2016 Republican Presidential Clown Car Begins!

Frothy Clown Froths Over State Department

​

If we held some sort of contest to find the most insanely stupid thing former U.S. Senator and current Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum ever said, it might be over before it begins, because the Frothy Clown appears to have set a new standard for himself:

Rick Santorum said Thursday that, as president, he would abolish the State Department.

Santorum made the comment in an interview with radio host Glenn Beck, who told the former senator from Pennsylvania that he was hoping to hear the party's 2016 contenders call for everyone at the State Department to be fired.

"I have said that," Santorum replied. "I said that when I ran four years ago — the first thing I'd do is abolish the State Department and start all over."

Pressed by Beck about the practicalities of firing the entire State Department, Santorum responded with a critique of the department's single-minded focus on international diplomacy.

"It's like, if all the tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail," Santorum said. "Every problem that the State Department has, the answer is diplomacy. Why? Because if it's not diplomacy, they don't have a job ...."

(Ben-Meir↱)​

And he goes on.

To the one, sure, Mr. Santorum is not generally included among those the discourse describes as "serious" candidates, and with poll numbers like his there might seem every incentive to say some spectacular stuff, but neither has that worked for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, once breathing down Jeb Bush's neck at the top of the polls, who now finds himself at one percent in the latest national polling.

Even still, this is among the greatest Santorum spatters ever, and might well stand unrivaled.

No, really, would anybody like to take a stab at how the Pennsylvania Tantrum's logic works on this one? How, exactly, does one rebuild the diplomatic arm of a government without the diplomatic function?

Ladies and Gentlemen, your 2016 Republican Presidential Clown Car.
____________________

Notes:

Ben-Meir, Ilan. "Rick Santorum Says He Would Abolish The State Department And Start All Over". BuzzFeed. 18 September 2015. BuzzFeed.com. 21 September 2015. http://bzfd.it/1itdCRE
 
Well it appears Koch brother wonderkind ,Scott Walker, is dropping out of the race. A few months ago this Koch brother lackey was Koch's great white hope, the man who was going to deliver the White House to the Kochs just as Baby Bush did 15 years ago.

Walker is getting .5% of the vote. If you are a Koch that has to hurt. But the Kochs are not out. They still have Baby Bush 2.0, Carson and Forina in their pockets.

It will be interesting to see if Trump can survive the Koch brother advertising tsunami alligned against him.
 
Last edited:
Cowardly Badger Bailing

​

Steve Benen's↱ take isn't what I might call inaccurate; if anything, it's hard to pack enough detail into these three points:

So what in the world happened?

1. Donald Trump happened. Walker saw himself as the principal rival and credible alternative to Jeb Bush and the party establishment, but over the summer, those looking for an anti-establishment alternative turned instead to a reality-show host and retired right-wing neurosurgeon.

2. The wrong resume at the wrong time. Walker brought an impressive c.v. to the Republican base: a career in public service, a record of electoral successes in a "blue" state, and a series of far-right accomplishments. On paper, that sounded like a recipe for success. In practice, the same GOP voters Walker reached out to were the same voters who decided they preferred someone in the White House who has no background whatsoever in elected office.

3. Walker was a genuinely awful campaigner. Perhaps the first sign of trouble was when Walker said union-busting in Wisconsin prepared him for national security challenges against ISIS. There was also all the borderline-creepy rhetoric about Reagan, whose record Walker didn’t seem to understand at all. For months, there was one incident after another in which the governor seemed wholly unprepared for the rigors of a national campaign. It was often hard to watch.

(Benen↱)​

The summary talking point to throw in there is that, "The governor was the wrong man at the wrong time with the wrong message." And to a large degree, it might well be points two and three that made that first so devastating. There was a day or two along the way when Walker was pitching to donors and surrogates that he would clean up Trump voters after the inevitable collapse. In the meantime, Ben Carson emerged and picked off Gov. Walker's social conservative bloc. That's another story, entirely, as Dr. Carson seems simply unprepared in his own right. It still looks like Jeb Bush just needs to hold on until he can have a serious contest with Gov. John Kasich and Carly Fiorina, and maybe Sen. Rand Paul will hang on long enough to provide the sideshow.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Scott Walker, from hero to zero in record time, quits 2016 race". msnbc. 21 September 2015. msnbc.com. 21 September 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1Fq3942
 
The Quotable Version

​

I encourage passing this version around. It's way too fun a quote.

Then again, how long can Rick Santorum really last? Is he trying to dark horse an advocacy campaign?

Source photo by Eric Gay (n.d.).
 
And the Trump war on Fox News continues....you gotta love it. Who would have "thunk" it? Trump is boycotting Fox News. I'm amazed. Up until now almost all Republican presidential candidates have been Fox News sycophants and employees or former employees. What are the implications? Will Trump win or will Fox News win?
 
Last edited:
joepistole said:
This is very good news for the US. Will Jeb Bush be next?
Click to expand...

I sure hope so. I detest Jeb B more than any of the candidates if for nothing than his unwavering 100% support of the disastrous presidency of his Big Brother which only means if elected we can expect GWB Term III.
 
douwd20 said:
I sure hope so. I detest Jeb B more than any of the candidates if for nothing than his unwavering 100% support of the disastrous presidency of his Big Brother which only means if elected we can expect GWB Term III.
Click to expand...
If you take Jeb's words as truthful, and there are no reasons not to, one can only conclude Jeb would become a GWB III if elected.
 
Fiornia stiffed her campaign staffers, including the family of her dead campaign manager and vendors to the tune of half million dollars. Keep in mind Fiornia is suppose to be worth 59 million dollars - mostly dollars HP paid her to leave HP. I wish someone would have paid me 50 million dollars to leave. A month before her campaign ended Fiornia's campaign manager died and she expressed sympathy for his family. But that didn't keep Fiornia from stiffing his family and not paying his family the 30 thousand dollars owed to them. That's pretty damn low.

"But records show there was something that Fiorina did not offer his widow: Shumate’s last paycheck, for at least $30,000. It was one of more than 30 invoices, totaling about $500,000, that the multimillionaire didn’t settle — even as Fiorina reimbursed herself nearly $1.3 million she lent the campaign. She finally cleared most of the balance in January, a few months before announcing her run for president."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...wed-over-small-businesses-after-2010-campaign
 
Last edited:
All That

​

"It's not unusual in an election cycle for national candidates to pick some fights. Usually, though, candidates are strategic about the confrontations, taking on primary rivals, the other party, occasionally a critical news outlet, etc.​

"Leave it to Mike Huckabee, however, to start a feud with a bag of chips."

​

A note to the 2016 GOP Clown Car: Stop setting up the punch lines.

Yes, really.

Mike Huckabee has chosen to complain about an anti-bullying endeavor.

And it leads to lines like this:

Huckabee has urged Frito-Lay to distance itself from the It Gets Better Project – the former governor is particularly outraged by sex columnist Dan Savage's role in the project – and according to Time's article, he also "called on Christians to boycott all snacks made by the company."​

Just at face value, Huckabee's priorities seem odd. When a candidate for the nation's highest office is outraged by bags of snacks, it's probably time for a shift in focus.​

There is, however, an actual substantive question to consider. Mr. Huckabee, when it was Chick-Fil-A's turn under the boycott spotlight, called such notions "economic terrorism" and said he would not take part in such behavior.

And a bag of rainbow-colored, terribly-flavored tortilla chips is enough to make him go back on his word.

Which in itself is nothing special; successful politicians do have a chameleon-like metaphor about them. But Mr. Huckabee is also a former Southern Baptist Convention pastor, and nearly ran the whole Arkansas convention except for the man who presently runs the whole show; Rev. Dr. Ronnie Floyd once defeated Mr. Huckabee in an election to head the Arkansas SBC. And this is important; Mr. Huckabee's yea and nay are suddenly complicated, to say the least.

And in this context he is emblematic of a challenge plaguing evangelical conservative politics. Religion is one thing, and Christianity is as Christianity does, but at some point all this ad hoc religion takes its toll. People invent their own religion and if they call it Christian the only question of its merit seems to be what other Christians think it empowers. And as evangelical conservatives careen and carom from one public demonstration of piety for the sake of being seen by others to the next, it is true enough that they find their earthly rewards; we ought not wonder that Mr. Huckabee should rush to be seen with Kim Davis↱.

But let us pause for a moment to review the basic political optics: Mike Huckabee is calling for a boycott of Frito-Lay in protest against an anti-bullying endeavor.

How about this: Mike Huckabee just picked a fight with rainbow-colored tortilla chips, and he's going to lose.

No, really.

Hello?

He's running for president. Does he not have anyone on his team capable of stopping him for his own good?
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Huckabee picks a fight with a bag of chips". msnbc. 6 October 2015. msnbc.com. 6 October 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1FUCYT7
 
Carson has a long history of economic and fiscal ignorance. Today he added to that history when he demonstrated during a CNN interview he didn't know the difference between the budget and the debt ceiling and needed the interviewer to explain it to him.

His ignorance is so bad Republican talk radio has been excusing it by saying the really important thing is Carson's blind adherence to party ideology.

Unfortunately for Republicans knowledge and reason do matter for the person who holds the highest office in the land. We saw how well outsourcing of the presidency worked for Baby Bush. It cost the nation thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. We don't need another Baby Bush in the White House.
 
Last edited:
joepistole said:
Carson has a long history of economic and fiscal ignorance. Today he added to that history when he demonstrated during a CNN interview he didn't know the difference between the budget and the debt ceiling and needed the interviewer to explain it to him. ...
Click to expand...
I find the now bold part of that report by you impossible to believe.

Carlson often speaks of need to reduce government spending / decrease the budget and he thinks doing that will eliminate any need for a debt ceiling, but not before it needs to be raised once again in a couple of months (as the necessary cuts to the budget can not be so quickly made).

He has observed that the debt ceiling is meaningless if it is just raised every time it is approached. He has said that the budget needs to be lowered so this silly meaningless game can end. Clearly he knows the budget is not the debt ceiling.
 
Last edited:
Billy T said:
I find the now bold part of that report by you impossible to believe.

Carlson often speaks of need to reduce government spending / decrease the budget and he thinks doing that will eliminate any need for a debt ceiling, but not before it needs to be raised once again in a couple of months (as the necessary cuts to the budget can not be so quickly made).

He has observed that the debt ceiling is meaningless if it is just raised every time it is approached. He has said that the budget needs to be lowered so this silly meaningless game can end. Clearly he knows the budget is not the debt ceiling.
Click to expand...
Carson explains his stances
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/politics/ben-carson-debt-ceiling-marketplace/index.html

The interviewer had to explain to Carson several times the difference between the budget and the debt ceiling. Of course none of that matters to the dittohead crowd. To them only blind adherence to party dogma matters. Most of his followers, most Republicans don't know the difference either.

:)
 
Last edited:
joepistole said:
Carson explains his stances
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/politics/ben-carson-debt-ceiling-marketplace/index.html

The interviewer had to explain to Carson several times the difference between the budget and the debt ceiling. ...
Click to expand...
No he did not. I watched that interview in full. Carlson was pressed hard, as good interviewer should do. Several times, Carlson did not directly reply (He is learning how to be a politician.) In the case in point, here is their exchange (from your link):
" Asked several times if the ceiling should be raised, Carson said he would "not sign an increased budget."

That does not show any confusion between the debt ceiling and the budget - It is simply shows that Carlson has learned how to skirt questions, he does not want to directly answer, without openly refusing to answer. All politicians do this, and from my observations, Carlson less often than most.

BTW I am not defending Carlson - just the truth. I would not vote for Carlson, mainly as his moral convections are too strong and rigid for me. Yes, Planned Parenthood does sell fetal tissue parts, at a loss. That is much better than throwing them in a trash can, even if only used for research.

For the poor, PP is an important educational source, and their free condoms prevent huge cost to the tax payers. The dollars given to PP are among the most cost effective the US spends. Carlson is smart enough to know this, but his morals over-ride his economics on this case. He would defund PP if he could.
 
Last edited:
Billy T said:
No he did not.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes he did.

Billy T said:
I watched that interview in full. Carlson was pressed hard, as good interviewer should do. Several times, Carlson did not directly reply (He is learning how to be a politician.) In the case in point, here is their exchange (from your link):
" Asked several times if the ceiling should be raised, Carson said he would "not sign an increased budget."
Click to expand...

Carson what asked several times if he would raise the debt ceiling. And every time he was asked, he responded by saying he would not sign a budget increase and in doing so equated the debt ceiling increase with the budget. And Carson's error was repeatedly explained to Carson by the interviewer and Carson persisted in equating the debt ceiling with the budget...oops.

Billy T said:
That does not show any confusion between the debt ceiling and the budget - It is simply shows that Carlson has learned how to skirt questions, he does not want to directly answer, without openly refusing to answer. All politicians do this, and from my observations, Carlson less often than most.
Click to expand...

Oh yes it does. As much as that troubles you, it does.

Billy T said:
BTW I am not defending Carlson - just the truth. I would not vote for Carlson, mainly as his moral convections are too strong and rigid for me. Yes, Planned Parenthood does sell fetal tissue parts, at a loss. That is much better than throwing them in a trash can, even if only used for research.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you are not defending him, but you are just defending him. There are other ways of evading a question without leaving other to conclude you don't know the difference between the debt ceiling and the budget. The interviewer clearly thought it necessary to explain the difference between the debt ceiling and the budgeting process. He did it on multiple occasions, and this isn't the first time Carson has not known things he clearly should know as a presidential candidate. He didn't know the Baltic States were NATO members. He didn't know the difference between the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury. He thought long-time Fed Chairman Greenspan was US Treasury Secretary...oops. All of these oops moments have caused Republican talk radio to come to his aide. Republican entertainer, talk show and TV host addressed Carson's ignorance on his radio program by saying knowledge of these things wasn't important because as POTUS Carson would have access to all the best experts and all Carson needed to do was filter expert opinion through his ideological beliefs and all would be well. As I said before we saw how well that worked out for Baby Bush. It cost the nation thousands of lives and permanently disabled many more and cost the nation trillions of dollars and resulted in decades of geopolitical instability.

"Ben Carson Has No Grasp of the Federal Budget

Like many a candidate before him, Ben Carson thinks the federal government would be more effective if it ran "like a business," which in his mind would mean applying some corporate management techniques, like Lean Six Sigma, to make it more efficient. Unlike most candidates, he seems to think this will eliminate the government's deficit. Asked how he plans to balance the federal budget, as he has said he would like to, Carson explains:

What I would do is first of all, allow the government to shrink by attrition. Don't replace the people who are retiring, thousands of them each year. And No. 2: Take every departmental head, or sub-department head and tell them, "I want a 3 to 4 percent reduction." Now anybody who tells me there's not 3 to 4 percent fat in virtually everything that we do is fibbing to themselves." - Slate.com

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox..._nothing_about_government_or_the_economy.html

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/ben-carson-and-the-learning-curve-candidate

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/ben...n_theocrat_gets_wrong_about_the_constitution/
 
Last edited:
Racism as a Republican Virtue

​

There are a couple things here. First up is Mike Huckabee↱ himself.

I trust @BernieSanders with my tax dollars like I trust a North Korean chef with my labrador! #DemDebate​

The first thing we need to get out of the way is that it really must be deliberate; the obvious reaction has been a slew of reminders about the time his son sadistically killed a dog. And that's the thing; who couldn't see that retort coming?

There is a larger issue, though, that when we stop to think about the leaders of the pack, the standout clowns among the conservative performance, are a reality television show and the main competition for any Republican running a "family values" platform, and both are seemingly rewarded in polls every time they say something ghastly. Why not give it a try? In that context we come back to the stupidity of the attempt; not only was it a lame stereotype, Huckabee family values have insanely ironic exposure with this particular punch line.

But the question of the marketplace really is puzzling. In a cycle so fecund with family values Republicans that a frontrunner has already tumbled out of the race, we might expect a certain amount of hyperbole. But Mr. Huckabee is formerly a preacher, and of such respect that the only election he ever lost was to head the Arkansas Baptist Convention; the man who beat him now runs the whole Southern Baptist Convention―if you absolutely must lose, lose to a champion.

Dr. Carson has exploited his medical celebrity over the years peddling books in churches. Personally, his candidacy looks nearly inevitable in retrospect; shortly after I heard of him for his tantrum at the National Prayer Breakfast, I heard of him again from my daughter's maternal grandfather, who gave me a copy of Gifted Hands he got at church. The FOX News contract? I don't know, maybe I would have guessed Senate. Maybe.

But the guy is a supremacist.

Mike Huckabee is a supremacist.

What is it about church community and supremacism among Republicans?

Or, perhaps, what is it about supremacism among Republicans? That's the thing. To the one, hatred and American conservative politics are long bedfellows, and when we roll in some good ol' fashioned American Christian humility, it really is a queer result.

It's one thing that paranoid conspiracy theories sell in the GOP. Carson's latest tinfoil about Putin and Khamenei↱? Sure, why not? The GOP is also happy home to Jade Helm, Birtherism, and the War on Christmas.

But the supremacism?

With the upstart phenom running second, why wouldn't a natural-born hatemonger like Mr. Huckabee want in on the action? Registering just over two and a half points on average in the polling, he has nearly nowhere to go but up.

And this is a problem. While many of our conservative neighbors disdain the association with racism, what are the rest of us supposed to think? It's in the presidential races; it comes up in the state and local races. It's been all over our ballots.

How is it that the way to get ahead among conservative voters is to play as a paranoid hatemonger?

Meanwhile, I would remind that the rest of us are gasping, anyway. Trump will crash; Carson will crash. The Rubio buzz is getting stronger, and Kasich is falling off. If other presumed headliners don't get a spark, and trust me, Christie's not getting a spark, well, okay, the idea a couple weeks ago was that if Rubio could hit the heart of the primary season in a strong fourth place, he could really unbalance the (ahem!) "serious candidates". As it is, if Trump and Carson both tumble as our abiding faith in reality suggests they eventually must, the Florida freshman would be part of that top tier. And the idea of that fourth slot? Rand Paul wants that. So does Mike Huckabee. Gov. Kasich's unbelievably awful campaign opens a line for Huckabee, at least.

So why not?

Why not throw down some cheap, half-witted racism?

Right now, it's what Republicans reward.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Ben Carson just can't help himself". msnbc. 12 October 2015. msnbc.com. 13 October 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1G95ssy

Huckabee, Mike. "I trust Bernie Sanders with my tax dollars like I trust a North Korean chef with a labrador!" Twitter. 13 October 2015. Twitter.com. 13 October 2015. http://bit.ly/1NbZc30
 
The clown car and its Republican base are not happy with the questions Republicans are being asked at the debates. It's absolutely fine to malign Hillary, but ask them legitimate questions about their positions and past, well that's a horse of an entirely different color. What is very clear, Republicans don't like the free press.

If these Republicans want to be the big boy in the White House, they need to be able to deal with the press and be able to answer questions. Whining because you were asked a difficult question my play well with the Republican base. But it will not play well with Americans at large. It will not play well with Democrats and more importantly it will not play well with the independents any candidate needs to win the oval office.

"Both the liberals and conservatives chattering after the Republican debate on CNBC Wednesday night agree on one thing: CNBC did a terrible job running the debate. Liberals are angry because the moderators didn’t correct the astounding number of flagrant lies told by the candidates, nor did they do a very good job at cracking skulls when the candidates violated the rules. Conservatives are mad because, in their opinion, the moderators didn’t ask substantive questions."

The difference between the liberal complaint and the conservative one is that the conservative one is steaming nonsense. If you look at the actual record, it’s clear that what Republicans are really objecting to is that CNBC didn’t give the candidates a tongue bath. The “media bias” gambit is, as it has always been, an attempt by conservatives to shut substantive discourse down, not to encourage it.
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/29/cnbc_did_ask_substantive_questions_thats_why_republicans_are_mad/

"There is a troubling pattern emerging at the CNBC debate. When any Republican candidate is asked a serious question that they can’t answer, they scream media bias and crumble into a puddle of tears.

Ted Cruz was asked if his opposition to the budget deal was not the kind of problem solver Americans want.

Cruz answered:

Let me just say something at the outset. The questions that have been asked at this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media. This is not a cage match, and you look at the questions. 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 contrast with the Democratic debate where every fawning question from the media was which of you is more handsome and wise.


When Rubio was asked about calls for him to resign because he missing so many Senate votes, the “Senator” from Florida attacked the media:


It’s actually evidence of the bias that exists in the American media today…This is another example of the double standard that exists in this country between the mainstream media and the conservative media.

When Republicans get asked a tough question, it is media bias. Rubio was asked why he missed votes, and it is media bias. Ben Carson and Donald Trump were asked why their numbers on their tax plans don’t add up, and Republicans scream media bias. Ted Cruz is asked if bipartisan compromise shows that he is not the kind of leader that America is looking for, and he yells media bias.

The CNBC debate has exposed the fact that the Republican presidential candidates can’t handle tough questions. This is a Charmin soft bunch of candidates who can’t function outside of the Fox bubble. CNBC’s debate has highlighted the emptiness of the Republican Party."

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10...e-scream-media-bias-asked-hard-questions.html

Unfortunately, the Republican answer to difficult questions is and has been to attack the person asking it, and equally disturbing, it works with the so called conservative base.
 
Republicans have never liked the mainstream media. But it became very apparent during the Republican debates this week when Republicans candidates attacked the questioners. As a result, the Republican Party has cancelled one future debate and they may cancel more. Traditionally, reporters question candidates. Going forward that may no longer be the case for Republicans. Cruz said only Republicans can question Republican candidates. Today there was discussion in Republican circles that only Republican entertainers should be allowed to question Republican candidates. Hannity, Levin, and Limbaugh would toss Republican presidential candidates softballs all day long. Republican primary candidates would never have to worry about receiving a difficult question. It would be a Republican echo chamber on steroids.

It's fine to ask Hillary about her emails and all sorts of difficult questions in order to smear her name and character but God knows you can't do that to a Republican candidate. I think God has a rule on that. The truth is Republicans are being very hypocritical and more than a little childish. But unfortunately, none of that is new.

If Republicans only want to be asked softball questions and want to have staged and scripted debates, I say go for it. It will hasten the decline of the Republican Party. They won't get the best candidate for the general election. They will get the weakest candidate who will get his or her butt kicked in the general election. Because those difficult questions which were not asked in the primary election debates will be asked in the general election debates.

I think it kind of funny and sad, actually more sad than funny. What makes these Republican candidates think that if they can't handle tough questioning as candidates they will be able to handle tough questions as POTUS? The tough questions don't go away. Handling tough questions is part of the job description.

"When you look at the big picture, the pattern emerges: Republicans are angry at CNBC for daring to challenge their candidates. The fact that Republican voters eat it up when candidates act victimized by journalists daring to ask them questions shouldn’t really be surprising. Republican voters want Republican candidates to win elections. When the focus is on the issues, Democrats tend to do better than Republicans.

Every question of substance puts their preferred candidates in very real danger of losing votes. So Republican voters exert pressure on journalists to quit asking substantive questions. This has been the point of the “media bias” whine since it was first expressed by a conservative in the Paleolithic era, and it will be the point of the claim until the sun explodes and burns our planet up. No amount of hand-waving about how the candidates wish they could talk about the issues will change that." http://www.salon.com/2015/10/29/cnbc_did_ask_substantive_questions_thats_why_republicans_are_mad/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top