause she’s a strong de­bater. She won be­cause Bernie Sanders is not. "

Or slate, running a piece called Worldly and Wise, which declares "Clinton had no peers on the stage." and that if Biden was thinking of entering the race "if Hillary Clinton collapsed, he must have seen for himself that she crushed it."

Bloomberg News ran with this headline "Grading the Democratic Debate: Hillary Clinton Schools Her Rivals"

New York Magazine ran this headline: "The Hillary Clinton Panic May Have Just Ended" saying " Clinton demonstrated that she was, by far, the best presidential candidate onstage. Indeed, she may have been the only person onstage actually running for president."
Then Ryan Lissa over at the New Yorker tweeted this "Hillary Clinton won because all of her opponents are terrible"
Vox had a story with the subheading "Clinton is not facing first-rate competition" and explanation of

"Clinton's greatest achievement in the 2015 primary hasn't been anything she's done against the candidates running against her. It's been preventing other, more formidable politicians from running against her at all. These four guys simply aren't close to being the second, third, fourth, and fifth most serious alternatives to Clinton that the Democratic Party has to offer — and it showed." 

The New York Times did their look at the debate, and starting their story as follows: Bloggers, commentators and the Twitterati quickly weighed in on the first Democratic debate, scoring the winners and losers. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the clear victor, according to the opinion shapers in the political world (even conservative commentators).

Even Conservative blog Redstate ran the following headline "Hillary Clinton Wins Round 1 in a Knockout (I Think)"

So the obvious answer here is that most people think Hillary just flat out killed her competition right?

Actually no. In fact, as it turns out, the only article I linked to that is remotely defensible is the last one, the conservative one, over at RedState. Everyone else is pretty provable lying to you.

See, much like my blogs on the GOP debate, the RedState article is only suppose to represent the opinion of the writer, a point made clear repeatedly in the article itself (not to mention the wording of the headline). And he personally thinks Hillary won, which is a reasonable opinion t have, at least 1 person thinks every candidate won. No problem.

Now the rest of these posts however are trying to give you the "objective" analysis of the debate.....implicitly backed up by some data. Or at least thats how its supposed to work.

Except, heres the data:

Time did a poll which said 56% believed Bernie Sanders had won.....to 11% for Clinton
MSNBC was 69% to 12% in favor of Sanders
Liberal blog site Daily Kos had it 56% to 38&, for Sander
A FOX affiliate had 78% for Sander....15% for Clinton
Even the conservative bastion The Drudge Report had Sanders over Clinton 54% to 9%


Slate, which you will noticed I linked to their story proclaiming Clinton the winner with no peers on the stage, did their own poll.....which Declared Bernie Sanders the winner with 76% (to Clinton's 17%)

But perhaps most egregiously is CNN.....who hosted the debate, and was the first article I linked to, in which, like slate declared Hillary the winner and clear front runner.

Which is odd because their poll of their own viewers after the debate looks like this:

Or actually, I should say the poll LOOKED like that.

Now it doesnt look like anything, since CNN deleted it after people started pointing out their own poll didnt back up their analysis of what the poll told them.

Although, if you go look at their articles you likely wont be seeing any one pointing this out....cause CNN has been deleting those comments....plus any that generally seem to support Sanders.

Now like I said, if you personally think Clinton won the debate, I have no problem with that. But even those who saw the debate and think she won really should be wondering what the fuck is going on here?

We know in 2008 the media believed Hillary to be the next president....and that kinda embarrassingly didnt work out for them. And since 2008 they have believed her to again be the next president.

However, unlike 2008, it seems this time around they are just flat out refusing to do their jobs and actually report on facts that contradict the fantasy they WANT to be true.

And to be fair, this isnt just a problem affecting the Democrats, lots of Republicans (most recently Rand Paul) have made the same claim on their side....that the media is clearly pulling for Trump to the point of not reporting on other candidates/not pressing Trump on issues and his recent drop in polls/catering the next debate rules to his personal preferences, because they know he is what gets them the best ratings.

So it seems, the Media has already decided the 2016 election will be Trump v Clinton....facts and legitimate journalism be damned.

Because hey, we Americans dont need to be able to make an informed and accurate decision about out government.....we only need to make the decision most profitable to our media overlords......

The Doctor is in....sane. (Ben Carson)

So it turns out if there is a winner in the whole implosion of the US house of resp things, its actually Doctor Ben Carson.....cause without that story his own two no good very very bad weeks would likely be the front page story.

First, it turns out we can add economics to the ever growing list of things that shockingly even a brain surgeon doesnt get.

From an interview with NPR'S Kai Ryssdal:

Ryssdal: All right, so let's talk about debt then and the budget. As you know, Treasury Secretary Lew has come out in the last couple of days and said, "We're gonna run out of money, we're gonna run out of borrowing authority, on the fifth of November." Should the Congress then and the president not raise the debt limit? Should we default on our debt?

Carson: Let me put it this way: if I were the president, I would not sign an increased budget. Absolutely would not do it. They would have to find a place to cut.

Right......except that cutting the budget has about as much to do with the debt ceiling as the fact it is October has to do with what day of the week it is. They may be tangentially related, but the budget is not what you were asked about

Ryssdal: To be clear, it's increasing the debt limit, not the budget, but I want to make sure I understand you. You'd let the United States default rather than raise the debt limit.

Carson: No, I would provide the kind of leadership that says, "Get on the stick guys, and stop messing around, and cut where you need to cut, because we're not raising any spending limits, period."
STRIKE 2!   But at least we can rule out accidental misspeak.

Ryssdal: I'm gonna try one more time, sir. This is debt that's already obligated. Would you not favor increasing the debt limit to pay the debts already incurred?

Carson: What I'm saying is what we have to do is restructure the way that we create debt. I mean if we continue along this, where does it stop? It never stops. You're always gonna ask the same question every year. And we're just gonna keep going down that pathway. That's one of the things I think that the people are tired of.

STRIKE 3! YOURE OUT!  Seriously the anchor even told Carson what the debt ceiling was, (as it became clear he had no idea) and he still couldn't answer the question...but at least he used the word debt that time. so theres that.

By the way, this wasnt the only problem for Carson in this interview, there was also this:

"Ryssdal: Let me turn to tax policy for a second, if I might, Dr. Carson. You have come out and said you prefer a 10 percent flat tax. You base it on tithing and the Bible —

Carson: Not necessarily 10 percent, but I use 10 percent because it's easy to work the numbers.

Ryssdal: Well if you're gonna propose a flat tax, then, sir, you gotta give me a number. So what's your number for the flat tax?

Carson: I think it would probably be closer to 15 percent."

Well hopefully your not planning on voting for Doctor Carson because of his tax plan....because he just admitted he's lying to you and that your taxes will be about 50% higher than he's claiming they will be

Also 10% is "easier to work the numbers?" who's working the numbers? I assume Carson means himself in his speeches when he gives examples.  Which seems to mean Carson is so bad at math he cant be honest about his own tax plan cause he wouldnt be able to do the math involved in it himself.

Yikes......

And heres the thing, unfortunately for Dr. Carson, we are just getting started...and the rest of it is even worse.

My guess is you heard about the recent shooting in Oregon. Carson clearly has....and he has some advice for all potential victims of future shootings (and yes, you can likely already guess from the premise here, this aint going to go over well):

Right, unlike the victim's who apparently just let themselves get shot, Carson would totally rush the shooter and actually you know try to do something.

Cause victim blaming sounds great.

And he didnt just say this once, From a CBS interview:

“From the indications I got, they didn’t rush the shooter, I would ask everybody to attack the gunman because he can only shoot one of us at a time. That way, we don’t all wind up dead.”

He said the same thing in a tweet of an interview put out by ABC.

But this is where the story takes a freaking amazing turn. On an appearance on a radio show Carson was asked if he in fact every has been in a situation with a gunman. And actually as it turned out the answer was yes. He was once involved in a robbery at a Popeyes.

Presumably, Carson heroically rushed the shooter and saved everyones lives right?

Per Carsons reply:“Guy comes in, puts the gun to my ribs and I just said, ‘I believe that you want the guy behind the counter,'”

Oh...so when someone points a guy at you...you dont rush them.....you actually just throw some minimum wage worker under the bus.

By the way in a follow up interview Carson was asked what the gunman's reaction was

"The resolution was, [the gunman] said, 'Oh, sorry,' and then he went to the appropriate person behind the register who gave him the money, and he left the store running before the police got there,"

See, everything was OK, no one got shot, and Carson helped the gunman successfully rob the store by making sure he stuck his gun at the "appropriate" minimum wage, possibly teenaged worker, and not you know, the important doctor.....

Oh and how doe Carson justify NOT rushing this shooter?

“They’re two very different situations. You’ve got a crazy person who’s shooting people and is clearly going to continue to do that versus somebody who’s coming in to try to get a little bit of cash. Now I’m not justifying the fact that he’s coming in to rob the place, but you’ve got to be able to distinguish between somebody who’s trying to rob a joint and somebody who is trying to kill you,”

Ah....see there it is, you only need to rush the shooter if you think he's going to kill YOU personally....otherwise you can just direct him to someone else and make it their problem on the assumption that other person is the one the shooter might truly feel the need to kill....

By the way, there is one more fairly problematic twist here for Carson.

Someone had the bright idea of asking the Baltimore Police about the robbery, to get some more detail. Turns out "We searched for it and based on the general statement, we have no report,".  So yea, its possible the event didnt even happen and Carson made the whole thing up.

By the way a couple of hours after the police made that announcement Carson was on CNN and was asked to defend his original comments:

Note the accusation here by the survivor: Carson cant understand unless he lived it.  This would be the perfect opportunity to mention (once again) your story where you HAD lived it as youve already talked about elsewhere.

Odd, if the story about Popeyes was true, Carson didnt go that route suddenly....you know only after the Baltimore PD weighted in.

Instead he attacked the survivor for basically being a mouthpiece who was only repeated lines fed to him and likely couldnt possibly really be offended......


And sadly for Carson, that interview got even worse for him later:

Yes, see if the Jews hadnt given up their guns and had you know fought back they wouldnt have been exterminated.....so kinda there fault I guess?

By the way, the Anti-Defamation league wasted no time in hammering Carson on this one:

“Ben Carson has a right to his views on gun control, but the notion that Hitler’s gun-control policy contributed to the Holocaust is historically inaccurate. The small number of personal firearms available to Germany’s Jews in 1938 could in no way have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi German state. When they had weapons, Jews could symbolically resist, as they did in the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and elsewhere, but they could not stop the Nazi genocide machine, In short, gun control did not cause the Holocaust; Nazism and anti-Semitism did.”
They could have also mentioned the Białystok Ghetto Uprising, the Częstochowa Ghetto Uprising, the Będzin Ghetto uprising, and the Łachwa Ghetto uprising just to name a few.

And that doesnt count things like the Sobibór uprising, in which unarmed jews (in a death camp) stole the german weapons and used them against them....

And Carson's response to all of this?

"That's total foolishness, I’d be happy to discuss that in depth with anybody but it is well known that in many places where tyranny has taken over, they first disarm the people. There’s a reason they disarm the people. They don’t just do it arbitrarily."

So according to Carson the ADL is wrong.....Jews didn't fight back and maybe if they had they wouldn't have been massacred....

But hey, you have to give Carson credit here, when it comes to blaming victims for their own deaths and offending pretty much everyone....the good doctor sticks to his guns.

The House divided against itself. (speakers race 2015)

So, I have a problem. And its kinda embarrassing, even if it is something that, I am assured, happens to every guy at least one. It appears I suffered from premature blogging with my last entry.

You see, last time out, I blogged about the giant cluster fuck the House was in over the vacated speakers gavel, and basically implied it couldnt get any worse, hence why I wrote the article when I did.

Holy FUCK did I blow that prediction.

So quick update. When last we left, we basically had 3 possible candidate for Speakers. The heir apparent, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the Democratic opposition candidate Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, and Representative Jason Chaffetz as the potential Tea Party nominee.

And look. I admit I wrote a blog saying it was potentially possible that Pelosi could win. But even i said that wasnt really likely...just legally theoretically possible.

Like everyone else, even after his bad week from hell, I fully expected Kevin McCarthy to be elected speaker last Thursday.

Except, then, just a couple hours before the vote was scheduled he dropped out of the race.

Thats right.....on what was basically election day the guy who was heavily favored to win decided with out warning "Fuck this shit...I'm out"

Now why did this happen? we dont actually know for sure.

There are two theories however.

Theory 1: It was made clear by internal "polling" to McCarthy that he wasnt going to have the votes needed to win (due in part to his Benghazi comments last week), and might in fact lose the overall numbers to Pelosi on the first ballot (although this wouldnt make Pelosi speaker as she needs a majority of all votes cast....not just get the most votes).

And to avoid this humiliation, that would effectively end any future political advancement, he dropped out.

Theory 2: Kevin McCarthy is cheating on his wife (with, it is alleged, another member of congress), and got caught kinda. 

So, heres how thats supposed to play out: GOP rep Walter Jones of North Carolina set the following letter to House Republican Conference the day before stating the following:

'“Some of the most difficult times have been when our Republican leaders or potential Republican leaders must step down because of skeletons in their closets, We’ve seen it with former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Rep. Bob Livingston, who ran for Speaker in 1998.

With all the voter distrust of Washington felt around the country, I’m asking that any candidate for Speaker of the House, majority leader, and majority whip withdraw himself from the leadership election if there are any misdeeds he has committed since joining Congress that will embarrass himself, the Republican Conference, and the House of Representatives if they become public.”

So for those who dont know, the one thing Gingrich and Livingston had in common, and what actually eliminated the possibility of Livingston becoming speaker, was having an affair.

So yea, Wednesday afternoon Rep Jones sends a letter to the House Republicans saying anyone having an affair should drop out so as not to be an embarrassment...and the next day, first thing in the morning, McCarthy drops out. (and for the record there are preexisting rumors of his having an affair even before this letter....so assuming one is the result of the other may not be a stretch)

Now it doesnt really matter too much which theory is correct. The end result was the same. The speakers election had to be rescheduled....because the majority party didnt have a candidate.

Really, it cant get that much more embarrassing than that (actually I take that back, it can, and I'll get to that later)

So yea, now the field is wide wide wide open, and the leaderless rabble of the GOP is searching for a diamond in the rough

Let the chaos begin.

We start with the other previously mentioned Republican candidate, Jason Chaffetz. Now as I mentioned in my last blog, Chaffetz didnt exactly have the best week ever. In fact he kinda got massively humiliated by his own graph used at the planned parenthood hearings he chaired.

By the way, turns out, the humiliation wasnt over yet. See this week, on the same day McCarthy dropped out, Chaffetz announcing the finding of his now finished hearings.  

And what wrongdoings did he find by planned parenthood? Drum roll please:

Yea, thats right, they found absolutely no wrong doings of any kind by planned parenthood.

So yea, the new big scandal the GOP was hoping to make a massive issue out of, that propelled Carly Fiorina to the top of the Presidential pile......yea well turns out, not so much. Nothing to see here.

So yea, the guy basically responsible for ruining that for the republicans....and in the most embarrassing way possible (the graph again), is running for speaker.

You tell me, how likely do you think republicans are to support him? Yea,,, I dont think he has a chance anymore either.

By the way. speaking of not finding shit, and wanting to be speaker, Congressman Darrell Issa announced he would consider running for the position.  Issa is probably best know for his 4 different attempts  to find scandal in Benghazi with his hearings..... hearings that went so poorly for him half the reason the current Benghazi special committee was created so the GOP could use the issue to damage Hillary's electoral chances, without Issa's massive incompetence getting in the way. (Which hasnt worked out well for them....as thats what got this whole speaker debacle started)

But yea, seriously when your own party redoes things to remove you cause they think your a moron.....your not going to be speaker.

Luckily for the GOP, it doesnt appear either Chaffetz or Issa actually expects to be speaker....in fact both have already pledged to support Paul Ryan for speaker.

In fact, Paul Ryan is getting support from pretty much everyone....even John Boehner has met with him twice in 3 days to support him as the next speaker.

So I guess the giant republican embarrassment that McCarthy kicked off with his Benghazi comments last week, is finally over?

Yea not so much. You see when asked if he WANTED to be speaker, Paul Ryan basically took to every form of media he could find to repeatedly give his answer.

Turns out, much like Speaker Bohner. Paul Ryan doesnt want the fucking job....especially now that the party has imploded.

It's also worth noting that far right wing commentators like Laura Ingraham, Mark Levine, Erick Ericson, the Conservative Review, and WorldNetDaily are already rallying people against him because he's "too liberal". hes also already opposed by several tea party members of congress.  

Well so much for Plan B.....

Luckily for the GOP there is one final candidate, who is actually willing to take the job, and has some support. Enter Representative Daniel Webster of Florida....who is officially backed by the Freedom Caucus (which is a nice way of saying the tea party).

And actually, at first, Webster doesnt seem like a bad choice....after all in the Speakership election in January, that John Boehner won, Webster was the republican with the second highest amount of votes......12. yea ok....thats not as impressive as I perhaps though it was.

Now admittedly the freedom Caucus has about  40 members....so I guess thats growing support for Webster?

Maybe....but maybe not. Both Congressmen Tom McClintock and Reid Ribble have left the caucus recently....both over their mettling in the speakership, and Ribble explicitly because of the support of Webster.

So yea, even that 40 votes or so may be much softer than it seems.

And it should be mentioned, Webster is only a two term congressman, and has no legislation to his name. He's basically a blank slate without a record.....not really a great basis for growing support outside the tea party. |

Also likely worth noting, One of the major strikes against McCarthy, even before his candidacy exploded, was his relative inexperience in congress compared to other speakers. McCarthy was first elected in 2006.....6 years before Webster. So if McCarthy was inexperienced, what would Webster be?

Plus there is an additional problem, even if, somehow he won, Webster would be on track to have one of the shortest Speakerships in history.

See, a couple months back, Florida's electoral map got thrown out by the State Supreme Court's because some of the districts were illegally gerrymandered.

One of those happens to be Congressman Websters district. And we arnt talking a small change either. In both 2012 and 2014, Websters district was slightly more republican than democrat...to what was about a 4 point difference in favor of the GOP. But after the court ordered redrawing? that district is set to be leaning 18 points in favor of the Democratic.

That's basically insurmountable, no matter how the election goes nationally. And when the first two chapters of your story are "speaker resigns because he believes republicans are out of control" and "original replacement drops out of race at last second, causing massive chaos" you really dont want chapter 3 to be "incumbent speaker of the house defeated in landslide"....which is basically Websters future no matter the national outcomes.

So there is almost nothing to convince people to vote for Webster.....unless you like stories about the speaker that are embarrassing to the party (as the lose of his seat would be).


So where does that leave republicans? It actually leaves them with 3 possibilities of what to do:

Option 1: Keep John Boehner.

Boehner said he wont resign until a new speaker is named. So in theory if the GOP cant find anyone, just keep him around until the election next year.

Of course that would create the narrative the the GOP incapable of governing (a point dems are already ruining against them on), that they are actually incapable of deciding among themselves who should lead them and instead have to resort to forcing someone they ousted to stay in the job against their will.

Thats a horrible narrative to have leading into an election....and a horrible legacy for Joh Boehner personally.

Which brings us to Option 2: John Boehner says to hell with this shit, I want nothing more to do with this and resigns anyways.

There actually IS a contingency for this. Upon becoming speaker the speaker submits a list of names to the Clerk of the House of members to replace him. If the office of speaker becomes vacant, the first name on the list becomes temporary speaker.

Now while no one knows whos name is actually at the top of the list, the smart money says its Majority Leader McCarthy....you know the guy who just dropped out.

More to the point, the guy who just dropped out possibly due to a sex scandal.....a scandal that when it breaks (if true) would pretty much force him out office...likely in the next 3-6 months

Meaning we would get to replay this entire debacle for the GOP....with the added sex scandal fall out....right in the middle of the presidential election.

You what to know the number 1 way to fuck up the GOP's chances in that election. ^ thats it.

So yea, both of these options kinda suck for the Republicans....and its possible the only thing standing between them and even greater embarrassment is the patience of a man who no longer wants the job to stick around...and who could change his mind at any time.

Which brings up to our 3rd and final option. this one already floated by  GOP Representative Charlie Dent:

"We may need a bipartisan coalition to elect the next speaker, That's a very real possibility right now, and I think anybody who is honest about this knows it."

Thats right....option 3 is working with some democrats to elect a speaker.....

by the way, the Democrats, in the form of Minority Whip Steny Hoyer have actually responded to this:

"Clearly, with Pelosi's name on the ballot, she'll get the overwhelming majority of all Democrats, I'm sure. She's indicated that's what she wants to do. Republicans are going to have to decide on their side what they're going to do."
Translation: The Democrats have their candidate already...but is a show of magnanimity, they are willing to let Republicans vote for her as well if they want.

And is that likely to happen?

Well in a story that seems tangential at first, the Export-Import bank was reopened this week after being shut earlier this year by the GOP in the House refusing to fund it.

See Democrats forced a vote to refund it on the House Floor.....and it should be mentioned Democrats do not have the votes to do that on their own....they had help.

Specifically they had 41 republicans join them in this effort......that being 16% of Republicans.

Thats right, 16% of the GOP in the house broke ranks with the party to help the Democrats pass a bill.

By the way, the Democrats +16% of the GOP adds up to 229 votes. The threshold to elect a new speaker (assuming all members vote) is only 217.

Now just because a Republican was willing to reopen the Ex-Im bank doesnt mean they would be willing to vote for Nancy Pelosi for speaker.....but it would seem to suggest the Democrats have a very good base to start with, should they decide they need to peel off some republican votes....or even just to convince them not to vote at all (as the Speaker need only win the majority of votes case, not the majority of the House)
 
 So while I actually first floated the idea of Pelosi as speaker more as a theoretical exercise in what was legally possible....I may have actually been on to something after all.