If Republicans Don’t Get Answers, Democrats Will in 2019

Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin is, like myself and other one time Republicans such as David Frum, Joe Scarborough, Michael Smerconish, and a host of others notable now decidedly in the former Republican column.  The stench of the Trump/Pence regime was just too much for them to stomach.  Rubin has joined the chorus calling for Democrats to get to the bottom of the Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations in 2019 when they will likely regain control the House of Representatives should Republicans rubber stamp Kavanaugh's nomination regardless of what testimony Christine Blasey Ford may offer later this week.  Indeed, Lindsey Graham, a/k/a the Palmetto Queen, has already announced that nothing she can say will convince him to alter his vote.  Of course, the question is whether Graham truly believes this or he is reacting to behind the scenes blackmail threats which once again shows the dangers of closeted Republican elected officials who will sell out principal and decency rather than be "outed."  Sadly, none of the Republicans rushing to confirm Kavanaugh give a rat's ass about the damage that may be done to the Court's legitimacy not to mention the damage to be done if Democrat backed investigations prove reall wrongdoing.  Here are excerpts from Rubin's latest column: 

Whether or not Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh gets confirmed to the Supreme Court, there will be plenty of serious questions about the confirmation process that require answers. Assuming Kavanaugh appears at a hearing this week, Democrats can interrogate him. Moreover, all of this could be reviewed next year if Democrats win the majority in either house of Congress (and claim the subpoena power). Democrats may be keen to focus on the apparent skullduggery that transpired. If the inquiry takes place next year, conservative lawyer Ed Whelan, Mark Judge and any other witnesses who should have participated in the process may be called. There is plenty to look into.

The questions will include:

·         Who came up with the mistaken-identity scheme?
·         Who was aware of it?
·         Did someone in the White House approve it?
·         Did anyone in the White House or who played any part in the confirmation process discuss the mistaken identity hooey with Kavanaugh?
·         Did Kavanaugh know about, condone and/or agree to the plot to blame someone else for the attack on Christine Blasey Ford?
·         Did anyone in the White House have any concrete evidence someone else was the attacker?
·         Who knew of the intention to falsely identify a classmate of Kavanaugh’s as the perpetrator?
·         Did CRC (Creative Response Concepts), the public relations firm or another third party act as a go-between for Ed Whelan and the White House or staff for the Judiciary Committee?
·         In days and days of “prep” at the White House with Kavanaugh, did anyone discuss the “blame someone else” gambit?
·         Did anyone in the White House, connected to the Senate Judiciary Committee or involved in the confirmation process contact Mark Judge, an alleged witness to the attack, according to Ford?
·         Did anyone suggest he not come forward to discuss his recollections?

Findings of wrongdoing in the confirmation process itself, if serious enough, are grist for impeachment or professional sanctions. (Only one other Supreme Court justice was impeached, Samuel Chase. He escaped removal in 1805.) There may be other crimes (e.g., witness intimidation, obstruction of justice) committed by third parties or Republicans inside the confirmation process. There may be Senate or White House staff whose conduct warrants their termination.

Moreover, what if under oath next year Mark Judge, or someone else, claims Kavanaugh was the perpetrator of the alleged attack, or that they drank to such excess it’s very possible the incident occurred even if they don’t (or choose not to) remember it? What if Ford files charges with Maryland law enforcement who then proceed to investigate a sitting Supreme Court Justice.

If this sounds far-fetched, it is because Republicans took the unbelievable step of pressing forward with a nominee against whom there was a credible claim of sexual assault and decided not to conduct a thorough investigation. What is truly far-fetched is putting Kavanaugh on the court with witnesses out there who haven’t been interviewed and potential avenues to investigate. . . . . This is a recipe for chaos.

All of this points to the damage that may be done to the Supreme Court if Kavanaugh is seated through a rushed, incomplete and biased process. The potential for wrongdoing to be uncovered after Kavanaugh gets on the bench (either relating to the original alleged incident or to the confirmation process addressing Ford’s claim) is real. The injury to the court’s legitimacy would be substantial, and the embarrassment to the partisan hit-men involved in this cockamamie scheme would not be insignificant.

Trump, Sanders Projected Winners Of New Hampshire Primary

The New York Daily News (see above) sums up the New Hampshire GOP primary results as follows per Talking Point Memo:

The front page of the New York Daily News' Wednesday issue featured Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wearing clown makeup alongside a horde of "brain dead" zombies the newspaper suggested had voted for him in the New Hampshire primary.

Perhaps on the bright side, John Kasich - in my view, the only have sane GOP candidate - finished second on the GOP side and empty suit/pandering whore Marco Rubio seemingly will find homself in 5th place.  Here's more from Talking Points Memo on the GOP results: 

Trump's anti-Islamic and tough-on-Mexico rhetoric has had staying power and catapulted him ahead of a wildly divided establishment-lane race, where establishment candidates like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie have each been betting a good showing in New Hampshire would let them break through.

The order of finish after Trump was expected to be tight and not known potentially for several hours.
Even after a disappointing second place finish in Iowa, Trump's win in New Hampshire puts him back in the the driver's seat as the race moves to South Carolina and then the Southern-focused Super Tuesday elections.

Many view Trump as a liability for the party with his off-the-cuff pontificating and policies to bar any Muslims from entering the country.

The major question for Trump is if he can keep up his lead as he heads into the South Carolina primary where Cruz is expected to resonate with evangelical voters like he did in Iowa. Cruz has also been spending quite a bit of time down south in anticipation of Super Tuesday.

As for the Democrat contest, Think Progress has these details:

Young people, independents, women, rural voters, and gun owners came out in droves to vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in the New Hampshire presidential primary on Tuesday, driving the self-proclaimed Democratic socialist to a wide-margin victory over his opponent Hillary Clinton.

In fact, almost every demographic group — men, women, first-time voters, past voters, non-gun owners, middle-income people, low-income people — gave a majority of their support to Sanders, according to the New York Times. According to the Times, Sanders only lost to Clinton among voters 65 and older, and voters in families earning over $200,000 per year.

I remember being young and idealistic politically, but as much as Sanders holds positions that are attractive, the real issues are, (i) can he win in November, and (ii) if, elected, could he deliver what he has been promising?  I continue to feel in my gut that the answer to both questions is no.  If that is the case, why give the White House to the GOP? 

Tina Fey Reminds Us of Sarah Palin's [and the GOP's] Idiocy

For those who missed it, Tina Fey returned to Saturday Night Liver last night to reprise role as idiot of the North, Sarah Palin.  The only positive part of Palin's return to media coverage is the unleashing of Fey to remind us of the abject stupidity and idiocy of Palin and her followers.  Hollywood Life described it as follows:

Sarah Palin made a huge splash in the media this week, after endorsing Donald Trump. That’s not all. She also got up on stage and delivered one of the wackiest and absurd speeches we’ve ever heard. Seriously, it was comedic gold — and Tina knew that. Right off the bat, Tina had us laughing so hard. “She’s fun, she says whatever she wants!”

Why Iran Wants a Nuclear Arms Deal

Across the GOP, climate deniers avoid a serious discussion on the issue by saying "I'm not a scientist" or similar bullshit.  Yet when it comes to nuclear arms, the same know nothing crowd suddenly pretends to be experts that know more than the experts.  They also seem clueless on the issue of why Iran may want an arms deal that has nothing to do with what GOP demagogues shriek about.   An op-ed in the Washington Post by dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University looks at the larger picture that the anti-Obama Republicans deliberately ignore.  Here are column excerpts:

Opponents of the nuclear agreement with Iran see it as a license for Tehran to wreak havoc in the region. Freed from economic pressure and flush with financial resources, the thinking goes, Iran can be expected to unleash its emboldened minions upon Israel and Arab states and undermine U.S. interests. However, contrary to what the critics say, the nuclear deal is far more likely to curb Iran’s regional ambition. It is rather the instability that would follow the failure of the deal that should worry them. 

Iran spent $15 billion on its military last year. By comparison, Saudi Arabia spent $80 billion, and the five other states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) spent another $35 billion. The Arab countries most worried about Iranian mischief outspent Iran by a margin of 8 to 1. Iran does not have an air force, and its ground forces and navy lag technologically behind its rivals. The nuclear deal will only widen this gap.
The deal does relieve economic pressure on Iran, but not enough to change the balance of power in the region. Secretary of State John F. Kerry has estimated that after Iran has paid its creditors, the financial windfall resulting from the deal would be no more than $50 billion to $60 billion, a good portion of which will have to go to Iran’s domestic needs.

In the past, Iran has compensated for its deficit in conventional military spending by deploying a network of armed militias trained, financed and managed by its Revolutionary Guards. . . . This end run around the regional military balance is sustainable if protected by a nuclear umbrella. As with Pakistan’s use of the same strategy against India, asymmetric provocation works only if there is deterrence against costly retaliation. Without it, Iranian provocations would invite repetitions of Israeli retaliatory operations in South Lebanon and Gaza or Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.
By signing the nuclear deal, Iran has given up that nuclear umbrella for as long as two decades and made the case for the United States to further strengthen the conventional military capacities of Israel and the GCC. Contrary to what opponents say, the nuclear agreement has weakened Iran and strengthened its regional rivals.

So why did Iran sign on to a deal that will undermine its regional strategy? The obvious answer is that economic sanctions forced Iran to choose between political stability at home and hegemony over the region. On that score, then, the nuclear deal has in one swoop ended Iran’s nuclear threat and hobbled its regional agenda.

But equally important is that Iran’s main regional worry has become the so-called Islamic State. The extremist Sunni force has emerged as an anti-Shiite and anti-Iranian juggernaut that now controls vast territory in Iraq and Syria and is a growing presence in Afghanistan.
Iran has been fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and it could be doing the same in Afghanistan before long. This could be a long war, and that reality has forced Iran to rethink its strategic calculus. Confronting the Islamic State requires not a nuclear umbrella but a reduction of tensions with the international community and greater economic resources. The threat of the Islamic State, more so than any promise of hegemony over the region, was likely a decisive factor in Iran’s decision to sign away the nuclear cover for its regional strategy.

Opponents of the nuclear deal imagine a scenario in which the deal could be scuttled, leaving Iran further isolated and under more economic sanctions and its regional capacity diminished — even as it continues to lead the fight against the Islamic State. That is unlikely. Rather, Iran could respond to the collapse of the deal by doubling down on its nuclear program while increasing regional tensions and also passing a greater burden of fighting the Islamic State to Washington and its allies.  

Torpedoing the nuclear deal would not be simply a reset to where things stood before talks started in 2013, and it would not play to the United States’ advantage. To the contrary, the United States would be confronted with the task of managing the challenge of an Iran using a newly acquired nuclear umbrella to establish its imprint on the region, while having to stop the Islamic State from establishing control over the Levant on its own. That’s what should worry the United States and its allies.  

Texas Governor Rick Perry Will Not Seek Reelection

Rick Perry - long rumored to be a closet case - has announced that he will not seek re-election.  Perry most recently made headlines by personally attacking the Texas Senator Wendy Davis who filibustered a proposed draconian amendment to Texas' abortion laws.  Perry, Ken Cuccinelli and, of course Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker epitomize the insanity that has become the norm among most Republican governors and would be governors.  If the nation is lucky, Perry will not make another run for president in 2016.   His decision to not seek reelection will hopefully set the stage for someone sane to win the governor's mansion.  The Washington Post looks at Perry's announcement.  Here are excerpts:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), the longest-serving governor in the state’s history, announced here Monday that he will not seek reelection in 2014 amid speculation that he will run again for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

“I remain excited about the future and the challenges ahead but the time has come to pass on the mantle of leadership,” Perry told an audience at a heavy equipment company in San Antonio. “Today I am announcing I will not seek reelection as governor of Texas.”



Even before Perry made his announcement, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) had made no secret of his desire to run for governor. With Perry’s decision, he will be able to move ahead..

Perry’s announcement came as a special session of the Texas legislature continued work in Austin on a bill to restrict abortions. A similar measure died during a special session last month after an 11-hour filibuster by state Sen. Wendy Davis (D) and as a chorus of demonstrators chanted from the galleries as time in the session expired.

His most embarrassing moment came at a [presidential] debate in Michigan when he faltered as he tried to remember the three agencies of government that he had pledged to eliminate if elected. “Oops,” he said apologetically when he finally acknowledged that he couldn’t remember the third..

The “oops” moment was an exclamation point that came to define his candidacy, though his fate was sealed earlier at a debate in Florida when he described opponents of a Texas plan to grant in-state tuition to children of illegal immigrants as “heartless.” He never recovered from that episode, though he remained in the race for another two months.

Though Perry was silent on the question of 2016, his advisers were peppered with questions from reporters after the event and did nothing to tamp down talk that he is already pointing toward another campaign.  

I'm sorry, but Perry is an idiot.  But, idiocy is the main character of today's GOP base.

Delusional Jeb Bush Claims There is No Negative Bush Baggage for 2016 Run

The saying used to be that of the Bush brothers, Jeb Bush was the smart brother and George W. was - well we all fond out what the Chimperator was and "smart" wasn't one of the descriptions that appropriately attached to him.  Cretin, religious nut case on a crusade, war criminal, etc., etc., yes, but never ever smart.  Now, Jeb Bush is proving that perhaps he is just as stupid as his brother after all.  How?  He is claiming that should he run for president in 2016, he will not be hobbled by any negative baggage from his brother's disastrous regime.  Never mind that current a number of presidential historians are ranking George W. Bush as one of the worse presidents in the history of the country.  And never mind that the Chimperator knowingly took America to war in Iraq on false pretenses and  outright lies.  Raw Story looks at Jeb Bush's incredible denail of reality.  Here are highlights:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) is insisting that his famous family name will not hurt him at all if he decides to run for president in 2016.

Fox News host Chris Wallace pointed out to Bush on Sunday that his brother, George W. Bush, had been “somewhat unpopular” when he left office in 2009.

“Do you think there is any Bush baggage?” Wallace wondered. “Do you think that would be a problem?”

“No,” the former Florida governor replied. “I don’t think there’s any Bush baggage at all. I love my brother, I’m proud of his accomplishments, I love my dad, I am proud to be a Bush.”

“And if I run for president, it’s not because of something in my DNA that compels me to do it. It would be that it’s the right thing to do for my family, that the conditions are right and that I have something to offer.”

According to a 2009 CBS News/New York Times poll, former president George W. Bush left office with an approval rating of 22 percent, the lowest approval since the Gallup began asking the question 70 years earlier.

Given Jeb Bush's apparent total detachment from objective reality, he is obviously the perfect candidate for a party out of touch with reality and a majority of the American electorate.