2016 Republican Presidential Clown Car Begins!

FOX News Party Values

​

There is, of course, a lot of chatter this morning about the Republican debacle in Cleveland last night; while Steve Benen's↱ notes are hardly definitive, he does raise a contrast worth considering. Early in the debate, moderator Bret Baier asked the candidates to raise their hands: "Who is unwilling tonight to pledge your support to the eventual nominee of the Republican party and pledge to not run an independent campaign against that person?"

Trump, who's repeatedly raised the prospect of a third-party campaign, raised his hand, drawing audience boos. He added, "If I'm the nominee, I will pledge I will not run as an independent," which was unintentionally funny, but didn't seem to impress anyone.

But notice what happened the next time Trump was in the spotlight. Fox's Megyn Kelly asked the candidate, "Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don't use a politician's filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women. You've called women you don't like 'fat pigs,' 'dogs,' 'slobs,' and 'disgusting animals.'"

Trump quickly interjected, "Only Rosie O'Donnell."

For many viewers, it was an ugly and offensive moment, but the audience that had booed Trump minutes earlier seemed to love it. Trump was back on track – the Caricature Candidate was putting on the show that has propelled him to the front of the pack, condemning "political correctness" and basking in the warm applause of entertained voters.

Going into the debate, one of the key questions was which Republican would try to take Trump down. The answer, oddly enough, was Fox News.​

The larger msnbc line seems to be pretty much what (ahem!) everyone is thinking, that FOX News doesn't just want to host the debates as a journalistic outlet, but, rather influence the nominating process as a political actor. Rachel Maddow gave most of her show last night to detailing the almost hilarously insidious mistreatment of the seven candidates at the so-called "kids table", and the truth is that it's really hard to reject that accusation without pretending FOX News knows nothing about either television production or politics.

But there is something more important than the internecine Republican fighting, and that would seem to be Republican voters. Donald Trump, ultimately, is the Bully Clown.

The emerging problem for the GOP is that Trump's candidacy reinforces the image of the GOP as a bully party; for all conservatives disdain being accused of racism and sexism and supremacism, these are apparently the reasons Republican voters are drawn to Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, one of the most newsworthy lines of the night came from the "kids' table", and has, predictably, been completely buried in this morning's coverage. Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-SC) performance last night was curious to say the least, but while most of the press is focused on his odd biographical appeal, that if you live through terrifying, dangerous circumstances for several years, someday you can say America is worth the wait. And that was his answer to the question of what he would tell a child whose father he is deporting. You know, removing from America. oddly subdued tone and diction, his best line all night was to challenge his fellow Republicans on warmongering:

One thing I want to be clear about tonight. If you're running for president of the United States and you don't understand that we need more American ground forces in Iraq and that America has to be part of a regional ground force that will go into Syria and destroy ISIL in Syria, then you're not ready to be commander in chief. And you're not serious about destroying ISIL.

(Sutton↱)​

Mr. Graham may be a weak candidate in market terms, but he struck true on that count. The thing is that it seems pretty obvious Republicans want a war, but the South Carolina senior is the only one who seems willing to come right out and say it. The Florida junior, Sen. Marco Rubio (R), has adopted a warmongering motto recalling PNAC, the Bush Doctrine, world domination, and the Iraq invasion; he skips intelligence briefings on various issues, most recently the P5+1 nonproliferation accord, in order to attend campaign events and denounce the lack of information coming from the Obama administration. But the one thing he seems unwilling to do is publicly acknowledge what he's after.

It is no mystery why Graham's truculent posture will play poorly with a war-weary electorate, and that reminds why other Republicans are afraid to be honest on this count. Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) wants a war with China↑; Jeb Bush has signaled his desire to rumble with Russia↱, though in classic political form, he also tried to say, "I'm not talking about being bellicose, but saying, 'here are the consequences of your actions'"↱. What consequences? Further sanctions? That an attack on one NATO member state is an attack against all NATO member states? At that point, yes, Mr. Bush is talking about warfare. "There are things we coud do given the scale of our military," Mr. Bush explained in Berlin two months ago, "to send a strong signal that we're on the side of Poland and the Baltics and the countries that truly feel threatened by the little green men and this new cyber warfare and these other tactics that Russia now is using."

This is a very important issue, and Mr. Graham, rhetorically speaking, has the initiative. But rhetorical logic generally doesn't apply in the electoral marketplace, and FOX News has managed to turn the GOP presidential contest into a farcical bazaar.

I would actually like to hear Mr. Graham's fellow Republican candidates, especially the frontrunners, answer his challenge. Either admit they're sending troops somewhere, or explain why the hawk from South Carolina is wrong.

And, really, a substantive foreign policy debate would offer better returns for the nation than a reality television pageant. Indeed, sensing the opportunity, former New York Governor George Pataki answered the bell:

Former New York Gov. George Pataki sought to distance himself from Graham, and noted that his two sons had served in the military – one in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan.

"I don't agree that we're going to occupy and spend another decade or a trillion dollars," Pataki said. "What we need to do is destroy their ability to attack us here over there, and then get out."​


Then again, he's George Pataki, and Republican voters aren't listening to him right now. They're too enamored with the Bully Clown and cheering misogyny. Or, you know, if you don't like that characterization, blame FOX News.

Correction, 9 August 2015: In the moment, it seems I overlapped two candidates; the odd biographical appeal came from former Sen. Rick Santorum; Sen. Graham's performance was more noteworthy for a strange appearance of lacking ... well ... as much as I loathe the word on these occasions, verve. My apologies; it really was a silly transposition.​
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "A debate literally and figuratively centered around Donald Trump". msnbc. 7 August 2015. msnbc.com. 7 August 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1DzdgTc

Sutton, Scott. "Lindsey Graham says he would 'monitor a mosque' to beat ISIS". The Sun Times. 6 August 2015. National.SunTimes.com. 7 August 2015. http://bit.ly/1TbcOwm

Martin, Michelle. "Putin is a 'bully,' U.S. needs to respond resolutely: Jeb Bush". Reuters. 10 June 2015. Reuters.com. 7 August 2015. http://reut.rs/1MSfeRD

Linzer, Dafna. "Bush tries to throw blame for Iraq on Obama but can't shake family legacy". msnbc. 6 August 2015. msnbc.com. 7 August 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1UrTEEZ
 
Last edited:
Good post, as usual.

Trump's 'offensive' remark wasn't, in my view. It was comedy gold!

Rosie O'Donnell is a fat pig.
lipstick.gif
And she seems to wallow in it.
 
Kind of an Obvious Question

​

"I don't want to ban any contraceptive efforts. Obviously, my faith has a teaching that governs me in my personal life on these issues. But I think our laws on those issues are different."​


Okay, I just need to ask this question for the record:

Really, Senator Rubio? Your religious faith governs your personal life regarding whether or not you would use an IUD?​

And, yes, it is, quite unfortunately, a fair question:

Rubio also defended his pro-life stance on the program, saying that he does not support abortion even in the cases of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, but that his primary goal is to reduce the total number of abortions.

"I'll support any legislation that reduces the number of abortions," Rubio said. "And there are those that have that exception [for rape or incest]. What I've never done is said I require that it must have or not have exceptions."

"I recognize that in order to have consensus on laws that limit the number of abortions, a lot of people want to see those exceptions. And that's why I've supported those laws in the past, as has every pro-life group in America."

Rubio also said that he does not support measures to ban emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices (IUD), which some anti-abortion groups contend cause abortions.

"I don't want to ban any contraceptive efforts," Rubio said. "Obviously, my faith has a teaching that governs me in my personal life on these issues. But I think our laws on those issues are different."

(Richardson↱)​

Look, can you just explain this to me, Mr. Rubio? Please? Okay, if your religious faith said it was okay for you, personally, to use an IUD, just what would you do with it?
____________________

Notes:

Richardson, Bradford. "Rubio vows to end Iran agreement if elected". The Hill. 9 August 2015. TheHill.com. 9 August 2015. http://bit.ly/1f2NaME
 
The Republican Party appears to be fracturing under the weight of extremism. We have a Republican candidate attacking Fox News. If Fox News strikes out at Trump again, it's probably over for the party's 2016 aspirations.
 
Joe, help me wrap my head around what should be a crazy idea, please.

Okay ... so ... first of all, let us please recall the weird phenomenon in 2012 when Republicans decided the polls were skewed. And that one guy decided to correct the polls by arbitrarily skewing the results.

And, you know, we talked some back then about epistemic closure, and in the strangest turn of events, it emerged that Team Romney was "shellshocked" by the loss, and didn't know they were losing until they had lost. And, you know, it's hard to understand how you can play at this level and be so clueless. That poll-skewing thing, it turned out, was really, really important. After all, if the nationals don't read like the internals, it must be that the firms who invest themselves in accuracy are wrong, and your yes-men are right. To the other, say what we will about the Legends Football League, but it's still a coaching job, right?

Next, I would ask you to imagine that perhaps Mr. Trump continues to ride the polls, all the way to the year's end.

And then he loses New Hampshire.

Comes in, say, fourth. Bush and Walker up top, and, you know, Huckabee's presently behind them, so why not, right?

Is it possible we could see a Republican poll-skewing argument in early 2016?

I mean, I get it. At first blush, you know, give it a rest, how could that possibly happen?

Except ... why does this not seem impossible?
 
Americans' need more than two political parties to be truly a free diplomatic country. You people do know this right ? I mean really do know this , right ?

As a Canadian on the outside looking in.
 
joepistole said:
The Republican Party appears to be fracturing under the weight of extremism. We have a Republican candidate attacking Fox News. If Fox News strikes out at Trump again, it's probably over for the party's 2016 aspirations.
Click to expand...
I think it is interesting that the tea party favourites are saying nothing during the Trump fiasco. Perhaps they are hedging their bets and hoping that if they do not criticise the voter's darling at this point in time as he sets himself on fire and dances down the main road of stupidity and insanity, that those voters may turn back to them. Or perhaps they are staying silent in the hope that Trump does not give their private phone numbers out as he has done with Graham.

Trump's numbers are solid, regardless of what or how right wing news media are trying to play it down. He actually has supporters. Read through the comment section on right wing news sites, even crappy sites like The Blaze, and you see comments from people about how they are switching from Cruz to Trump, because Cruz is not saying what they want to hear, the racist, right wing and misogynistic messages. These are the people the Republicans have been courting for so long and now they have come home to roost and roost in a big way. Their pandering has come back to bite them.

The party may fracture and perhaps this may force a purge of the party of its extremist right.

In the meantime, the candidates sweat it out and hope like hell he does something catastrophic. But I think they have courted and encouraged so much extremism that they have lost all control over the situation.
 
Bells said:
I think it is interesting that the tea party favourites are saying nothing during the Trump fiasco. Perhaps they are hedging their bets and hoping that if they do not criticise the voter's darling at this point in time as he sets himself on fire and dances down the main road of stupidity and insanity, that those voters may turn back to them. Or perhaps they are staying silent in the hope that Trump does not give their private phone numbers out as he has done with Graham.
Trump's numbers are solid, regardless of what or how right wing news media are trying to play it down. He actually has supporters. Read through the comment section on right wing news sites, even crappy sites like The Blaze, and you see comments from people about how they are switching from Cruz to Trump, because Cruz is not saying what they want to hear, the racist, right wing and misogynistic messages. These are the people the Republicans have been courting for so long and now they have come home to roost and roost in a big way. Their pandering has come back to bite them.
The party may fracture and perhaps this may force a purge of the party of its extremist right.
In the meantime, the candidates sweat it out and hope like hell he does something catastrophic. But I think they have courted and encouraged so much extremism that they have lost all control over the situation.
Click to expand...
Trump much popularity is rooted in the millions who listen daily to Republican talk radio and as long as Republican talk radio remains in his corner, Trump is safe as the Republican nominee because Republican talk radio is the heart and soul of the Republican Party. And yeah, they are out of control, they have been for some time. What is good for radio ratings, ignorance, demagoguery, etc. isn't good for the nation. [/QUOTE]
Trump’s numbers have been solid and they are likely to remain solid. As I have said before, though pundits and senior Republicans have written Trump off as a flash in the pan, I think Trump will likely be the Republican nominee if he doesn’t’ leave the party and mount a 3rd party campaign.

Over the years Republican leaders have promised much and delivered little to their devotees, in no small part because Republican leaders and entertainers have been promising measures which would destroy the nation if they were ever adopted, and no sane well-informed person would ever adopt them. But it has brought Republicans voters. So now the cows have come home and it would very well rip the party into shreds and that would be a good thing for party, for the nation, and for the world. As I have said before the Republican Party in its current incarnation is a real and present threat to the nation and to the world. Republican Party leaders have felt they could use unlimited demagoguery to their political advantage and still maintain control, well they can’t. The folks who brought Hitler to power thought the same thing and just as they were wrong, the current Republican leadership is wrong. There is a price for Republican extremism and I think Republican leaders are about to pay it.

Republican leaders and entertainers are facing a credibility deficit. Base Republicans were told they would win, they lost. They were told if Obama’s economic measures would fail. They haven’t. They were told if Obama was reelected, the economy would tank within days and the country would be mired in a deep depression. It didn’t and it hasn’t. They were told Obamacare would destroy the economy, they wouldn’t be able to get healthcare, and healthcare prices would soar. None of that has happened. Yeah, Republican officials and entertainers have lost credibility. And that has created an opportunity for Trump which Trump is exploiting. Republican leaders and entertainers, the leaders of the Republican Party, have lost control.

If the feud between Fox News and Trump festers, it won’t be good for the Republican Party’s electoral prospects even with all their voter suppression efforts, but it will be a very good thing for the nation and the world at large. These base Republicans think causing an intentional and unnecessary debt default would be a good thing because Republican entertainers and some Republican officials (e.g. Cruz, Bachman, et al) told them so. Bachman even went so far as to tell Republicans we could default but not default. They should ask the Greeks or the Argentinians how well default worked out for them. That’s crazy, but that is what base Republicans believe. Crazy is as crazy does and the Republican Party is crazy.
 
Last edited:
joepistole said:
Trump much popularity is rooted in the millions who listen daily to Republican talk radio and as long as Republican talk radio remains in his corner, Trump is safe as the Republican nominee because Republican talk radio is the heart and soul of the Republican Party. And yeah, they are out of control, they have been for some time. What is good for radio ratings, ignorance, demagoguery, etc. isn't good for the nation.
Click to expand...
There was a good article in the Daily Beast, about this very subject, although they were focusing on Fox News and who it pandered to..

Okay, so as I write these words, someone could be about to release a post-debate poll showing exactly what establishment Washington, which now apparently includes even Fox News (!), yearns to see a poll show—that Donald Trump has tumbled, and that the new leaders in the GOP field are the comparatively sober Jeb Bush and John Kasich, along with maybe Carly Fiorina, since everybody seems to be swooning over her now. Maybe it’ll happen.

But what in fact did happen is that we got this NBC News-Survey Monkey pollshowing Trump still ahead and Ted Cruz and Ben Carson vaulting into second and third place, respectively. It’s an online poll, and I know we’re supposed to question its methodology (which the pollsters explain here, if you’re interested). So I’m not going to sit here and swear by it. But on Monday, two other post-debate polls came along showing that Trump is still going strong. So the results are interesting enough, and they track closely enough with other anecdotal evidence that’s made its way to my inbox, that it’s certainly worth asking: What if Trump is still clobbering the rest of the GOP field?

If he is, we’re at a very interesting politico-cultural moment: The moment when, to a sizeable portion of the GOP electorate, Fox News stopped being their warrior and instead became just another arm of the lamestream media. If that’s true, everything we’ve known and assumed about our political divide is now moot, and we’re flying totally blind. The Republican Party has unleashed furies it can no longer remotely control.

First, here are the numbers, if you haven’t seen them. Post-poll, Trump went to 23 percent, according to NBC. That’s actually a gain of one statistically insignificant point, but reflect on this: He gained that point even though poll respondents said by a huge margin that he lost the debate (29 percent called him the loser; next closest was Rand Paul at 14 percent). Ted Cruz gained seven points, going from 6 to 13 percent. Ben Carson gained three points, moving from 8 to 11 percent. Marco Rubio stayed flat at 8 percent, and Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, the other “first-tier” candidates, finished in the cellar, losing three points each.

So add it up. The Tasmanian Devil candidate who’s obviously tapping into deep right-wing anti-establishment anger and the two other most extreme candidates combine for 47 percent. The two who in my view you can reasonably call quasi- or comparatively moderate, Kasich and Bush, combine to hit 9 percent.​

That's some pretty scary numbers for conservatives, or the more moderate and sane conservatives. It also explains Cruz silence on Trump and his antics to date. After all, these are the voters he is also trying to tap into.

As Tomasky points out, Fox News, and I agree with you about conservative radio as well, have literally created this.

The second thing we’re to make of this is that Fox and the Republican Party have created this new reality. When you spend years nodding and winking and yuk-yuking about the President’s birth certificate, how can you be surprised when the guy who has repeatedly demanded to see it turns out to be really popular with your base? You promote a politics that attacks women not merely for having abortions but for wanting to use contraception, and then you’re shocked, shocked when your hard-shell voting base turns out not to be overly offended by remarks like Trump’s?

The Republican Party and Fox permitted and encouraged this kind of vitriol for years. Now it threatens to overtake them. If they’re wondering who created Trumpism, I have someplace they can look. The mirror.​

This is the fruit of their labour.

When you look at the conservative shill who are wetting their pants in excitement because he's "the real deal". Shoots straight from the mouth and is telling them exactly what they want to hear. This is what they have fostered in their voting base. And those chickens have come home to roost and the ugliness that is the base of that party is now out in the open.
 
I guess the black horn rimmed glasses aren't working for Perry. He isn't paying his campaign staff.
 
Dr. Carson, Republican POTUS candidate and brain trust, didn't know the Baltic states are NATO members. That's pretty significant given Putin's misbehavior. Carson thought Greenspan was Treasury Secretary. And this is their smartest person? That's downright scary. Carson doesn't know squat about foreign affairs, business, or economics, but he like his fellow Republicans won't let their ignorance get in the way of their ideological beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Fiorina! (The Rightward Charge)

​

It is true few have given much attention to Carly Fiorina since she launched her presidential campaign.

Yeah, really. She's running for president.

I haven't even bothered to give her a clown name; stuff all the obvious ones, though, and let's try to not focus on the fact that she's the only woman in the GOP race.

I know, it can be hard. But she doesn't get to be the Girl Clown, Woman Clown, Ugly Clown, Horseface Clown, Bitch Clown, C-Word Clown, or even Clowness von Clown. And, yes, Titty Clown is simply out.

Corporate Clown is too easy and common.

And, you know, I think Ms. Fiorina is aware of the trouble. Having won much poll support and public attention by her debate performance, the former tech exec has decided to look for some traction in regions further to the right.

A week after her breakout debate performance, Republican presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina is drawing bigger crowds, more buzz and greater scrutiny – most recently on vaccinations ....

.... On Thursday night, Fiorina told another Iowa crowd that she supported parents who didn't want to vaccinate their children (adding that she also supported public school's right to deny those kids education).

"When in doubt, it is always the parents' choice," Fiorina said – expressing a view roundly rejected among public health experts.

(Timm↱)​

I know: How about the "Pestilent Clown"?

And of course, there is always Steve Benen↱ to offer analysis:

Remember, Fiorina has already seen two high-profile GOP rivals – Chris Christie and Rand Paul – run into trouble with the same answer to the same question, but she managed to drive directly into the same ditch.

Today, she also made the case against the existence of the federal minimum wage, and soon after, suggested climate change is about "ideology, it is not about science."

Ordinarily, when one increasingly popular candidate, over the course of a few days, makes bizarre, right-wing comments about vaccinations, the minimum wage, and climate change, it'd be a huge problem for her campaign's future. But in August 2015, it's just par for the course.

Indeed, consider the race for the Republican nomination in context. Mike Huckabee is thinking about dispatching U.S. troops to block women from exercising their reproductive rights and forcing 11-year-old girls to take a pregnancy caused by a rapist to term. Jeb Bush wants to "phase out" Medicare. Marco Rubio thinks it's scientifically significant that fertilized human eggs don't become cats.

Rick Perry wants guns in movie theaters. Scott Walker isn't altogether sure President Obama is a Christian. Rand Paul is playing with chainsaws. Chris Christie wants to punch school teachers in the face.

Ted Cruz not only sees the White House as "the world's leading state sponsor and financier of radical Islamic terrorism," he's also cooking bacon with a machine gun – which isn't actually a machine gun, though Cruz doesn't know the difference.​

When I was young, there was a really weird standard in American society by which we were to actually respect our political leaders to some degree. To wit, it was not proper to talk about the criminality of the Reagan White House; that aides and staffers were lying, committing crimes, and getting caught simply means they are honest people doing good work the best they can, and how dare you disparage the president, and so on. That all changed when Clinton was elected, and even Rush Limbaugh, these days, runs to hide from his contribution to the descent.

This transformation seems to be driven by two basic needs. First is a needful accommodation for the Republican disability denigrating their faculties for general decency. But perhaps more important is, in fact, a market dynamic that has made this sort of political indignity profitable. It is easiest to explain the American abdication of the Fourth Estate as a market result.

Meanwhile, we see the result, and it often seems quite difficult to imagine what that obsolete pretense of dignfied respect actually looked and sounded like.

Carly Fiorina is but another reminder of why so many people think politicians are mere excrement.
____________________

Notes:

Timm, Jane C. "Carly Fiorina rides post-debate wave of popularity". msnbc. 16 August 2015. msnbc.com. 17 August 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1N7S61K

Benen, Steve. "Far-right Fiorina comments drive home GOP troubles". msnbc. 17 August 2015. msnbc.com. 17 August 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1UPrIuG
 
Birther Bug Bites

​

Here come the Birthers, again.

Steve Benen↱ explains:

We tend not to hear much from the “birther” activists anymore. For a while, these right-wing critics were obsessed with President Obama’s birthplace, ignoring all evidence in order to turn a ridiculous conspiracy theory into a cottage industry.

But with the president already thinking about his post-White House plans, and the 2016 election season underway, even the most unhinged conservatives no longer see much of a point in focusing on Obama’s origins. They’re just not going to force him from office.

And while it’s tempting to think the entire strain of nonsense is behind us, TPM reports that this may be wishful thinking. The birther “movement” has effectively surrendered in its crusade against President Obama, but what about some of his would-be successors?​

Indeed, as Catherine Thompson↱ reported yesterday for Talking Points Memo:

In a column published last week on the conspiracy theory website WND, author Jack Cashill noted that questions had been raised about whether four of the 17 candidates in the GOP field were really "natural born citizens" and therefore eligible to run for President.

Ted Cruz has already dealt with those questions publicly -- the Canadian-born senator from Texas renounced his citizenship with that country last summer in anticipation of a 2016 bid -- but Cashill also listed Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) among those who were suspect.

He even mentioned that Jindal's preferring to go by the name Bobby -- inspired by "The Brady Bunch" -- instead of his given name, Piyush, would make for interesting evidence in a court case focused on his eligibility to run for commander-in-chief.​


It is also worth reminding that this is a period in which Republican presidential candidates are also infatuated with amending the U.S. Constitution in order to eliminate birthright citizenship.

And while the subsequent interview with Mr. Cashill is entertaining and even a bit enlightening, he also reveals that he cannot distinguish basic differences in rhetoric and circumstance.

Democrats and their supporters would be wise to sit back and enjoy the show. After all, the Clown Car itself apparently isn't entertaining enough, so now we get a Birther sideshow.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "The next generation of birthers?" msnbc. 18 August 2015. msnbc.com. 18 August 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1K4qNmW

Thompson, Catherine. "Birthers Say These 4 GOP Candidates May Be Ineligible To Be President". Talking Points Memo. 17 August 2015. TalkingPointsMemo.com. 18 August 2015. http://bit.ly/1PkZ2pN
 
Well, let's see. Taken to it's logical conclusion - at least by the 'Publican core - any of these candidates with a drop of furriner blood should be disqualified. From both presidential aspirations and a place to live.

In fact, if they're not careful, they will be in a situation where they pretend to promote legislation aimed at outlawing themselves - anchor babies and all...
 
(Insert Sexist Title Here)

​

Sorry, I just can't help myself, because something about the phrase, "Hot girl on girl bullshit!" makes me laugh like a stoner in a nitrous tank.

Er ... never mind.

Carly Fiorina, ladies and gentlemen. The Pestilent Clown has drawn the ire of Lady Lightbulb.

Maybe we should just check in with Nick Kim Sexton↱ of NBC News:

A 14-year-old speech given by GOP presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina is now under sharp focus by her fellow conservatives and an outraged chorus on social media, claiming — in accusatory fashion that the former Hewlett-Packard CEO was "praising Muslims" in her September 2001 remarks.

On September 26, 2001, Fiorina addressed her employees, expressing her concern over the safety of their HP colleagues, "who are of Middle Eastern descent or who practice the Muslim religion here in the US and abroad."

In the two weeks before her speech, approximately 11 hate crimes had been perpetrated against Muslim, South Asian, and Arab Americans, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. One day after Fiorina's speech, someone left a note reading "We're going to kill all (expletive) Arabs" on a Yemeni-American man's car windshield in Reedley, California. Two days later, he was shot to death.

In her speech, Fiorina lauded the contributions of ancient Islamic civilization to modern American society, saying that the "gifts [of Muslim civilizations] are very much a part of our heritage."​

Michelle Bachmann tweeted, "Carly Fiorina delivered this speech in MPLS praising Muslims 2 weeks after 911", and the predictable Republican hell broke loose.

Conservative commentator Bethany Blankley, who penned the take-down, wrote that Fiorina's comments, "evidence her exceptional ineptitude or blatant, galling, willful deceit."

"Perhaps she should move to Saudi Arabia where women are prohibited from driving; or Iran, where women are prohibited from working," she wrote. Blankley ends her piece by writing that the speech "reveals that Carly has been flying on a mystical magical carpet to nowhere for years." The American Thinker accused Fiorina of "romanticizing the old Islamic caliphate."​

And so it goes.

While we are often tempted to consider the glass ceiling, and what it might mean for Ms. Fiorina, we should also recognize the possibility that she will crash into a tinfoil floor. That is to say, in this incredible race to the bottom, Republicans might not make it far enough down the checklist to hold her penis deficiency syndrome against her.
____________________

Notes:

Kim Sexton, Nick. "GOP Hopeful Carly Fiorina Under Fire For 'Praising Muslims'". NBC News. 18 August 2015. NBCNews.com. 18 August 2015. http://nbcnews.to/1TTvEIw
 
Trump is now beating Rubio and Baby Bush II in their home state! Wow, not that's is something!
 
Baby Bush II must be feeling some pressure. I wonder how much he and his special interest buddies are spending now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top