Peter King on a Ted Cruz presidency: "I hope that day never comes. I will jump off that bridge when we come to it."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I really dislike Peter King -- the Rep. from NY, not so much the MMQB guy. Among other things, he's an avid supporter of terrorism (of the Irish kind) and an anti-Muslim bigot. (The other guy is a Roger Goodell apologist and mouthpiece for NFL speaking points, but also a good reporter despite some shallowness.)

But when he's right, he's right, and you have to give him credit when he is. Like, for example, about Ted Cruz:

Representative Peter King went on CNN to talk with Wolf Blitzer about Senator Ted Cruz's presidential announcement yesterday. His praise for his colleague was muted. Although Cruz "may be an intelligent person," King said, " ... he oversimplifies, he exaggerates ... he doesn't provide leadership and he has no real experience." He added, "To me, he's a guy with a big mouth and no results."

When asked to consider a future in which Cruz wins the nomination, King said, "I hope that day never comes. I will jump off that bridge when we come to it."

Of course, King is basically a northeastern conservative Republican, with views and an agenda very much in line with the party establishment that Cruz is so virulently opposed to, even if Cruz shares its views. Hence why King likes Chris Christie, Scott Walker, and Jeb Bush but not Cruz and Rand Paul, another thorn in the side of the GOP.

And of course King is also thinking of running for president himself, even if that seems unlikely and he wouldn't go far. (If a warmongering type gets in the race, it'll be someone like Lindsey Graham, not King, though most of the establishment, as well as Cruz, is pro-war, any war, all the time. Paul is one of the few exceptions among Republicans in this regard.)

So it's hardly surprising that he's taking aim at Cruz, who is widely despised among establishment Republicans.

But it sure is amusing. Welcome to the 2015-16 Republican Civil War.

Wednesday at the Democratic National Convention

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(photo)

(For my comments about Tuesday, see here.)

There were some great moments today, along with a bit of overblown controversy over "God" and Jerusalem, and some great speeches. Let's focus briefly on the most prominent ones of the evening:

-- Sandra Fluke. She's hardly a political pro, but that made her speech all the more remarkable. She spoke with confidence and conviction as one of the most prominent targets of the Republican war on women. Ann Romney says women should "wake up." Really? It seems to me that women are already awake to the Taliban Republicans who seek to control them. Just look what happened to Fluke, whom Dear Leader Rush called a slut simply for wanting to be able to make her own choices. The convention is dominated by politicians, of course, but sometimes you need to hear from the non-politicians to get a sense of the human implications of the ugliness and brutality of Republican ideology. And Fluke did an impressive job, to say the least.

-- Elizabeth Warren may not be the most dynamic figure ever to grace the national stage, but she's a powerful voice for liberalism, particularly when it comes to financial regulation. Her speech doesn't stand out the way Julian Castro's did last night, but it was nonetheless effective at drawing the clear distinctions between the two parties and the two presidential candidates. And hopefully it will give her a boost back home in Massachusetts, where she's in a tough race with incumbent Scott Brown, who alternately presents himself as a moderate or a right-wing hardliner depending on the audience to which he's sucking up. In stark contast, Warren is a woman of genuine principle, and that came through in abundance tonight.

-- How awesome is Bill Clinton? Seriously, what an amazing speech. It was long, and it meandered at times, occasionally feeling like one of his own State of the Union addresses, occasionally going into a bit too much detail perhaps, but he was as commanding as ever -- folksy and authoritative, persuasive and inspiring, funny and enlightening. If Michelle Obama spoke about Barack the man, the personality and character, Bill Clinton spoke about Barack the leader, the policies and politics, and he was just as much a champion of the president. (He's just wrapping up as I write this.) He held the room and those present, and those watching on TV, in his hand, speaking with compassion and respect, understanding and conviction, drawing the contrasts just like other speakers have done but also compellingly making the case for coming together -- because, as he said, we're all in this together, this historical quest for a more perfect union. A formidable man. A brilliant speech. 

Wolf Blitzer says it just might have been the best speech he's ever heard Clinton give. That's high praise.

And there he is, President Obama coming out on stage to greet President Clinton and to give a wave to the crowd. You knew it was coming, but it was stirring nonetheless, a prelude to tomorrow, when he will accept the nomination. The energy in the arena is palpable. I can feel it here, a long way away. (If only I was there. Alas.)

Paul Begala on Clinton's speech: substantive and riveting. Yes, that's it. He knows his stuff, for sure, and can speak so intelligently on so much, but he's also so engaging, so compelling, and, yes, he does it without talking down to anyone, and quite the reverse by lifting everyone up along with him (which of course is so unlike the Republicans, including Romney and Ryan, who are arrogant and dismissive and utterly contemptuous of anyone other than themselves and those just like them).

For all the tension that may have been there during the '08 Democratic primaries, there is a close and it would seem completely genuine connection between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. That was on full display tonight, and it was just what was needed as we head into the final day of the convention, and then into the last two months of the campaign.

Another great day for the Democrats.

(photo)

Romney prepares for Trump fundraiser, refuses to reject birtherism

By Michael J.W. Stickings

UPDATED BELOW.

Mitt Romney, as you may have heard, is attending a fundraiser in Las Vegas today with no less a shining light of the GOP than Donald Trump (as well as with another party star, Newt Gingrich). In anticipation of the event, Romney was asked about Trump's birtherism:

Mitt Romney said Monday he wasn't concerned about Donald Trump's commitment to the "birther" conspiracy, one day before the GOP presidential candidate hosts a fund-raiser alongside the celebrity business magnate.

Asked on his charter plane whether Trump's questioning of President Barack Obama's birthplace gave him pause, Romney simply said he was grateful for all his supporters.

"You know, I don't agree with all the people who support me and my guess is they don't all agree with everything I believe in," Romney said. "But I need to get 50.1% or more and I'm appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people."

(Actually, he doesn't need 50.1% or more, he needs 270 Electoral College votes. But perhaps we should excuse him this apparent lapse of understanding of the rules of American democracy?)

What a steaming pile of horseshit. (No disrespect to our equine friends.)

Romney isn't a birther and could easily have said he thinks (or preferably knows) Obama was born in the U.S., brushing off the question and moving on, but instead he saw an opportunity to pander shamelessly and, as usual, took it. And to whom was he pandering? Why, to the many, many Republicans who are on Trump's side on the whole birther nonsense. To all those "good people" on the crazy far right, which is more and more the Republican mainstream, whose support he needs in November.

But even if you don't think he was pandering to the right, his refusal to take a side was also typical of his tendency to flip and flop like a shameless opportunist, so unprincipled is he, so utterly soul-less, so desperate for votes, so fearful of pushing any prospective supporters away. (He may tout himself as a successful businessman, but there are countless indications he's a terrible leader.)

Anyway, enjoy the Romney-Trump-Gingrich spectacle today. For more, see my recent posts:

-- "The un-holy Republican triumvirate of 2012: Romney, Trump, Gingrich"; and

-- "George Will calls out Romney for campaigning with 'bloviating ignoramus' Donald Trump."

**********

UPDATE:

Even Wolf Blitzer thinks Trump is an idiot. 

But Trump isn't backing down: "I never really changed -- nothing's changed my mind."

And Romney is playing right along, still refusing to reject birtherism. His campaign even released his own birth certificate today. Which is just another way of playing the birther card.

Why should we respect politicians who don't answer the questions they are asked?

By Richard K. Barry

Among the many things wrong with how the media covers politics is the way they so often give up on fairly simple "yes or no" / "A or B" type questions when their first attempt to get a straight answer from a politician is batted aside.

Recently, CNN's Wolf Blitzer was interviewing Nikki Haley, the Republican Governor of South Carolina, about the current field of contenders for the GOP presidential nomination. One of the questions was about the "disagreement" between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry on whether or not climate change is man made.

As the Washington Post reports the divide:

Apparent front-runner Mitt Romney believes the world is getting warmer and that humans contribute to the pattern. Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Wednesday called that "a scientific theory that has not been proven."

Okay, Perry doesn't like science. He knows this view will appeal to a lot of idiots who also call themselves Republicans. I don't care.

But when Governor Haley was asked which side of this debate she came down on, she did what many politicians, of all stripes, do all too often. The way she answered was to say something like "what Americans really care about are jobs."

I know why she avoided the question. Giving a direct answer would have perhaps suggested support for either Romney or Perry, and she's not ready to go there. I don't even know if she has a stated opinion on the matter, which, if she did, would only make her answer more foolish.

It is well known that politicians are trained to say whatever they want to say no matter what question is asked. It even has a name. It's called "message discipline." I'm not sure, though, why any self-respecting journalist would embarrass himself by having a direct question ignored.

Think about how you'd feel if in the real world you asked someone what time it was and they answered by saying that it was supposed to rain this afternoon. Welcome to the world of politics.

Perversely, we even consider good message discipline to be the mark of a talented politician and the approach of answering questions too directly the sign of a political neophyte.

When Haley dodged the question, Blizter should have quickly said, "would you mind answering my question?" And then, every time she failed to answer, he should have stopped and respectfully asked that she try again.

I think we could even give this approach a name. It would be called "question discipline." Whenever a politician came on an interview program they would be told what to expect, that they answer direct questions or the interview would not move on.

I know some in the media already do this, but not nearly enough.

I also know I'm dreaming and that this will never happen, but our political discourse would be better if it did. And the only way it will ever change is if journalists start doing their jobs differently.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Bush's brain

By Creature

Karl Rove thinks the GOP's "repeal, replace and reform" strategy is an election winner. Karl Rove needs to have the same epiphany Wolf Blitzer had yesterday. Preaching to the same, vocal 38% who are against HCR will only get you the same, vocal 38% come November. Not that I'm complaining.

Screwing up the oath

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It was Chief Justice Roberts, not President Obama, who messed up the oath, flubbing his part. He put "faithfully" in the wrong place and said president "to," instead of "of," the United States.

Blitzer: "John Roberts had one job to do today and he sort of screwed up."

Yup.

Benen has more.

Dear Mr. Blitzer

By Capt. Fogg

If you would kindly stop "looking for the fingerprints of al Qaeda" and limit your wild speculations about who is doing this, we might have a better chance of understanding what is actually going on in Mumbai and taking you to be a serious journalist.

At this point there is no evidence that points more toward al Qaeda than toward the enemies of India, yet you go on and on and on trying to coerce an endless string of experts into backing up your obsessive conjecture while "Possible Al Qaeda connection" scrolls across the screen. It's quite possible that this is not primarily about us at all.

Please remember that it isn't terrorism unless we are terrified and your hysteria serves only to blow this incident up disproportionately. Were you screaming about the human tragedy while we were blowing the hell out of Baghdad? No, you were like an excited schoolboy asking "Is this the shockinaw? Are we in the shockinaw yet?" Your credibility with regard to the dramatic lament over lost American lives has long since been sullied.

When you have nothing to say, which is a good deal of the time, please shut up.

John McCain, impetuous child

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In case you missed it, McCain cancelled a scheduled appearance on CNN's Larry King Live last night because, according to Wolf Blitzer, his campaign thought that a recent Campbell Brown interview of McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds went "over the line." (You can watch the interview here.)

Was it McCain or was it his campaign? It doesn't matter. He's the nominee. He's responsible.

And what is clear is that when he doesn't get what he wants, he behaves like an impetuous child.

Seriously, this man shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office, let alone with his twitching finger on the button.