Trump is Now Questioning Pence's Loyalty

The New York Times is reporting that the ever more paranoid Donald Trump is now questioning Mike Pence's loyalty.  For once, Trump's paranoia might be well placed.  Pence accepted Trump's invitation for the VP slot for two reasons: (i) it allowed him to avoid running for re-election as governor of Indiana and likely losing, and (ii) it furthered his obsession/delusion that god had plans for him to one day be president. Trump in turn wanted Pence to solidify support among white evangelicals to whom Trump was promising the moon.  It was an arrangement of convenience and with evangelicals having sold their souls and rejected any semblance of Christian values and rallied to Trump's standard, Trump no longer needs Pence and probably rightly suspects the hypocrisy filled, self-promoting  Pence wants Trump driven from office so he can conveniently step into the position he has long coveted and would be only too willing to stab Trump in the back. These two foul individuals deserve each other.  Here are article excerpts: 

Trump’s post-midterm election news conference at the White House last week took a surprising turn when a reporter asked about locking down his 2020 ticket.

“Mike, will you be my running mate?” Mr. Trump asked Vice President Pence, who stood up, raised his hand, and nodded.

“Will you? Thank you. O.K., good,” the president said. “That was unexpected, but I feel very fine.”

But in private Mr. Trump is apparently not feeling so fine. In recent weeks, with his electoral prospects two years from now much on his mind, Mr. Trump has focused on the person who has most publicly tethered his fortunes to him. In one conversation after another he has asked aides and advisers a pointed question: Is Mike Pence loyal?

Mr. Trump has repeated the question so many times that he has alarmed some of his advisers. The president has not openly suggested dropping Mr. Pence from the ticket and picking another running mate, but the advisers say those kinds of questions usually indicate that he has grown irritated with someone.

[S]ome Trump advisers, primarily outside the White House, have suggested to him that while Mr. Pence remains loyal, he may have used up his utility. These advisers argue that Mr. Trump has forged his own relationship with evangelical voters, and that what he might benefit from more is a running mate who could help him with female voters, who disapprove of him in large numbers.

Others close to the president believe that asking about Mr. Pence’s loyalty is a proxy for asking about whether the vice president’s chief of staff, Nick Ayers, is trustworthy.

Trump has never completely forgotten that during the 2016 campaign Mr. Pence issued a disapproving statement the day after the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape was made public, on which the president was heard making comments boasting about grabbing women’s genitals. Trump has kept close counsel about whether he is seriously considering making a change to the ticket, or simply poll-testing advisers as the campaign begins. And few advisers believe he would really go through with it. In recent weeks, Mr. Pence has stepped into public frays to defend the president, saying that “everyone has their own style” when asked if Mr. Trump’s fiery political and personal language have led to violent acts, including the mass shooting at a Jewish synagogue and bomb threats mailed to prominent Democratic figures. Some of Mr. Trump’s outside advisers have mentioned Nikki R. Haley, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, a post she plans to leave at the end of the year, and former governor of South Carolina, as a potential running mate. Ms. Haley is close with Mr. Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Mr. Trump gave her an unusually warm send-off in the Oval Office when she announced she was leaving the United Nations job in September.

And Ms. Haley on the ticket might help Mr. Trump win back the support of women, who voted for Democratic candidates in large numbers in the midterm elections.

But Ms. Haley is less likely to show the same kind of public loyalty as Mr. Pence, a former congressman and governor of Indiana. She recently poked fun at Mr. Trump in a speech at the annual Al Smith Dinner in New York City, where politicians historically make jokes at the expense of themselves and their supporters. And that was after her original speech was toned down, and some of the barbs at Mr. Trump removed, people familiar with the address said.

Trump and Pence are both despicable.  One can only hope that they BOTH go down in the Russiagate investigation. 

Trump in Puerto Rico - The Race-Baiter As Kindly Monarch

It is no secret to regular readers that I view Donald Trump as an exceedingly foul human being.  Ultimately, he seemingly cares about no one other than himself.  But then, we were warned long ago that Trump is a malignant narcissist.  His supporters, who thankfully represent a minority in America, failed to heed this warning and/or were so swept up by his race-baiting that they simply did not care. Trump's visit to hurricane devastated Puerto Rico represented yet another display of Trump's self-centered world.  Rather than truly focus on American citizens in dire need, the trip largely became yet another scene for Trump to laud himself and denigrate his detractors even when those detractors were 100% correct in their criticism.  Sadly, Trump is little better than a petulant monarch of old who expects no complaints from the rabble who in his mind should be happy for whatever scraps he might throw their way.  That evangelical Christians remain his most stalwart supporters speaks volumes about the foulness that has taken over a large segment of Christianity.  A piece in New York Magazine looks at the spectacle of Trump in Puerto Rico.  Here are excerpts:

The aftermath of Hurricane Maria has inspired President Trump to say a number of weird, creepy, and resentful things. In this way, of course, it is not a completely unique event. But the particular creepiness of Trump’s utterances has revealed something more profound about his worldview than previous events have managed to draw out of him.

Trump’s view of the role of government has always diverged from standard-issue Republican dogma. (This is one of the reasons he defeated the 17 standard-issue Republicans who opposed him in the primary.) That dogma was recently articulated by Wisconsin Republican senator Ron Johnson, who recently told an audience he does not see access to medical care, or any material human need, as a basic right. “I think it’s probably more of a privilege,” Johnson said. “Do you consider food a right? Do you consider clothing a right? Do you consider shelter a right? What we have as rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have the right to freedom. Past that point, everything else is a limited resource that we have to use our opportunities given to us so that we can afford those things.” . . . . The role of the state is to provide open markets, and if you fail to earn enough for food, clothing, or a roof over your head, that is your own fault.

Puerto Rico’s disaster has made Trump think about the role of the state in furnishing basic survival goods. He quickly adopted positions far to the right of even the most hardened libertarian ideologue. Trump assailed “ingrates” who “want everything to be done for them when it should be a community effort.” How could people possibly take personal responsibility when they lack access to electricity, drinking water, and even their own money? He mused that Puerto Rico is “throwing our budget out of whack,” a strange complaint from a man who frequently calls for the “the biggest tax cut we’ve ever had.”

The Trump who complained about lazy Puerto Ricans who needed to pick themselves up by their bootstraps rather than drain the Treasury was the familiar race-baiter. But there was also another dynamic on display: Trump’s habit of personalizing every case to an almost pathological degree. What set off the president was less the formal position of Puerto Rican politicians and their constituents (that they needed help to recover from a natural catastrophe) than the fact that they complained about it.

Trump views his powers as president in near-absolute terms. “I will give you everything,” he promised during the campaign. “I will give you what you’ve been looking for for 50 years. I’m the only one.” In this sense, Trump occupies the opposite end of the ideological spectrum from the small-government conservatism of his party. He imagines himself as a monarch, dispensing favors to grateful subjects and punishing the ungrateful. He has promised to give the people “everything,” but if he sees them expecting to be given “everything,” he will rage at them.

When Puerto Rican officials grasped the dynamic, and dutifully praised their commander-in-chief for his attentive and not-at-all-incompetent handling of the disaster, it set the stage for Trump to flip from scornful race-baiting autarch to generous favor-dispensing autarch.

“I am your redeemer. It is by my hand you will rise from the ashes of this world!” is not something Trump would say — but only because the language is too elegant to have come out of his mouth. The sentiment is perfectly his own. The subject who gives Trump his gratitude will have everything. And the unappreciative one will have nothing.

Trump Visits Flood-Ravaged Texas and Keeps the Focus on Himself

One of the attributes of a malignant narcissist is their inability to show empathy with others or to ever cease focusing on themselves.  These sociopathic behaviors were on open display as the ever self-obsessed Donald Trump visited parts of Texas yesterday.  Rather than display any true compassion for the suffering, Trump used the trip to preen and inflate his already insufferable ego.  Watching some of the video, I could only question whether the man has a heart at all.  Yet this is the man evangelical Christians have embraced and continue to support, thereby displaying their own moral bankruptcy.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at Trump's disgusting behavior.  Here are excerpts:

As rescuers continued their exhausting and heartbreaking work in southeastern Texas on Tuesday afternoon, as the rain continued to fall and a reservoir near Houston spilled over, President Trump grabbed a microphone to address hundreds of supporters who had gathered outside a firehouse near Corpus Christi and were chanting: “USA! USA! USA!”

‘Thank you, everybody,” the president said, sporting one of the white “USA” caps that are being sold on his campaign website for $40. “I just want to say: We love you. You are special. . . . What a crowd. What a turnout.”

Trump managed to turn attention on himself. His responses to the devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey have been more focused on the power of the storm and his administration’s response than on the millions of Texans whose lives have been dramatically altered by the floodwaters.

He has talked favorably about the higher television ratings that come with hurricane coverage, predicted that he will soon be congratulating himself and used 16 exclamation points in 22 often breathless tweets about the storm. But as of late Tuesday afternoon, the president had yet to mention those killed, call on other Americans to help or directly encourage donations to relief organizations.

By focusing on the historic epicness of the hurricane, Trump has repeatedly turned attention to his role in confronting the disaster — a message reinforced by comments and tweets praising members of his administration. While Trump’s top aides gathered with Vice President Pence at the White House over the weekend, Trump videoconferenced in. On Saturday, he wore a white campaign hat. On Sunday, he opted for a red version. As of Tuesday evening, both hats — which feature “USA” on the front, “45” on a side and “Trump” in the back — were being sold on Trump’s campaign website, prompting ethics watchdogs to accuse the president of trying to profit off the crisis. The president’s comments, which lasted mere minutes, angered many of those who served in President Barack Obama’s administration and could not imagine their former boss ever acting like this.

“It’s not a time for crowing about crowds,” said Alyssa Mastromonaco, a former deputy chief of staff of operations for Obama. “This weather event isn’t even over yet. They have no idea the damage that’s been incurred and how many people will need a place to live when this is over. It’s catastrophic, not epic.”

With his wife at his side, he sounded as if he were addressing a political rally instead of a state struggling to start to recover — but it was a tone that matched the screaming crowd. Some there carried pro-Trump signs and flags.

I'm sorry, but Trump's avid supporters are just as morally bankrupt as he is.  They remind me of 1930's and 1940's Germans who cheered Hitler no matter what he said or did.  Utterly, disgusting!!

Christofascists Find a New Enemy: Other Christians

For those of us who are gay, we have grown accustomed over the years of being public enemy number 1 in the minds and propaganda of the Christofascists.  We see ourselves repeatedly described as child molesters, perverts, and even akin to Nazis.  Indeed, there is almost nothing that we haven't been accused of as the "godly folk" have fought tooth and claw to keep us inferior under the law.  Despite these efforts, the Christofascists lost the marriage equality battle and are now seeking scape goats on whom blame can be cast rather than looking at their own role in (i) driving away 34% of the Millennials from organized religion entirely, (ii) trashing the Christian brand, and (iii) making "Christian" akin to a four letter word among a growing segment of the population.  A new favored target?  "Progressive" Christians who do not adhere to the hate and fear based dogma of the Christofascists.  A piece at Think Progress looks at the Christofascists' effort to attack true Christians and blame anyone but themselves for their political and legal losses.  Here are excerpts:

For decades, conservative Christians who oppose LGBT equality have singled out the federal government or secular atheists as their preferred enemy in public settings, blasting both groups for supposedly attacking “traditional marriage” or infringing on their religious liberty. Yet in the months surrounding the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage across the country, right-wing Christians have become increasingly willing to cast blame — seemingly hypocritically — on a group they have often dismissed or outright ignored: Progressive Christians, especially those who support marriage equality.

The first hints of a growing front against liberal Christians came in May, when a coalition of conservative churches in Fountain Hills, Arizona publicly ganged up on a local progressive Methodist community. . . . . The source of their outrage? Rev. David Felten, the left-leaning pastor of Fountains United Methodist Church. He reportedly stoked ire by preaching a variety of progressive concepts to his parishioners, such as theological support for interfaith dialogue, scientific discovery, and, of course, LGBT equality.

This same sentiment reemerged in June in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of marriage equality in Obergefell v. Hodges, which was gleefully celebrated by a host of progressive faith groups. Just a few days after the decision, Kevin DeYoung, a pastor in East Lansing, Michigan, published a blog post at the Gospel Coalition entitled “40 Questions For Christians Now Waving Rainbow Flags” that quickly spread through conservative and progressive Christian circles. Many of the inquiries were phrased in an accusatory manner, harping on old tropes that LGBT parents harm children and that supporters of marriage equality also support polygamy: . . . 

[W]hile DeYoung’s post was at least framed as an attempt at theological dialogue, other subsequent critiques of progressive faith have abandoned conversation for castigation. In mid-July, Peter Leithart, a Reformed theologian and head of the right-leaning Theopolis Institute, penned a piece in First Things that bemoaned the Court’s decision and explicitly asked conservatives to condemn LGBT-affirming Christians.

[C]onservative Christian denunciation of people who hold different beliefs than they do isn’t exactly a new phenomenon. Organizations such as the Institute on Religion and Democracy, which has spent years lobbying against LGBT equality from within several Christian denominations, have long sought the eradication of liberal theology. Right-leaning Catholics and evangelical Christian leaders such as Franklin Graham have repeatedly made sweeping claims as to what “Christians” believe, implying that people of faith who don’t share their views are not, in fact, Christians.

Yet the newest push against liberal Christianity appears hypocritical, as it coincides with a massive campaign waged by various right-wing Christians to insist that the political left respect their “religious liberty” — namely, the right to deny jobs and services to LGBT people in the public sphere, private business, and in Christian schools by invoking faith. . . . A few conservative writers have even sought to cast progressive Christians as bullies unto themselves, calling them “heretic hunters” for speaking up for LGBT people. 

If the goal is to persuade the faithful masses back to traditional marriage, however, then conservatives may be too late. A poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute in April revealed that majorities of almost every major religious group in America now support marriage equality, including members of traditions that officially condemn homosexual acts, such as Catholicism. Only white evangelical Protestants and black Protestants disapproved of same-sex marriage in the poll, but African American pastors — unlike many white theological conservatives — appear far less willing to tout their religious beliefs as justification for policies that discriminate against LGBT people.

The take away?  Christofascists demand that their beliefs be respected and that they be granted special rights to discriminate.  Yet meanwhile, they do not believe that anyone else is entitled to similar respect or rights.  Once again, the Christofascists show themselves to be self-centered  hypocrites.

The GOP/Conservatives’ War on Truth

One of the ironies in my view is that the Christofacists and their political whores in the Republican Party claim to treasure and worship "Christian values," yet no one lies more consistently and distorts the truth than they do.  It is truly as if the commandment against lying and bearing false witness had been totally removed from the Ten Commandments.  It is one of the reasons that I often state that if a Christofascist's lips are moving, the safest assumption is that they are lying. Why all the lies?  Because the truth and objective reality simply do not support their foul agenda.  The GOP/conservative agenda is nothing less than a war on modernity and the principles of the Enlightenment which motivated the thinking of the Founding Fathers.  A column in Salon looks at this decades long phenomenon.  Here are excerpts:

Deep on page 546 of his 1,839-page budget, Wisconsin’s Governor Scott Walker tucked in a crucial idea. He proposed to strip a principle from the mission statement of the University of Wisconsin, a school that attracts students from all over the nation and from 131 foreign countries. From the core philosophy that has driven the university since the turn of the last century Walker wanted to hack out the words: “Basic to every purpose of the system is the search for truth.” Rather than serving the people of the state by developing intellectual, cultural and humane sensitivities, expertise, and “a sense of purpose,” Walker prefers that the state university simply “meet the state’s workforce needs.” In the face of scathing criticism, the governor backtracked and, despite a trail of emails that led to his office, tried to claim the new language was a “drafting error.”

But Walker’s attempt to replace the search for truth with workforce training was no error. Since the earliest days of Movement Conservatism in the 1950s, its leaders have understood that the movement’s success depends on destroying Americans’ faith in the academic search for truth.

They have refused to engage with facts and instead simply demonized anyone who disagrees with their ideology. This is an astonishing position. It is an attack on the Enlightenment principles that gave rise to Western civilization.

The Enlightenment blossomed in the wake of the religiously-inspired Thirty Years War of the seventeenth century, when thinkers horrified by the war’s carnage set out to break the fetters of superstition and tradition that had prompted the strife. Descartes, Hobbes, Hume, Jefferson and other thinkers advanced the idea that if people could listen to reasoned arguments, weigh them against evidence and choose the soundest ones, progress would follow. The Enlightenment revolutionized science, culture and politics, and gave rise to the modern world.

Enlightenment ideals prompted America’s founding and reigned for generations as Americans searched for the best ways to manage the economy, changing demographics and international conflict. But in the 1950s, the idea of progress through reason presented a problem for wealthy businessmen. They hated New Deal legislation because it regulated business and protected workers.  . . . . But the problem was that the New Deal was extraordinarily popular. After an economic free-for-all of the 1920s that had pitched the nation into the Great Depression, Americans embraced the government regulation that reined in shady business dealings and protected workers. How could businessmen make inroads against such a popular program?

[In 1951 William F.] Buckley launched an intellectual war to replace the principle of academic inquiry with a Christian and individualist ideology. Buckley’s radical idea didn’t go far at first, but Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy provided a new rhetorical tool to advance the Yalie’s intellectual premise. In the early 1950s, McCarthy revealed the power of the outrageous lie. He sought to gain power by claiming to defend Christianity and individualism from the secret plots of the godless Communists in the American government. . . . . 

McCarthy’s hit-and-run smears suggested that a compelling lie could convince voters so long as it fit a larger narrative of good and evil. . . . Buckley and his brother-in-law L. Brent Bozell turned Buckley’s ideological stand against academic inquiry into just such a narrative. In their telling, a few brave men were standing against an evil majority trying to destroy America.

They wanted to purge the country of the Liberals who made up the majority and create a new “orthodoxy” based on the ideology of strict Christianity and individualism.To press this radical political program, Buckley launched the National Review in 1955, announcing that government activism “must be fought relentlessly.” He railed against President Dwight Eisenhower, who had modified the New Deal consensus into his own “Middle Way.”

This Manichean worldview led Barry Goldwater’s candidacy to grief in 1964 as voters recoiled from its aggressive irresponsibility, but with Ronald Reagan the Movement Conservative program gained the one new piece it needed to sell its ideology: a warm narrative. Reagan pushed Christianity and individualism with both lies and anti-intellectualism, but he did so with folksy stories and charm. He described a world of hardworking individuals threatened by “a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol,” and pushed policies that dramatically rolled back New Deal reforms. When opponents noted that his stories had little basis in fact and that his policies didn’t work as he claimed, he accused them of being haters and rallied supporters against the “Liberal media.”

By the time of the George W. Bush administration, Movement Conservatives had constructed a post-modern political world where reality mattered far less than the popular story of Conservatives standing firm against the “Liberal agenda” of godlessness and communism. As a member of the Bush administration famously noted to journalist Ron Suskind, “the reality-based” view of the world was obsolete. It was no longer viable to believe that people could find solutions to societal problems by studying reality. 

Facts and argument had given way to an ideology premised on Christianity and the idea of economic individualism. As Movement Conservatives took over the Republican Party, that ideology worked its way deep into our political system. . . . . And it has given us attempts in Oklahoma, Texas, North Carolina and Colorado to discard the A.P. U.S. History framework and dictate that students learn instead the Movement Conservatives’ skewed version of the nation’s history.

The search for truth must be replaced by an ideology that preserves Christianity and big-business individualism. Religion and freedom for mega-business, Movement Conservatives insist, is what America is all about.

A further irony is that Christofascists blame the acceptance of homosexuality for the fall of Rome - never mind that the Roman Empire existed for twice as long as the United States has existed - when in fact, many historians believe that Christianity was a leading cause in the fall of Rome.  Again, fact and the truth don't matter.  For the far right, it is all about furthering a greed and self-centered agenda that is the antithesis of the Gospel message.

McAuliffe Vetoes GOP/Christofascist Prayer Bill

The obvious answer: Pharisees

One thing about the Christofascists and their political prostitutes in the Republican Party is that they never cease in their agenda of trying to force their hate and fear based religious beliefs on others and of securing special rights for themselves.  A case in point is a bill - GOP backed, of course - which would have barred any censorship of prays and preaching by National Guard chaplains.    Thankfully, Terry McAuliffe vetoed the bill and Christofascist chaplains will have to give deference to the beliefs of all National Guard members.  The Virginian Pilot looks at the bill and the veto.  Here are highlights:

Gov. Terry McAuliffe has vetoed Republican-sponsored legislation that would prohibit state censorship of certain military chaplains' prayers, a move lobbied for by the American Civil Liberties Union, but disappointing to some social conservatives.

The Democrat Thursday spiked a bill from GOP Sen. Dick Black of Loudoun County, reasoning his SB 555 "would seriously undermine the religious freedom of National Guard members by potentially exposing them to sectarian proselytizing."

McAuliffe's veto of the bill that would apply to the state-controlled Virginia National Guard and Virginia Defense Force is the second of the governor's young term.

While military chaplains can minister as they choose at voluntary worship services or unofficial private settings, they don't "have the right to use official, mandatory events as a platform to disseminate their own religious views," McAuliffe wrote in a March 27 veto letter.

American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia director Claire Guthrie Gastañaga this month urged McAuliffe to veto Black's bill, arguing "National Guard members required to attend any official event have the right not to be forced to worship in another person's faith."

Sen. Bill Carrico perceives the veto as a blow against religious freedom, not a protection of it, saying McAuliffe has taken a stand "against any bills protecting individuals' rights to conscience."

Note how in Sen. Carrico's view the rights of Christofascist chaplains matters, but the rights on National Guard members at compulsory events do not.  It is sadly the all too typical self-centered, to hell with everyone else attitude which is now the norm with conservative Christians.  Their "religious freedom" is to trump the rights of everyone else.   The real solution is to bar any prayers and preaching from mandatory events period.

Cuccinelli Is Screwing Virginia Taxpayers

I have long argued that GOP gubernatorial candidate has always wanted Virginia taxpayers to be forced to help underwrite his campaign, hence his refusal to resign as attorney general as has it been the tradition in Virginia for decades.   Cuccinelli has wanted to draw a full time salary while working part time at best.  A new analysis of his schedule confirms that he has been campaigning - 74% of the time - more than he has been working - a mere 26% of the time.  The Virginian Pilot has details.  Here are highlights:

That same-day juxtaposition - attorney general in the morning, candidate in the afternoon - shows seesawing commitments that lately have tipped the balance of Cuccinelli's campaign.

A Virginian-Pilot analysis of Cuccinelli's office and campaign schedules for July, August and part of September suggests he has spent more time on the trail than behind his desk while earning a $150,000 annual state salary, plus health benefits for his nine-member family.

According to the schedules, he was in his office seven of 22 work days in July, four of 22 days in August, and just three of nine the first two weeks of September. That equates to roughly 26 percent of the total work days over that period.

Remaining attorney general while seeking higher office has given Cuccinelli a platform, but also been a nagging campaign issue, as evidenced by his physical absences.

The campaign also has been hampered by the gift scandal orbiting Cuccinelli and his office, as well as its role in a legal dispute between Southwest Virginia landowners and energy companies over natural gas payments. Those episodes allowed critics to cry conflict, charges Cuccinelli could have more easily avoided if he'd left office, and undercut an argument that McAuliffe is unscrupulous.

His decision proved a boon for Virginia Democrats already loaded to hit Cuccinelli for his views on gay rights, abortion and climate change, all demonstrated during his high-profile tenure as attorney general. They have hounded him since January to resign - a state tradition followed by the six prior attorneys general who ran for governor - and they gained ammunition when he stayed.

Cuccinelli is a self-centered extremist (a trait he shares with his supporters at The Family Foundation) and it sounds like he needs to return a huge chunk of his pay check back to Virginia tax payers.

Will Americans Elect a Jerk to the White House?

There was a time when I actually thought that Mitt Romney might be somewhat acceptable as president.  Unfortunately, the more I've learned about him, the more mistaken I realized I was - the guy, in truth is a total unfeeling jerk.  And the stories about his gay bashing and abuse in high school was the final straw.  That's not to say that I'm in love with Barack Obama, but despite his failings, he's not a creep who has not empathy for others and is clueless as to the daily challenges most Americans have to deal with.  And then there's the issues of gay marriage and gay adoption.  Romney basically cannot even accept my common humanity nor can he admit that gays have lives, loves and children just like everyone else.  A column in The Daily Beast looks at Romney's "jerk factor."  Here are excerpts:

Very few votes are going to be cast on the basis of what Mitt Romney did or didn’t do to John Lauber in 1965. So that, per se, isn’t Romney’s problem. But this is: The story lands as another brick on pile of evidence amassing that he’s just a disagreeable human being. A few days ago I wrote about Barack Obama’s biggest problem, which is that despite all the many areas in which Americans rate him higher than Romney, the one on which they give Romney the edge happens to be pretty important: handling the economy. Now we get to Romney’s biggest problem. The likability factor. He ain’t got it. And he ain’t got much of a way to get it.

Historical question: When is the last time the clearly less likeable candidate beat the clearly more likeable one for the White House? The answer is, a long time. I put the question to Gallup, which didn’t have historical numbers at hand. But doing some noodling around on my own suggests that you have to go back to 1968 to find such a result.

This is the biggest washout of modern times, folks. Gallup just this week put the likeability ratings at Obama 60, Romney 31. It’s not that Obama’s number is unusually high.  .  .  .   they Do. Not. Like. Mitt. Romney.  .   .   .  Every time he says something off the cuff he says something obnoxious. Corporations are people, pal. I like firing people. Where on earth did you get those Godforsaken cookies?

He also—and this actually is interesting, because it’s something our normal public discourse does not like to admit or allow for—is way too rich. We’re constantly told that Americans don’t have any class envy, and compared to some European nations they don’t. But even Americans have limits. A few million, even $50 million; okay. But a quarter billion dollars? A house with an elevator . . . for the cars? It also matters to people how the money was made. It’s okay to be worth a gajillion dollars if you’re Bill Gates or Steve Jobs and have made everyone’s lives more interesting and cooler. But what’s Mitt Romney done?

[H]e has no grasp of the one crucial reality of class in America: you can be filthy rich as long as you don’t look or act like it. Gates doesn’t comb his hair, much. Jobs wore sneakers. Romney just looks too pressed.

And this brings us back to the Cranbrook School incident. We might have learned from The Washington Post this week that Romney gallantly interceded on poor Lauber’s behalf. Or even, maybe, that he did the awful deed, but a few years later he got in touch with Lauber to say, “Gee, old scout, went a bit overboard there.” Or even that he acknowledged to one of his confederates that he regretted the incident. In other words, we might have learned something that showed he knows he behaved like an asshole. But all we learned is that he behaved like an asshole and is now pretending to forget it. A jerk is one thing. But a jerk who takes no responsibility for his jerkitude is pretty much the definition of an unlikeable person.

[T]here’s something very reassuring about this country reposing in those numbers, that the black guy with the weird name who’s been called everything under the sun is twice as likeable as the rich white guy. This is the America that drives the wingers crazy, but that the rest of us—the majority—live in, and love.

Is Virginia's No. 1 Political Whore, Eric Cantor Selling Out the GOP?

As I have noted before I CANNOT stand Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor. The man almost makes NOM's self enriching whore, Maggie Gallagher (she's making over $350,000 a year peddling anti-gay hate) look like an honorable charity worker. Cantor is all about promoting himself and to Hell with anyone else. I suspect he'd sell his own mother for not much more than pocket change. Belatedly, some in the GOP establishment are waking up to the reality that Cantor is out for himself first and last. Anyone who has followed cantor's career and behavior should have figured this out long before now, but then the GOP has embraced ignorance and an abhorrence of objective reality, so I guess these folks have been slow learners. Politico looks at the growing concerns within the GOP establishment. Here are some highlights:

The No. 2 House Republican, Rep. Eric Cantor, plans to help the establishment this cycle — and himself. The star fundraiser is throwing his weight behind a powerful new GOP super PAC backed by Speaker John Boehner, the Congressional Leadership Fund, and a second one, the YG Action Fund, launched by former Cantor deputy chief of staff John Murray.

GOP establishment players question whether Cantor is looking out for his own brand at the expense of the broader party effort after tensions have arisen repeatedly between the top two House Republicans during the past year.

“There’s some concern that Eric’s super PAC is a little too Eric-centric and that donors will support him,” said one Republican strategist, who is not linked to either of the groups. “The real fight is because the House is always third. There’s the presidential fundraising, the Senate, which is kind of sexy. Raising money for Illinois 15, for example, is very pedestrian.”

Another Republican lobbyist echoed those fears, noting that the GOP leadership-backed Congressional Leadership Fund is going to be funding get-out-the-vote efforts and other ground game political tactics, while the Cantor-backed group is expected to have a narrower set of goals that will ultimately benefit the Virginia Republican by expanding his fundraising base.

By going out on his own, Cantor is looking to advance his career, and he’s calling on his friends for help, Davis said. “You’re going to have people who give to Eric Cantor that might not give to leadership,” Davis said. “I don’t think that he’s not going to be doing things for the party as well, but this will help brand Eric.”

Those of us in Virginia who have watched Cantor over time understand that the man is an ego maniac who should not be trusted. His unbridled willingness to prostitute of himself to the Christian Right despite his supposed Jewish faith ought to be an alarm bell to the GOP establishment. Eric Cantor worships one God - his own advancement.

Are We Finally Rid of Sarah Palin?

While Sarah Palin continues to have a tempestuous love affair with herself, the Washington Post/ABC News poll I cited yesterday indicates that 2/3's of Republicans do NOT want to see a Palin campaign for the presidency. Rational people figured out Palin's total unfitness for office - any office, in fact - long ago, so it's at least a little encouraging that even the idiots of the Republican Party base seem to be figuring out that Palin needs to leave the political scene and join the cast of a really poor quality reality show. Palin makes some of the "Real House Wives" crowd look highly intellectual and rational. Politico looks at what is hopefully Palin's swan song from the serious political stage. Meanwhile, I will never forgive John McCain for propelling a self-absorbed moron like Palin to the national stage. Here are some highlights from Politico:

Sarah Palin hasn’t closed the door yet on a presidential bid. But few Republicans appear to be waiting for her answer.

Never was it clearer than Tuesday, when Chris Christie’s announcement that he would not run in 2012 prompted a throng of strategists to conclude the Republican field was finally set – never mind Palin’s indecision. A new poll published on the same day revealed that two thirds of Republicans don’t want her to run.

Even as Republicans continue to cast about for new options, only a distinct minority are gazing longingly toward Wasilla – or wherever else Palin is in her secretive, largely apolitical travel schedule.

“She stirs up a lot of conservatives in the base, but I don’t think conservatives are looking to her as a presidential nominee who can save the conservative movement,” said Chuck Muth, the Nevada-based conservative activist. “What niche in the conservative movement does Sarah Palin fill that’s not already filled by one of the other candidates?”

Palin sounded unconcerned about the pressure of timing last week when she rolled past her own end-of-September deadline for deciding on the presidential race. She told Fox News that she still has to consider whether being a candidate would “prohibit [her] from being out there, out of a box, not allowing handlers to shape me.”

In the meantime, more and more primary voters appear to be drifting out of Palin’s reach. Indeed, as she drags out her 2012 decision, a politician who has often complained of being talked about unfavorably is risking an even grimmer fate: Not being talked about at all. In a Washington Post/ABC News poll released this week, only 31 percent of Republican primary voters said they wanted Palin to run for president. Sixty-six percent said she shouldn’t get into the race.

Ed Rollins, the former campaign manager for Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, predicted flatly that Palin would not be the GOP’s 2012 standard-bearer, whether or not she decides to try for it. “At best she could attract some Bachmann voters, some Cain voters and maybe come out as the tea party candidate, but she is not going to end up being the nominee,” Rollins said.

If Palin does run, it will be for one reason - to keep herself in the media coverage. She is so self-absorbed that the worse thing that could happen to he is that her 15 minutes of fame is over and she's forgotten by history other than an example of a disastrous candidate in 2008 who should never have been on the GOP ticket.

Maggie Gallagher Continues to Enrich Herself Through Anti-Gay Hate

Personally, one of the most obscene, reprehensible, and morally challenged members of the professional Christian set is Maggie Gallagher. The same Maggie Gallagher who is married to a Hindu who she keeps hidden away more securely than the most closeted self-loathing gay. Not content with raking in the dough through NOM and its hate and bigotry peddling affiliates, now Gallagher is about to latch onto the teet of Ave Maria School of Law, a wingnut Roman Catholic law school in Naples, Florida. The law school which will house a so-called called the Center for Research on Marriage, Religion and Public Policy will be headed up by guess who? Maggie, of course, who will further enrich herself with a salary. Jeremy Hooper at Good As You has the details of the hate mistress' latest anti-gay activities. Here are highlights:
*
So yet another gig for Maggie that's wholly about exalting personal faith views on marriage and morality in a way that influences shared public policy. The continued goals are [1] to shape young legal minds in a way that further muddies the waters between civil marriage licensing and its optional (even if oft-utilized) religious ceremony component; [2] to make marriage all about reproduction, even though procreation is also a wholly optional component of marriage (one that many same-sex couples also engage in); and [3] to collect a paycheck while doing all this. Maggie's profitable, personal prayers injected into the realms of civil discrimination and unjust division.
*
She sees her religion as superseding civil matters that she finds personally conflicting ("to fight against an unjust civil order"). In short: She thinks she knows better,

Family Acceptance - Do Your Relatives Care About You or Themselves?

A very good friend of mine is going through some rough times during which a supportive family would be a Godsend. Even though my friend is comfortable with being gay and has achieved self acceptance, as he relates his experiences to me, it sounds like family members are more concerned about "what will people think" and/or their own embarrassment of having "one of those people" in the family as opposed to loving and supporting their family member. I was fortunate in my own coming out process that other than my father freaking out for a couple of days, I never had to bear the burden of - in my opinion at least - superficial family members who cared more about appearances than about loving me and supporting me. As a parent, I cannot understand parents who reject their children due to their sexuality. They, not their child, are the ones who are disgusting and need to change.

*

One web site that I have found helpful and recommended to many people in the past is called "Family Acceptance" and is the work of Patti and Jeff Ellis (pictured above) who themselves found themselves having to come to terms with having a gay son. Would that more parents and other relatives were as thoughtful and loving as Patti and Jeff. In terms of the issue of "Am I ashamed of My Child or of Myself" Patti states the following in relevant part:

*

I am a prideful mother and that was why shame was so overwhelming. . . . I did not want to be ashamed of my child. It was painful to think that I was having those feelings. I knew that I was ashamed of how he would be looked at and talked about. That he would be considered, at the very least, socially unacceptable. I was ashamed at how my family would be perceived. That hurt my pride and made me angry. Why should we have to go through this? Why should I feel such shame? Why did I care so much about what others thought?

*
I was so obsessed at how other people would see me or think of me, I forgot about Adam. I realized that I was not taking his feelings into consideration. That was a turning point. I knew then I had placed my pride over the love of my child. I knew I had to stop thinking about how this affected me and begin trying to understand what Adam had gone through.

*

I believe it is our responsibility as parents to stand by our children no matter what. In order to do that, I had to put aside my pride and shame. I had to come to a point where it was no longer important how other people saw me. What was important was for Adam to know he was loved. No matter what.
*

Would that there were more parents of gays who would undertake such self-analysis. Again, I was lucky in that my parents after a brief initial shock never treated me or viewed me as anything less than their son who was just as much a full accepted member of the family. I feel sorrow for gays who do not have such parents. In the final analysis, I have two words to describe such unaccepting parents and relatives: selfish and self-centered. We don't choose our sexual orientation no matter what lies the Christianists perpetuate.

Hillary is Alienating Black Voters

In her quest to destroy the Democrats if she can not be the nominee, Hillary (with assistance from Slick Willie) is doing immense damage to the loyalty of Black voters to the Democrat Party. I really cannot recall when I have seen a candidate as self-centered and vicious as Hillary has become. I increasingly think both she and Slick Willie completely are amoral. They will do anything and harm anyone they deem necessary to further their own uncontrolable thirst for power. Do we really need individuals like that in the White House? Not in my opinion. This New York Times story demonstrates what blacks are saying. Here are some highlights:
*

The third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives and one of the country’s most influential African-American leaders sharply criticized former President Bill Clinton this afternoon for what he called Mr. Clinton’s “bizarre” conduct during the Democratic primary campaign. Representative James E. Clyburn, an undeclared superdelegate from South Carolina who is the Democratic whip in the House, said that “black people are incensed over all of this,” referring to statements that Mr. Clinton had made in the course of the heated race between his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Senator Barack Obama.

*

In an interview with The New York Times late Thursday, Mr. Clyburn said Mr. Clinton’s conduct in this campaign had caused what might be an irreparable breach between Mr. Clinton and an African-American constituency that once revered him. “When he was going through his impeachment problems, it was the black community that bellied up to the bar,” Mr. Clyburn said. “I think black folks feel strongly that that this is a strange way for President Clinton to show his appreciation.”

*
Mr. Clyburn added that there appeared to be an almost “unanimous” view among African-Americans that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were “committed to doing everything they possibly can to damage Obama to a point that he could never win.”

Thoughts on the Pennsylvania Results

T o say I am disappointed is an understatement. I wanted a strong enough showing for Obama to knock the bitch out of the race. I am beyond sick of the Clintons. If Hillary continues the slash and burn tactics of Karl Rove at his worse, I honestly believe she is guaranteeing defeat for the Democrats in November. Of course, she could care less as long as her ego is satisfied. She is engaging in precisely the type of campaign that will make young voters (like my youngest daughter), blacks and former moderate Republicans (the majority of my extended family) stay home or vote for McCain out of disgust. And, yes I got an e-mail from my 80 year mother who had watched the returns and was not happy. There's one older white woman vote Hillary will NEVER get. Andrew Sullivan has a great assessment of Hillary and what is happening here:

*

But she won't leave. She will never leave. Ceding to someone younger is unthinkable to her. It's a form of death for her.

*
But here's what she does have: total shamelessness, and an absolute belief that she is the rightful nominee. Shamelessness: the appropriation of the message and even the words of her opponent; the portrayal of one of the most privileged and advantaged candidates in memory as an insurgent underdog; the eager embrace of the tactics - and message! - of the Rove right if it could help in any way; the picture of a candidate who saw a 20 - 25 point lead dissipate into single figures as a candidate for momentum. What sustains her is this deep, deep sense of entitlement and an absolute refusal to let the next generation take over. She will take this to the last day of the convention if necessary.

*
If Obama thinks he has a right to actually be nominated by the Clinton Democrats because he has won more votes, more states and more delegates, he is sadly mistaken. They will never let such a person win without a death struggle. And that is where the Democrats are now headed.

*

I find Hillary utterly loathsome. Lets hope stories break soon on Billary and dirty money or a bimbo erruption with Bill.

It's All About Me - The Hell With the Party

For some time now I have believed that Hillary Clinton is willing to destroy the Democrat Party if she cannot have her way and be the Perty nominee. If she willing to put her self interest/egomania ahead of the interests of her Party, will she do the same to the country if she were to be elected president. Based on her husband's tenure, I think the safe bet is a resounding "YES." With Bill and Hillary, it is ALWAYS about them. The almost obscene amount of money they have raked in since Bill Clinton left office is but one example. As this Wall Street Journal story indicates, some in the Democrat Part y are waking up to Hillary's true ruthlessness and indifference for the Party's welfare. I truly hope today's primary results will force her from the race. Neither the Party nor the country can afford any more of Hillary self-centered agenda. Here are some highlights:

*

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton unveiled new negative television ads and attacked each other personally from the stump this weekend ahead of Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary, stoking more worries among Democrats that the party's eventual nominee will head into the general election badly damaged. The rising vitriol is prompting more Democrats to demand that party leaders do something to end the battle.

*

[S]ome party leaders are quietly planning to try to end the clash, said people familiar with the matter. After the primaries end in June, these influential Democrats -- led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- plan to push the last uncommitted party leaders to endorse a candidate, in hopes of preventing a fight at the August presidential convention, party insiders say.

*

While the Clinton camp insisted its volleys are in response to the Obama side's attacks, polls indicate Sen. Clinton comes in for more blame. "I'm really sick of it," says Mary Vilter, a 50-year-old Paoli, Pa., lawyer who initially supported Sen. Clinton but will vote for Sen. Obama.

*

The party leaders' aim: To thwart the Clinton campaign's vow to fight all summer long to a final, nationally televised round at the Denver convention, so the party can get on with the battle against the likely Republican candidate, Arizona Sen. John McCain. Convention fights in past decades -- notably in 1968, 1972 and 1980 -- left deep divisions that contributed to the nominees' losses and hurt lesser candidates on the ballots.

*

With Democrats protective of the House and Senate majorities just won in 2006, "Do you think for one minute that Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid will allow this fight to go on and on and on?" says Donna Brazile, an uncommitted superdelegate as an official of the Democratic National Committee, and manager of the 2000 Gore campaign. "There's a group around [Sen. Clinton] that really wants to take the fight to the convention. They don't care about the party. It scares me, and that's what scares a lot of superdelegates."

*

But come June 4, Mrs. Pelosi's Capitol suite could become the closest thing Democrats have to the proverbial smoke-filled room as she presses her members to endorse. The 233 House Democrats comprise nearly 30% of the superdelegates, and several scores remain uncommitted. Mrs. Pelosi will remain neutral, aides say, since as Speaker she will preside over the Aug. 25-28 convention. But Clinton advisers say they're convinced she favors Sen. Obama.