Cruz-Kasich Alliance Is About Changing the Narrative to Stop the Trump Train

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio

 iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Facebook.com/SmythRadio

April 25, 2016

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The big news, the big news, Kasich and Cruz forming an accord to try to stop the Trumpster. Let me tell you what this is all about.  Everybody is trying to figure this out, and everybody's digging deep trying to get into analysis that nobody else has come up with.  Everybody is trying to become the smartest the guy in the room.  Let me explain to you what this is really all about. 

This is about narratives.  Primarily Cruz, but Kasich as well, are convinced that they had to do something to change the narrative.  The narrative is that Trump's already won this.  That narrative is beginning to settle in.  In many people's estimation, the narrative has set in.  Trump's win in New York, even though it was expected, was voluminous.  It was bigger than everybody thought.  This has created in the media this narrative that now Trump is inevitable.  And that means that it is over. 

Isn't it interesting, by the way, when we discuss news, we don't discuss news anymore, we discuss narratives.  And you know what a narrative is.  A narrative is simply a story that somebody wants to tell and a story that somebody wants to tell that can dominate as though it is the news.  That's why I say there isn't any news anymore; there's simply the advancement of agendas. 

Now, in this case, we have these Northeastern primaries coming up, and it is expected here that Trump is going to continue to do well and that Cruz and Kasich are not, and that's gonna further add to the narrative that Trump has it locked up.  Where Trump still might run into trouble is out west.  Washington state, California, and until this, you know, Indiana was something that was possibly up for grabs. 

So what is happening here is that Cruz and Kasich are -- I don't want to say hail Mary, but they may think of it that way as a last-ditch effort to stop the narrative, to change the narrative that Trump has this wrapped up and that it's all but over and inevitable because neither Kasich nor Cruz can get to 1,237 before the convention.  Their only hope is to see to it that Trump doesn't get to 1,237. 

So I think it's really no more complicated than that.  It's not about intricate delegate math, although it might be, but you don't need add up numbers here to figure out what's going on.  This is strictly about trying to change the tone of the news, and there's little offshoots of this that are fascinating, too.  I know some people that were shocked today that Cruz decided to team up with Kasich.  If Cruz is gonna team up with anybody, team up with Trump. You know, they both occupy the outsider position here in the campaign, they both staked out that position, and if you're gonna have any teaming up, team up that way, ice Kasich out, and then make it officially over. 

But that's not what happened.  So it's the way this thing is falling out.  And I don't know that there's anything really that's going to change this.  We'll see if this has the desired effect from the Cruz and Kasich standpoint. 

Do you remember the delegate, the RNC delegate that we have quoted in the past on this program, a guy by the name of Curly Haugland is how it's spelled, H-a-u-g-l-a-n-d.  And Curly is the guy that we quoted some weeks ago now as saying (paraphrasing), "You know, you people in the news media, you don't understand how this works.  The voters don't choose the nominee; we delegates do that.  The voters have nothing to do with it." 

And it kind of snuck in under the radar out there.  I mean, he didn't walk it back. It didn't cause a lot of controversy.  It was just there.  And some people paid attention to it, but not much.  Well, little Curly is back.  Now, this actually is dated April 22nd, so this goes back to Friday when I was out.  It's on CNBC;  "Donald Trump may be the only Republican presidential candidate who can realistically hit the magic 1,237 number for the majority of delegates, but according to a senior Republican National Committee official that does not mean he will become the GOP presidential nominee.

"Curly Haugland, a longstanding RNC official and an unbound delegate from North Dakota who will be on the convention rules committee in July, told CNBC that attaining 1,237 during the primaries does not secure the nomination."

Did this come up Friday, Mr. Snerdley?  Oh, good.  Okay.  Here's Curly.  "Even if Trump reaches the magic number of 1,237 the media and RNC are touting, that does not mean Trump is automatically the nominee," Haugland said. "The votes earned during the primary process are only estimates and are not legal convention votes. The only official votes to nominate a candidate are those that are cast from the convention floor."

Now, this makes perfect sense.  Obviously nobody's counting delegates yet but when you count the pledged delegates and the delegates that must vote the way they must vote on the first ballot, that's of course where the 1,237 comes in play. What Curly's saying is, hey, we run this show, and we can massage this, and we can do whatever we want to do here with this delegate count, first ballot, second ballot. 

"Haugland explained the primary number is really an estimate. That's because the eligibility of some delegates in how they are voted in could be questioned and their status may not be considered valid."  Well, let's pull that back and see what he's talking about.  Let's just take Florida, for example, because Trump won it all and we're dealing with a solid number, 99 delegates. Ninety-nine delegates are pledged to Trump on each of the first three ballots in Florida.  What little Curly is saying here, "You know, we might decide to challenge 50 or 10 or two or 20 of those delegates. We might try to say that they're not legal. We might try to say that they don't meet the threshold. We might try to say that their votes don't count because of some vagary."

When he starts talking about the eligibility of some delegates, how they are voted in, he's saying maybe they were not selected legally, maybe they weren't appointed legally.  I mean, this guy is essentially shouting from the rooftops to anybody that wants to listen: "You all think you're choosing what's happening here, but you're not; we are."  What he's really talking about here is that the credentials committee can decide to take away the credentials from some states' delegates, and give them to another group. 

And, by the way, that happened in 2012.  The credentials committee took away the credentials from Maine's delegates because they suspected them of actually being Rand Paul supporters, even though Romney had won the Maine primary.  Do you remember that? (interruption) Would I make it up? (interruption)  "Yeah, you said." Yeah, yeah, yeah!" Now that I mentioned that you vaguely remember this.

In 2012, the credentials committee at the Republican National Convention took away the credentials from Maine's delegates because they suspected them of actually being Rand Paul supporters who had snuck in there, even though Romney had won the Maine primary.  So their credentials were given to Maine delegates.  Curly said, "Remember every state has a different delegate allocation process. Delegates are picked up in state contests that can be winner take all, open primaries, and remember there are seven states that allow the candidates to pick their own delegates. Until those delegate challenges are settled, there is no 1,237."

Now, he said that he expected the delegates won in winner-take-all states to be most likely challenged, too.  So here's the point.  The establishment is not just going to roll over no matter what Trump gets going into this.  Don't misread what I'm saying.  I'm not saying... It's risky for me getting into this 'cause Curly's kind of out there on his own, but you have to know that the establishment's going to do everything they can here.  I mean, they are. We've heard that they're panicking, and they are.  And they're gonna pull out all the stops. 

And it's really getting bloody out there.  Then we get Charles Koch and his own version of Operation Chaos. Charles Koch is upset that he can't find any Republican worth supporting.  

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I kind of thought there might have been some derailing of the Trump train last week.  It turned out not to be the case. But I really thought that Trump's comments that he's cool with boys in the girls' bathroom and vice-versa -- and, by the way, by the way, Mr. Snerdley, I ask you: Do you think Trump walks this back?  You remember the comments that he's okay with girls in the boys' bathroom, and vice-versa?

I said, "Do you think he walks it back?" and you said, "No way," and he did.  I told you he'd walk 'em back, and he walked 'em back by saying, "You know what? It's a state issue. Let's leave it up to the states." Because he came out made it sound like it's no big deal and I had some people say, "Rush, you're forgetting your own advice. You're forgetting your own observations.  This is Trump strategically appealing to left wingers as he attempts to expand his base.  You know, girls in the boys' bathroom and vice-versa is a big deal to them; so he's not gonna come out and criticize it."

And I said, "Yeah, but this has a chance to backfire," and I thought it might.  But it didn't.  And then when he came out and said he wanted to raise taxes on the rich, I thought, "That's gonna cost him blowback," and it didn't. And then when he really made the point that he's gonna bring all these illegals back legally, the illegals are gonna come legally, I thought, "Three different chances there that Trump might have not destroyed the...

Don't misunderstand. It's maybe given people pause, but that didn't happen.  The Trump train rolls on, and so they have the momentum kept on. The narrative is established.  Here's what I think has happened here. Again, just to explain this accord between Cruz and Kasich.  Trump has gotten a boost, or has benefited from three things recently: That New York win -- although everybody knew it was going to happen. The fact that he hit 60% and won that bigger than anybody thought, that creates momentum. 

That's a big, big plus.  And I think Trump has succeeded...  I can tell by the people who have called this program.  As you know, late last week I spent a lot of time thanking various callers for helping me to learn things.  And Trump has succeeded inconvincing his voters that Cruz is disenfranchising them by interfering with the process out there and stealing delegates, even though it isn't happening.  Trump's supporters think it's happening. 

Trump has been able to convince his supporters that it's happening, and that creates a negative for Cruz.  "Cruz: Anti-democratic process! Cruz: disenfranchising voters!" The third thing is this... Well, you add those two together and you get this inevitability or it's over, and that's what I think they're trying to fight now. The effort here to beat that back is what he says is going on.  Here's Kasich today.  We have time to get this?  Yeah, Kasich. Here he is in Philadelphia today. A reporter says, "Your collaboration with Senator Cruz smacks of desperation, sir."

KASICH:  No, I'm not desperate.  Are you?  Are you desperate?  'Cause I'm not.  Okay, people are yelling at me.  I'm not gonna answer the question.  Have a little bit of civility when you do your job.  My team met with the Cruz people and they made a recommendation.  I don't have, you know, like Daddy Warbucks behind me giving me all this money.  I have to be careful about my resources.  I don't see this as any big deal, other than the fact that I'm not gonna spend resources in Indiana; he's not gonna spend 'em in other places.  So what?  What's the big deal?

RUSH:  And we'll be back and explain it in a minute.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  No, no.  Don't misunderstand.  I don't think it's over.  I just... (interruption) No, no, no, no, no.  If the Trump people thought it was over, they wouldn't be going through this business of trying to remake Trump, turn him into presidential whatever it is they say they're doing.  If this were over, if they really thought it was over, the Trump campaign profile would be entirely different and it would be focused almost exclusively on Hillary, and there wouldn't be a lot of this ongoing effort, public effort to remake Trump's persona, his image, whatever "making him presidential" is. 

But it's clear that they're trying to capitalize on this narrative.  You know, narratives are powerful things.  They lead to self-fulfilling prophecies in many ways, and that's what the Trump people are trying to capitalize on.  It's what the Cruz and Kasich people are trying to stop. And it's not over.  There's way too much yet to happen.  Look, this is where it gets tough because in these next primaries coming up tomorrow, it's gonna be another Trump sweep.  None of this is unexpected. None of this is gonna be shocking. 

We're in Trump's backyard now in the Northeast.  He's gonna do well in Pennsylvania; he's gonna do well in Delaware and Maryland and so forth.  Indiana, we still don't know.  But you go out west to California and Washington state, a lot of people think that Trump is gonna have those states locked up, and he's not.  It has been calculated. There are 192 delegates in California.  Trump's gonna need 119 of them, according to the best calculation. Trump's gonna need 119 in California, if everything goes according to projection prior to that. 

Trump is gonna need 119 of California's delegates out of their 192.  I don't know that he's going to be able to do that, based on polling that's out there now.  And remember that Cruz and Kasich are all about a contested convention.  They're not trying to get to 1,237 themselves.  They're trying to stop Trump from getting there.  And it's up to you, really, if you want to be affected by the narrative -- and it's tough to avoid these. I mean, you're gonna turn on cable news, and it's not gonna take long. It's very subtle.

If they start asking people questions about Trump as though he already is the nominee... You know, it's very, very subtle the way these things play out.  Even the way reporters question Trump himself, or Cruz, or Kasich.  All they'd have to do is start asking Cruz or Kasich questions as though they've already lost, and you can cement the so-called narratives or templates, and that's what's going to be the order of the day in those places in the media that are all-in for Trump.  So you just have to steel yourself for that.

But it isn't over, and it's not gonna be over.  This is gonna go through California -- it's probably going to go through California -- and I don't think that Cruz people are gonna quit any time before that.  Kasich has now been given a new nickname by Trump.  It's now "Lyin' Ted Cruz" and "1-for-38 Kasich."  That's the team that Trump says he's up against: "Lyin' Ted" and "1-for-38 Kasich."  Let's go back to this Kasich sound bite. 

Again, this is in a diner -- a restaurant -- in Philadelphia today.  And it's a Q&A, and the reporter is asking Kasich about his accord, his new collaboration with Cruz, and he says, "It kind of smacks of desperation, Governor Kasich.  Isn't this desperate?"  And Kasich profoundly offended by this.  (replaying of sound bite) "Why don't you have a little bit of civility when you do your job?  Don't keep yelling at me!"  So then another reporter said, "Are you telling your voters not to vote for you in Indiana?  Is that what you're doing?"

KASICH:  I've never told 'em not to vote for me.  They ought to vote for me. But I'm not over there campaigning and spending resources because we have limited resources.  You folks have been counting me out before I even got to New Hampshire --

FEMALE REPORTER: But Bernie --

KASICH: -- and now we can't jam all of you into this diner.  I'm not campaigning in Indiana, and he's not campaigning in these other states.  That's all.  That's all it is.

AIDE:  Thank you, guys. 

MALE REPORTER: Thank you, Governor.

KASICH:  It's not a big deal.  But it's fun, though; you're all still here. (talking with food in his mouth) Ha-ha-ha.  By the way, I'm having the time of my life.

RUSH:  What is he so testy about?  They made an accord. The reporters are coming along, they're asking about the accord, and Kasich's acting like there hasn't been an accord, or he's acting like it's not that big a deal.  It is a big deal.  They want it to come across as a big deal, and Kasich says (paraphrased), "I don't know what you're asking me.  I mean, I'm not gonna spend money in Indiana, and he is. And I'm gonna spend money where he isn't and (muttering)." The guy's just incredibly testy.  Now, here's Cruz.  This is in Borden, Indiana.  Cruz is speaking with reporters about his strategizing with Kasich.  The reporter said, "Did you make Governor Kasich a deal to work with you on this?"

CRUZ:  We had conversations, and both campaigns agreed to focus our energies. We're focusing our energy on the state of Indiana, and Governor Kasich is focusing his energies elsewhere. I think that is a decision -- an allocation of resources -- that makes a lot of sense. And it's devoted to the principle of beating Hillary Clinton in November and turning this country around. It is abundantly clear that nobody is getting to 1,237. We are headed to a contested convention, and at a contested convention Donald Trump is in real trouble. Why? Because he cannot earn the support of a majority of the delegates elected by the people.

RUSH:  Yeah, when Cruz says that, see, here come the Trumpsters. "Yeah, yeah, 'cause you're out there cheating! You're out there disenfranchising people! You're out there stealing delegates that are Donald's, and so on.  That stuck.  You heard the calls we had last week from Trumpists who tried to explain to me why it is that they think delegates are being stolen, and it doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong; the perception is -- and this is all part of this narrative that's being created.

The perception is that, and it infers a claim that Trump makes that he's a victim, that everybody's ganging up against him and he's being cheated, and he's triumphing over it. Which, you know, adds even more mystique as far as his voters are concerned.  Another reporter in Borden, Indiana, said to Senator Cruz, "Respectfully, sir, what do you say to those people, though, who say that it's collusion, what you and Kasich are doing?  Trump is saying that you're colluding, and we expect to hear that from him again and again on the campaign trail."

CRUZ:  I understand that Donald will whine.  That's what he does.  Donald is a sore loser.  When he lost five states in a row in landslide elections, Donald threw a tantrum, and his response is to attack the voters.  His response is to attack the people.  Yes, I get that the Trump campaign is scared.  They're scared of Indiana.  If Donald wasn't scared, he'd show up in Indiana and have a debate.  But he would much rather hide in Trump Tower. He'd much rather stay in Northeastern states that tend to be more liberal than actually come to the Midwest. 

RUSH: Again, I'm forced to ask: "Does Trump look scared to anybody?  Does Trump look like he's afraid to go anywhere?"  I don't know how that sells.  I understand the technique and the desire to call Trump out and so forth.  I understand what's going on there.  I just... Of all the things Trump looks to be, scared, frightened, intimidated is not one of them.  But, you know, this thing that they're doing, that Cruz and Kasich are doing is actually the Romney plan.  On March 3rd, 2016 in Salt Lake City at the Hinckley Institute, Romney spoke about the presidential election and Trump.  See if you remember this...

ROMNEY:  I believe we can nominate a person who could win the general election and who will represent the values and policies of conservatism.  Given the current delegate selection process, that means that I'd vote for Marco Rubio in Florida and for John Kasich in Ohio and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state.

RUSH:  So you could say that Romney's already outlined this strategy that has now been taken up by Cruz and Kasich.  

END TRANSCRIPT

Who Is The Real Ted Cruz?

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

dailycaller.com

4874047

Vladimir Lenin said, “There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.”

I can’t think of a better description of Ted Cruz’s relationship with the DC-Wall Street Establishment – Cruz being the scoundrel of course. Cruz’s claim of not being a tool of the political elite is like Bill Clinton telling the world, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

Webster’s definition of a scoundrel is a dishonest or unscrupulous person, and Cruz has become quite adroit at saying one thing while his history shows him doing the other. Rather than the outsider he claims to be, Ted Cruz is the ultimate insider, former top Bush 41 policy aide and globalist, Ivy Leaguer, and establishment insider.

Not many conservatives coming out of Princeton and Harvard. “I’m just sayin,'” Ted, as said in the debate.

There is no better example of this than Calgary Ted’s actions surrounding the big Wall Street banks and their secret funding of his political ascension. Cruz has been gorging at the table of the ultimate insider of all insiders – Goldman Sachs and Citibank .

You may recall in a recent Fox Business Network debate that Cruz, in Mr. Haney from Green Acres voice, declared to one of the moderators, “The opening question [moderator Jerry Seib] asked — would you bailout the big banks again — nobody gave you an answer to that. I will give you an answer — absolutely not.”

What else would you expect a scoundrel to say who had secretly secured big sweetheart loans from Goldman and Citibank — by leveraging his retirement accounts –– to fund his 2012 U.S. Senate campaign. Loans which the Calgary Ted conveniently forgot to disclose to the Federal Election Commission. These are the very retirement accounts that he said he and his wife said he cashed in to fund his senate race. In other words, Ted lied.

At the same time Ted’s bulging 2016 campaign accounts and supporting Super-PACs are stuffed with big oil and gas money. He knows how to play the game.

And perhaps the ultimate hypocrisy of the native born Canadian is that his spouse, Heidi, by all accounts a lovely wife and mother, has been employed by Goldman Sachs since 2005. She is on leave as managing director and regional head of private wealth management. Heidi is a proud member of the lefty Council on Foreign Relations, advocates of one world government and the New World Order.

Heidi is not a bit player in the Cruz campaign with those credentials but rather an integral part of the campaign’s fundraising efforts. As reported by CNN last year, “She works the phones the way she worked them when she was at Goldman,” said Chad Sweet, the Cruz campaign’s chairman, who recruited Heidi to work at the giant investment bank.”

Yet we are to believe that the big Wall Street banks have no leverage over Ted Cruz? Why didn’t Heidi Cruz resign from Goldman Sachs instead of taking a leave of absence? That’s like saying Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky have had no influence on Barack Obama.

The other inside connection that hits one like a baseball bat is the Bush connection.

Ted was George W.’s brain when he ran for President. A top policy adviser. Ted maneuvered for Solicitor General in Bush World but settled for a plum at the Federal Trade Commission. Ted’s a Bushman with deep ties to the political and financial establishment.

Ted and Heidi brag about being the first “Bush marriage” – they met as Bush staffers which ultimately led to marriage. Cruz was an adviser on legal affairs while Heidi was an adviser on economic policy and eventually director for the Western Hemisphere on the National Security Council under Condoleezza Rice. Condi helped give us the phony war in Iraq.

Also conveniently missing from Heidi’s Wikipedia bio is her service as Deputy U.S. Trade Representative to USTR head Robert Zoellick. At USTR Heidi worked on U.S.-China trade policy- the one Donald Trump talks about so much.

And Chad Sweet, Ted Cruz’s campaign chairman, is a former CIA officer. Michael Chertoff, George W. Bush’s former Secretary of Homeland Security, hired Sweet from Goldman Sachs to restructure and optimize the flow of information between the CIA, FBI and other members of the national security community and DHS. Chertoff and Sweet co-founded the Chertoff Group upon leaving the administration.

A known tactic of the intelligence community is the use of strategic communications as a “soft power” weapon against it adversaries — the creation of false narratives by the effective use of all media — social, digital, newspaper, print, etc. Combined with denial and deception, it can be a potent force. Glenn Beck and Mark Levin are abetting this.

Despite his ability to lie with a straight face (sadly Nixonian) on his support for amnesty and TPP, he got nailed by Senator Marco Rubio on the debate. Acting like a prick in the U.S. Senate was the core of Ted’s disciplined effort to bury his old school ties and reinvent himself as a modern-day Jesse Helms and supposed Conservative outsider. It’s a ruse.

As we get closer to the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary, Cruz and his establishment puppet masters are engaged in an aggressive strategy against Trump. The false narrative of course being that Cruz is the outsider while Trump is the insider. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

In its most simplistic terms – the power elite have no leverage over Trump – nothing.

Cruz, on the other hand, is the establishments quisling, spawned by the Bushes and controlled by Wall Street, who became a strident “outsider” only four years ago.

The U.S. Constitution does not defined “native born” citizen, nor have the courts. That Ted was eligible  to run for office as a citizen only 15 months ago is weird. Trump’s right the Democrats would have a field day with Calgary Ted, the Manchurian, Canadian Candidate.

Don’t get me wrong. Ted Cruz is a smart, canny, talented guy who has run a great “long race” campaign. He aspires to be Reagan but trust me he’s Nixon. Right down the incredible discipline and smarts playing the political game. Ted Cruz is not who he appears to be. As the bible says, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” In this case we must beware a Canadian bearing gifts.

COMMENTS

Hillary wins more delegates despite getting crushed.

ELECTION 2016

Limbaugh: 'Wait 'til Bernie finds out New Hampshire was rigged'

Published: 2 days ago

 JOE KOVACS 
About | Email | Archive

 

image: http://mobile.wnd.com/wp-content/themes/worldnet-theme/_/images//feed.png

 Read

     1.6K

Republish
Reprint

image: http://mobile.wnd.com/files/2014/08/hillary_clinton_16.jpg

Despite being the victim of a popular vote landslide in the New Hampshire Primary on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton is actually a winner when it comes to the number of delegates earned.

The former secretary of state is leaving the Granite State with at least two more delegates than Sen. Bernie Sanders, even though Sanders won by a margin of 60 to 38 percent of votes.

How is this possible?

New Hampshire not only has 24 “pledged” delegates, which are awarded based on the results of the popular vote, it also has eight “superdelegates,” who are free to lend their support to the candidate of their choice irrespective of the vote.

The ‘Stop Hillary’ campaign is on fire! Join the surging response to this theme: ‘Clinton for prosecution, not president’

Though Mrs. Clinton had only nine pledged delegates through the voting process, she has an additional six superdelegates as of Wednesday morning, giving her a total of 15.

Sanders has 13 delegates, all of which he won through the popular vote. Two superdelegates are uncommitted at this point. So even though the results appeared to be a massive win for Sanders, the delegate count, where it matters, tells a different story.

Radio host Rush Limbaugh commented on the absurdity of the Democratic Party process, saying, “What kind of system is that? You go in and you get skunked, you get schlonged, your get landslided out by 22 points and you leave the state with two more delegates than Bernie. Bernie’s always talking about how this system’s rigged and that system’s rigged, the economy is rigged and Wall Street’s rigged. Wait ’til he finds out that New Hampshire was rigged.”

image: http://mobile.wnd.com/files/2016/01/rush-limbaugh-thinking-thinker-600.jpg

Radio host Rush Limbaugh

Overall, Clinton holds a commanding lead over Sanders, with 394 delegates compared to 42 for Sanders.

Limbaugh, meanwhile, said the left-leaning media is in “full-fledged panic” over the fact that Donald Trump won the Republican side of the New Hampshire primary, collecting more than twice the votes of his nearest competitor, Ohio’s John Kasich.

Do you support Donald Trump’s no-nonsense candidacy? Tell the world with this brand new magnetic bumper sticker: “DONALD TRUMPS THE REST”

As WND reported, the New York Daily News featured a bluntly offensive lead story that calls out voters as stupid for picking Donald Trump.

The newspaper tweeted: “Front page: DAWN OF THE BRAIN DEAD – Trump comes back to life with N.H. win.”

image: http://mobile.wnd.com/files/2016/02/NYDailyNews.png

The New York Daily News responded to Donald Trump’s win in New Hampshire.

The cover itself showed Trump with a white-painted face and huge red-painted lips drawn into a smile – akin to the Joker in Batman movies. And its headline, in all caps, blasted “Dawn of the Brain Dead.”

The subtitle read: “Clown comes back to life with N.H. win as mindless zombies turn out in droves.”

RELATED: Newspaper calls voters ‘mindless zombies’ over Trump win

Limbaugh opined: “When the media starts insulting and blaming the voters as being stupid idiots, you know that full-fledged panic has set in. Because this means that they are unable to control the outcome. And that is what the media lost when they lost their monopoly, their inability now to control the outcome, to control the message, to control how people vote, to control what people think, to control what people’s opinions are. It’s all out the window, and everybody that considers themselves to be part of the establishment is facing a major, big-time rejection today.”

“On the Republican side,” Limbaugh said, “this would not be happening had there been some official, real, serious, consistent pushback to Obama.”

It’s Clinton Déjà Vu — New Hampshire Brings Snow and Rumors of Campaign Implosion

A Clinton supporter waving banners on the side of the road in Manchester, N.H.

JONNO RATTMAN

By MARK LEIBOVICH

FEBRUARY 9, 2016

So, I was driving along somewhere in New Hampshire on Monday, the day before the storied primary. It was snowing, just as the clichés of the New Hampshire Primary dictate: It is always snowing in New Hampshire. (Really, though, it actually was snowing).

The email came in from an editor in New York at around 4 p.m. Subject line: “Hillaryworld.” Body content: “What do you make of the supposed looming implosion?”

What supposed looming implosion? Or, to be more precise, which supposed looming implosion? Isn’t Hillaryworld always on the verge of one?

Yes, but they do have a tendency to occur at this precise moment. Periods of intense hand-wringing and recrimination always occur in Clintonworld around the New Hampshire primaries, if history is any guide — and what is Clinton history, if not utterly repetitive?

Slide Show | A Hillary Clinton Rally in Manchester, N.H.Jonno Rattman photographed a Hillary Clinton event ahead of the 2016 New Hampshire primary.

These brawls traditionally follow difficult results in Iowa. In 1992, the native Hawkeye Tom Harkin beat Bill Clinton in the year’s first caucuses. Barack Obama beat Hillary in 2008 (as did John Edwards, who finished second). And last week, Bernie Sanders essentially tied the former secretary of state, setting up the latest Clinton bloodbath-in-waiting. Hillary is down big in the New Hampshire polls. Her nervous staff and extended community of sycophants, hangers-on and self-professed “confidantes” keep unburdening themselves in the press — while being granted anonymity in exchange for their self-aggrandizing candor.

And then Politico writes all about it, as the site’s Glenn Thrush and Annie Karni did yesterday: “Clinton weighs staff shake-up after New Hampshire.”

We’ve been here before. This is how it all rolls in the Clinton precincts of Blue America. The situation is so familiar to be its own Democratic Party cliché, like nominating unelectable liberals in the 1980s or engaging in nasty platform fights in the 1990s.

Say this about the Clintons, for better or worse: They are predictable. Thrush and Karni’s New Hampshire pre-autopsy contained all the paint-by-number refrains of Clinton crackups past:

· The term “staff shake-up” would need to appear in the story’s headline (or, at least, the lede).

· Also, somewhere, the phrase “lack of trust” or “mutual suspicion.”

· The story would have to include a nod to the trusted old Clinton hands who were selflessly offering themselves up as potential campaign saviors.

· Embedded in the article would be the clear implication that all of this could have been avoided if only Mark Penn, Clinton’s 2008 strategist, were more involved.

· The story would also inevitably include at least one blind quote from a former Obama campaign aide who knows how to do things better.

· The story would have to offer up for sacrifice at least one scapegoat, whose job was allegedly in peril.

· Bonus points if said scapegoat hails from Obama’s campaigns (watch your back, Joel Benenson).

So, yes, this latest chapter in the Clintons’ book of Supposed Looming Implosions, 2016 edition, contains all the predictable elements. And I have no doubt that everything in the Politico story is 100 percent correct. Again: This is how it all goes in Clintonworld. For whatever reason — for all of their political gifts — Bill and Hillary are addicted to this high-wire act. And the slick roads of New Hampshire seem to be their preferred recurring backdrop, like those repeating cactuses in the background of an old cartoon.

We, the political gallery, become codependents. Ho-hum. (My Clinton Fatigue is acting up again.) And yet here we are, back in New Hampshire, with another Clinton inevitability parade being snowed on by someone — Sanders, in this case — who is, allegedly, unelectable.

This, of course, is when the Clintons are at their best and most dangerous. Their well-honed survival instinct kicks in. The challenger gets cocky. Next thing we know, there the Clintons are again, up on another New Hampshire pedestal, claiming victory. In other words, here we are in the midst of another Supposed Looming Implosion in New Hampshire, and as of noon on Primary Day, I am ruling nothing out.

And of course Joe Biden, who is tanned and tested, is ruling nothing out either.

Mark Leibovich is the chief national correspondent for the magazine.

Long time observer David Maraniss: "Bill Clinton 'Frail,' 'No Gleam,' 'No Electricity'"

www.weeklystandard.com

Longtime Bill Clinton observer David Maraniss saw the former president campaigning in New Hampshire and shared his thoughts on Twitter.

2) It was odd, when BC was introduced and stood on stage w/ Chelsea, he showed nothing on his face, mouth agape, eyes seemingly blank..— david maraniss (@davidmaraniss) February 9, 2016

1) For what it's worth, seeing Bill Clinton for the 1st time in quite a while at campaign rally in Manchester NH...— david maraniss (@davidmaraniss) February 9, 2016

Clinton is "frail," the biographer noted: "no affect at all, just frail, like he had to conserve every ounce of energy. No gleam in his eyes, no electricity, muted."

He continued,

He lit up only when Chelsea talked about him. Then when it was his turn to talk a little bit of his old self came back, but not much.Again there was not much electricity, the same hoarse voice and some familiar sentence constructs, some old synthesis......but not as evocative as it was even 3 years ago at the DNC in Charlotte when his words bailed out Obama...Hillary on her new riff IMAGINE had more energy and staying power...but then...

3) no affect at all, just frail, like he had to conserve every ounce of energy. No gleam in his eyes, no electricity, muted...— david maraniss (@davidmaraniss) February 9, 2016

4) He lit up only when Chelsea talked about him. Then when it was his turn to talk a little bit of his old self came back, but not much.— david maraniss (@davidmaraniss) February 9, 2016

5)Again there was not much electricity, the same hoarse voice and some familiar sentence constructs, some old synthesis...— david maraniss (@davidmaraniss) February 9, 2016

6) ...but not as evocative as it was even 3 years ago at the DNC in Charlotte when his words bailed out Obama...— david maraniss (@davidmaraniss)February 9, 2016

7) Hillary on her new riff IMAGINE had more energy and staying power...but then...— david maraniss (@davidmaraniss) February 9, 2016

8)...at the end when they worked the ropeline he was in his element and almost restored as though he had been given an IV...— david maraniss (@davidmaraniss) February 9, 2016

9) The Big Dog was barking again, however briefly.— david maraniss (@davidmaraniss) February 9, 2016

COMMENTS

42% of Democrats are in favor of socialism

www.marketwatch.com

Many Democrats are feeling the love for socialism.

More than four in 10 Democrats say they have a favorable opinion of socialism, according to a survey of 1,000 U.S. adults released in January by data and research firm YouGov; this percentage is nearly identical to what the researchers found in May of last year. Meanwhile, only about one in three say they have an unfavorable opinion of the ideology.

Among Republicans, those numbers look significantly different: Just 17% of Republicans have a favorable opinion of socialism, while 71% have an unfavorable opinion of it. And for the most part — no matter what the party — it is young people who are most in favor of socialism. Fully 49% of people ages 18 to 29 have a favorable opinion of socialism, compared with just 23% of those 65 and up.

Also see: Karl Marx is the most assigned economist in U.S. college classes

On the whole, nearly half of all Americans say they have an unfavorable opinion of socialism, the YouGov survey revealed.

That may explain why, in a separate survey, less than half of Americans said they would vote for a socialist president (sorry, Bernie). Indeed, only 47% of Americans said they would vote for a president who was a socialist, according to a survey of 1,500 adults released by Gallup last year, which looked at 11 types of candidates people would be willing to vote for, including a woman, gay or lesbian, Muslim and evangelical.

Among Democrats, 59% would do it, while among Republicans just 26% would. “Republicans and Democrats differ most in their willingness to vote for a socialist candidate, by 33 percentage points,” according to the Gallup data.

Table: Who are Americans willing to vote for?

DemocratsRepublicansEvangelical Christian66%84%Mormon79%84%Jewish92%95%Catholic95%93%Hispanic94%91%Black96%90%Woman97%91%Atheist64%45%Gay or lesbian85%61%Muslim73%45%Socialist59%26%Source: Gallup More from MarketWatch

COMMENTS

ALERT: Hillary Clinton Wear Blackface Costume??

Hillary Clinton

HOAX?

 by: Perry Sanders III  17 days ago

39

Lead Stories' Trendolizer has detected a photo that has been circulating social media recently which supposedly shows Hillary and Bill Clinton at a costume party, with Hillary as a Blackface and Bill as a country hillbilly.

The above image is the one supposedly of Hillary and Bill Clinton, but after Lead Stories' research into the matter we have debunked this story and proved it to be a hoax. The image featured above traces back to a Twitter account (@BrianTourville) from 2015, in response to a Huffington Post tweet.

Although a well attemtpted bit of humor and satire by @Brian_Tourville, Hillary is obviously not the BlackFace as shown in the alleged costume party photo, as can be seen by the difference in eye color. Hillary has blue eyes, not brown as shown in the costumed photo. In addition, it is highly unlikely for a photo of that is so politically detrimental to go unnoticed for all these years.

As can be seen in the comparison above, the height difference between Hillary and Bill are way off in the costumed picture.

Despite the attempt to show Hillary Clinton dressed with a blackface, we regret to inform you that this is absolutely a hoax. Nice try, internet!

Trump to Arkansas: Hillary, Bill Clinton 'left you'

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Donald Trump kept hitting two of his favorite targets, Bill and Hillary Clinton, during a campaign event in Little Rock, Ark. on Wednesday night, arguing that they fled the state.

After riffing against Ted Cruz over his Iowa caucus win on Monday, Trump bashed the Clintons, telling 11,500 attendees that they bailed on the state after the former president took over the White House in 1993.

"By the way, I have to tell you this," Trump told the crowd, "Hillary and Bill left Arkansas — they left you folks. They left you. Whether you like it or not, they left you.

"I guarantee you, if she or he was here tonight, they wouldn't be having 12,000 people filling up this arena," Trump said as boos rained down from the crowd.

Arkansans will take to the polls on Super Tuesday as part of the so-called SEC primary. Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee also will vote on the same day.

Donald Trump says they did. inPolitics on LockerDome

COMMENTS

Feds fight disclosure of Hillary Clinton Whitewater indictment drafts

www.politico.com

The National Archives is fighting a lawsuit trying to force disclosure of several draft indictments of Hillary Clinton prepared by a Whitewater prosecutor in the 1990s.

In a brief filed late Tuesday, Justice Department lawyers and the Archive

s argue that disclosure of the draft indictments would lead to an unwarranted invasion of Clinton's privacy and violate a court rule protecting grand jury secrecy.

"Despite the role that Mrs. Clinton occupied as the First Lady during President Clinton's administration, Mrs. Clinton maintains a strong privacy interest in not having information about her from the files of the Independent Counsel disclosed," wrote Martha Wagner Murphy, chief of the Archives "special access" branch that stores records of former independent counsels. "As an uncharged person, Hillary Rodham Clinton retains a significant interest in her personal privacy despite any status as a public figure."

The conservative group Judicial Watch, which filed suit for the records in October under the Freedom of Information Act, is arguing that Clinton's ongoing bid for the presidency reinforces the public interest in records about her alleged misconduct.

"She's one of the most well-known women in the world, seeking the office of the presidency and her privacy interests outweigh the public interest in knowing what's in that indictment? It's absurd and it's shameful that the administration is proposing this," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in an interview. "This is a political decision to protect her candidacy—because it is laughable, legally."

The Archives and Justice Department were dismissive about the impact of Clinton's presidential bid on public access to the records.

"While there may be a scintilla of public interest in these documents since Mrs. Clinton is presently a Democratic presidential candidate, that fact alone is not a cognizable public interest alone under FOIA, as disclosure of the draft indictments would not shed light on what the government is up to," Murphy wrote.

"Her interest in avoiding disclosure of the drafts is not diminished by the fact that she is a former public official who is running for President," Justice Department lawyers added in their brief.

Law enforcement records about living people who did not face charges in criminal investigations normally are not released under FOIA, or the names are sanitized from the records before they're published. However, sometimes judges have ordered the release of such records in cases involving public officials.

Despite the usual practice, though, the Archives has released fairly detailed information about the independent counsel's focus on Hillary Clinton. Just last week, Judicial Watch announced it had received 246 pages of records describing the crimes some prosecutors believed were committed in connection with the Whitewater land deal and related matters. Some of the memos are from the "HRC Team" in the counsel's office—apparently a team focused on Clinton. One discusses the jury appeal or lack thereof of a case based solely on circumstantial evidence. One prosecutor put the chance of a conviction for Clinton at 10 percent.

It's not clear from the government's court filings why the draft indictments would be more sensitive than that kind of analysis, but the new submissions do argue that the drafts are covered by grand jury secrecy. In its initial response to Judicial Watch, the Archives relied solely on Clinton's privacy (and that of others) and did not mention the grand jury secrecy issue. But the brief filed Tuesday contends the drafts would provide insight into the grand jury's activities by revealing the identities of witnesses and that they quote from grand jury testimony.

Fitton said that "if Mrs. Clinton was being truly transparent," she would provide a privacy waiver that could ease release of the records.

Spokesmen for the Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the legal filings.

Josh Gerstein is a senior reporter for POLITICO.

COMMENTS

Sometimes, Iowa Democrats award caucus delegates with a coin flip

www.desmoinesregister.com

The caucus mathematics worksheet from the Ames 2-4 precinct in Story County came down to a coin toss. Hillary Clinton was awarded a contested delegate after a coin toss.(Photo: Special to the Regsiter)

In a handful of Democratic caucus precincts Monday, a delegate was awarded with a coin toss.

It happened in precinct 2-4 in Ames, where supporters of candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton disputed the results after 60 caucus participants apparently disappeared from the proceedings.

As a result of the coin toss, Clinton was awarded an additional delegate, meaning she took five of the precinct’s eight, while Sanders received three.

Here’s what happened, according to David Schweingruber, an associate professor of sociology at Iowa State University (and Sanders supporter) who participated in the caucus:

A total of 484 eligible caucus attendees were initially recorded at the site. But when each candidate’s preference group was counted, Clinton had 240 supporters, Sanders had 179 and Martin O’Malley had five (causing him to be declared non-viable).

Those figures add up to just 424 participants, leaving 60 apparently missing. When those numbers were plugged into the formula that determines delegate allocations, Clinton received four delegates and Sanders received three — leaving one delegate unassigned.

Unable to account for that numerical discrepancy and the orphan delegate it produced, the Sanders campaign challenged the results and precinct leaders called a Democratic Party hot line set up to advise on such situations.

Party officials recommended they settle the dispute with a coin toss.

A Clinton supporter correctly called “heads” on a quarter flipped in the air, and Clinton received a fifth delegate.

Similar situations were reported elsewhere, including at a precinct in Des Moines, at another precinct in Des Moines, in Newton, in West Branch  and in Davenport. In all five situations, Clinton won the toss.

Read or Share this story: http://dmreg.co/1SV0rc1

COMMENTS

Cruz Draws First Blood

Getty

by BEN SHAPIRO1 Feb 20163,555

On Monday, Senator Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) performed the singular feat of simultaneously proving that a Republican can win Iowa without backing the ethanol boondoggle, and toppled The God Who Does Not Bleed, Donald Trump. Meanwhile, Senator Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) finished stronger than expected, beating poll estimates by six percentage points; Trump finished more than four percent below expectations, while Cruz finished nearly four percent above expectations.

Naturally, the media rushed to declare Rubio tonight’s big winner.

That’s nonsense. Cruz, the most consistent conservative in the race, was the big winner. Bronze isn’t gold. And as Trump has tweeted:

“No one remembers who came in second.” – Walter Hagen

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 30, 2013

Cruz had to win Iowa in order to remain competitive in future states. He dealt Trump a blow that will test Trump’s mettle, and withstood The Donald’s biggest campaign haymakers in order to do it. He beat back a media assault on him that ranged from his birthplace to his Goldman Sachs connections. “Iowa has sent notice that the Republican nominee…will not be chosen by the media, by the establishment, or by the lobbyists,” Cruz said.

We can only hope that’s true going forward.

What’s more, Cruz utilized a serious ground game and data plan to pound out a victory over a candidate with significantly more media exposure. Some may say that makes Trump look strong – he didn’t utilize the same resources. But that actually just demonstrates that boots on the ground always defeat an air-only campaign. As Cruz put it in his victory speech, “Tonight is a victory for the grassroots.” And Cruz worked those grassroots.

Cruz isn’t done yet, either. Unlike Mike Huckabee in 2008 or Rick Santorum in 2012, he has the resources to run a long, grueling campaign before he even begins. His campaign has $19 million on hand, more than any other candidate. He’s running second in South Carolina already to Trump, who will take a polling hit there. He’s currently tied for second in New Hampshire, and unhampered by the four-way crab pot that is the establishment lane. Should Trump hit the skids, Cruz will be right there to pick up the pieces – as he should be, given that he’s the man who put Trump on the mat.

Rubio, meanwhile, withstood approximately $20 million in Jeb! ad spends in Iowa designed to push down his polling numbers. That demonstrates that his candidacy is not merely viable, but durable – he can take a punch. Tonight was a solid night for Rubio. But he won’t really be tested until New Hampshire, where there are other major establishment candidates expending plenty of resources. Right now, he’s running even with Cruz, Ohio Governor John Kasich, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. He’ll have to emerge from that scrum in a major way – and he’ll have to hope that Trump plummets in the meanwhile. The early primaries don’t favor Rubio. He’s biding his time, hoping to last until Florida and Super Tuesday; it could certainly happen. But his path is rougher than many members of the media assume.

As for Trump, he’s not finished yet. How could he be? He entered the caucuses today with a 4.7 percent lead in the RealClearPolitics poll average – but in New Hampshire, he’d have to drop more than 20 percentage points to even meet the rest of the field. Even Vermont Governor Howard Dean didn’t drop that much in New Hampshire after the infamous Dean Scream of 2004. Trump is still the frontrunner in New Hampshire – so the question becomes whether either Rubio or Cruz can build on their momentum from tonight.

The fight didn’t end tonight. It began. There are three viable candidates for the Republican nomination. But the frontrunner, at least for now, is no longer Donald Trump. It’s the best-organized, best-funded, most conservative member of the field: Cruz.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News, Editor-in-Chief of DailyWire.com, and The New York Times bestselling author, most recently, of the book,The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential Race

Bill Clinton's Approval Rating Plunges To 39 Percent Down from 50% Breitbart

www.breitbart.com

Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

by Mike Flynn28 Jan 20160

28 Jan, 201628 Jan, 2016 Bill Clinton’s poll ratings are in free-fall, and that surprise crash undermines the conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton has a lock on the Democrat nomination.

A new CBS/New York Times poll shows that just 39 percent of American voters have a favorable opinion of Bill Clinton.

This is down from a 50 percent approval rating just a few months ago. In 2012, when Bill Clinton was campaigning aggressively for President Obama’s reelection, 66 percent of voters had a favorable opinion of Mr. Clinton.

Bill Clinton’s favorable rating today is actually lower than it was in 2008, when he last campaigned forcefully for Hillary as she was battling Barack Obama for the Democrat nomination. As that contest heated up, Mr. Clinton’s favorable rating sank to 46 percent.

A modest drop in Bill Clinton’s approval rating is to be expected as he reenters the political fray. As a former President, Clinton is normally viewed by voters as somewhat “above” politics, allowing them to hold more favorable views of the former politician.

Campaigning for one side in a political debate, even if that candidate is his wife, is naturally going to impact the opinions of those on the other side of that debate. The steep drop in Bill Clinton’s approval ratings, though, as he is only beginning to campaign for Hillary in the primary suggests something deeper is going on.

A few weeks ago, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump responded to criticism from Hillary Clinton by raising the issue of Bill Clinton’s sexual transgressions and the allegations of sexual assault against the former President.

In the wake of the controversy between Trump and Hillary Clinton, several women from Bill Clinton’s past emerged again from the media shadows to retell their stories of Mr. Clinton’s alleged sexual abuse.

The last time these allegations were raised at all in the media was back in 1998, during the height of the controversy surrounding Bill Clinton’s sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Tellingly, during this time, Mr. Clinton’s approval rating also sunk to 39 percent in the CBS poll.

While the resurfacing of the old allegations brings back memories of a dysfunctional Clinton White House for older voters, for a large portion of the electorate, these stories are largely new. Voters younger than 35 weren’t even old enough to vote when the Lewinsky story dominated political news.

Interestingly, young voters are a powerful force behind the dramatic rise of Hillary Clinton’s current rival,Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Sanders leads Hillary by 12 points among voters aged 18-34. In another poll, voters younger than 24 prefer Sanders over Hillary by a massive 42 points, 68-26.

It isn’t hard to imagine that these twin phenomenon — Bill Clinton’s plummeting approval ratings and Sanders’ surge among young voters — are related.

Before Trump, the conventional wisdom was that voters didn’t care about Clinton’s past sexual transgressions. These, the pundits assured us, were old news. For many voters, though, these allegations aren’t old news at all.

Even for those who do remember the old controversies, the kind of conduct allegedly committed by Bill Clinton is viewed much differently today than 20 years ago. This may be the clearest sign that the Clinton era is truly over.

COMMENTS

MSNBC mocks Hillary RELENTLESSLY for leaving Iowa to fundraise at investment bank

Posted on January 28, 2016 

iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Apparently last night Hillary left Iowa to go raise money at a big investment bank fundraiser in Philadelphia. Just a few days from the Iowa Caucuses, Morning Joe can’t believe she’d do such a thing and neither can Bernie:

Subject: Fwd: So the Clintons weren't so bad, eh?

------ Forwarded Message

If you’re under 50 you really need to read this.  If you’re over 50, you lived through it, so share it with those under 50.  Amazing to me how much I had forgotten!
When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform.  Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress.  This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.
Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.  Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.”  Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children. Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission.  Lani Guanier was her selection.  When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration. Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations.  She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.  Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.Many younger voters will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply.  She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired.  This ruined
their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation.  Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds.  A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.
 Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security.  When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.  Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents. Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the “bimbo eruption” and scandal defense.  Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were: She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit.  After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones. She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.  After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives. Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath. After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen. What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type low-life mess? Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next.  But to her loyal fans - “what difference does it make

Hillary Clinton Cannot Be Stopped

www.vanityfair.com

By Daniel Acker/Bloomberg via Getty Images.

Why her victory over Bernie Sanders is inevitable.

For the second time in eight years,Hillary Clinton sees the Democratic nomination being pawed by a charming interloper, like a priceless vase grabbed by a panda. She’d prefer to shoot the panda, but that could mean breaking the vase, and onlookers would object. To make matters worse, Bernie Sanders, who leads Clinton in both New Hampshire and Iowa, has produced a new video ad, “America,” a wordless feel-hope montage that is awfully good, good enough that I can’t help feeling both moved by it and resentful that it works on me. Maybe shoot the panda.

How does Hillary come back? Back in 2008, many of us thought she was a solid candidate who just happened to be meeting her match in an exceptional one. As Hendrik Hertzberg, who’d called Clinton’s talents “immense,” summarized inThe New Yorker, “Barack Obama is a phenomenon that comes along once in a lifetime. Unfortunately for Hillary, it’s her lifetime.” But maybe Hillary is really a not-so-solid candidate who happens to meet her match in anyone answering to “Other.”

Let’s assume the poll numbers hold and she loses Iowa and New Hampshire. In the worst-case scenario, a few weeks of Sanders victories will change the momentum of the race irrevocably, inspiring voters in blue states to follow their hearts. And the heart doesn’t lead to Hillary Clinton, unless you’re Lanny Davis. Maybe best to regain control soon.

She can try campaigning harder on “judgment,” but Iraq will always undercut that message. She can say that competence and experience count for more than soaring rhetoric and grand visions—and she believes it—but that would mean insulting a sitting president whom Democratic voters still deeply admire. She can hope to keep her opponents out of the spotlight with debates scheduled at inconvenient times, except that the Democratic National Committee did just that for her and it backfired. That’s why we’re seeing a “town hall” on Monday. She could try deploying charm, but that’s like Bernie Sanders deploying a thick head of hair.

Let’s take a closer look at kneecapping, a solid standby. In 2008, the Clinton campaign fanned outrage over Obama’s church pastor, hammered Obama on ties to former terrorist Bill Ayers, and even circulated a picture of Obama being dressed as a Somali elder during a trip to Kenya. But these things soured many Democrats on Clinton. This cycle, her campaign has been more restrained, using proxies to remind people that Sanders is a socialist, allege that Bernie would take away our healthcare (leave it to Chelsea to make Hillary look like a political natural), and suggest his “America” adis racist because of excessive whiteness. But even these low-key attacks have been busts. They’re bound to be. When you’re caught up in a beautiful dream, you don’t want to be woken up and told it’s nonsense, least of all by Hillary Clinton.

What does that leave? More than one might think. Despite the challenges, Hillary wins by not panicking. Certainly, after an inevitable New Hampshire triumph, Sanders will shoot up in the polls, and Hillary’s lead in most states will shrink a lot. (It’s already fallen by half in South Carolina.) But after a couple of grueling weeks, the air will quietly start to leak from the Sanders tire. Bernie is unlikely to inspire anything close to the support that Obama got among Southern black voters in 2008, and most non-New-England states that preferred Hillary in 2008 will still prefer her now. So my guess is she’ll take a narrow but persistent lead across most of the country, winning steadily, if slowly. She’ll take the South, including South Carolina, Florida, and Texas. She’ll take New York, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and California. And she won’t neglect the caucus states, where she was so embarrassingly outplayed in 2008. She’ll come out fine, if she plays it cool. (And if the continuing investigation into her use of a private e-mail server as secretary of state doesn’t land her in more serious trouble.)

As for her campaign narrative, she can appeal to heart by appealing to the head. Sanders may do better against Republicans in many polls, but Hillary can remind people that her negatives have been exhaustively aired, while Bernie’s will still be news. (That’s one reason Hillary’s people try to wedge “socialist” into every conversation about the Vermont senator.) She can stress, again, that she’s one of the most qualified and prepared candidates ever to run for office, at least since George H.W. Bush, and maybe since Nixon. (Okay, that’s not the ideal lineage to summon, but she doesn’t have to name names.) Finally, she can tell voters not to risk blowing up everything they’ve achieved with Obama. Unless Sanders dissolves the legislative branch, he’ll be powerless to push through most of his domestic agenda, while Republicans can do much to roll back recent gains. In short, stick with me and don’t try anything funny. As pitches go, it’s uptight and guarded—but so is Hillary.

And, in many ways, this is Hillary’s pitch. She has emphasized her experience. She has conveyed her international toughness. She has tied herself closely to Barack Obama, stressing the need to preserve what he has built. (This is in contrast to the approach of Al Gore, who unwisely distanced himself from Bill Clintonduring the 2000 election.) She has signaled leftward moves on policy, for instance on trade, and spoken favorably of Sanders, as is wisest. So Hillary will regain control of the narrative, and, as her victories pile up, Bernie lovers will emerge from their reverie to the real world: a Clinton will be president; a Clinton will always be president.

One final thing Hillary cannot say, but which many Democrats intuitively grasp, is that her nomination lets her party postpone a reckoning. The Republican coalition has broken apart, blown up by leadership duplicity. Democrats are in better shape, but they still have considerable fissures of their own. Their party elite favors globalism and free trade; their non-elite prefers more nationalism and protectionism. In papering over these splits, the Obama coalition has focused increasingly on civil rights injustices related to gender or race. But this is an unsustainable approach, further alienating white working-class voters and fostering internal squabbles over who deserves what. Only the fear of a common foe, the GOP, keeps the peace. Bernie Sanders, by shifting the focus away from identity and over to economic justice, is inviting Democrats to have it out. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, is inviting Democrats to keep it in. Even if she’s not a natural unifier, she embodies the idea of “Democrat,” and that spares people from having to examine it more closely. Political parties don’t like to think, and with Hillary Clinton they don’t have to. Maybe there’s a Clinton campaign t-shirt in that: Don’t overthink it. Just vote Hillary. Or maybe not. But it doesn’t matter. Either way, the outcome is the same: she wins.

COMMENTS

Women Won’t Save Hillary

observer.com

People hold Hillary Clinton campaign signs during the King Day at the Dome rally at the S.C. State House at the S.C. State House January 18, 2016 in Columbia, S.C. (Photo: Sean Rayford/Getty Images)

Two new polls released in the past week show women won’t be voting in droves for Hillary Clinton the way African-Americans voted in droves for President Obama.

First, a USA Today/Rock the Vote pollfound millennial women preferring Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders to Ms. Clinton. Women between the ages of 18 and 34 preferred Mr. Sanders by a 19-point margin, with 50 percent choosing the senator and 31 percent choosing the former secretary of state.

On Tuesday, a Monmouth Universitynational poll found Ms. Clinton’s lead among women had taken a nose dive since December. Ms. Clinton currently leads Mr. Sanders by 19 points among all women, a smaller lead than what the same poll found at the end of 2015, when Ms. Clinton had a 45-point lead. That’s a huge drop in just one month.

If these polls are indicative of the direction Ms. Clinton’s support among women is heading, as voters tend to make their final decisions in the last month and days before an election (or primary), then Ms. Clinton has a problem.

Women don’t appear as though they will support Ms. Clinton the way African-Americans supported Mr. Obama. Part of that reason is due to a larger split of the demographic between Republicans and Democrats. Sure, more women vote for Democrats than Republicans, but the gap is much closer than with African-Americans.

In 2012, Mr. Obama won women by 12 points, or 56 percent to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s 44 percent. Black voters favored Mr. Obama at a much wider margin, with 93 percent voting for the president’s second term and just 6 percent voting for Mr. Romney.

Mr. Obama also didn’t pander to black voters. He didn’t bring up his race during every speech, every appearance or every debate. He didn’t constantly say he was running to be the first black president. Sure, his surrogates and a friendly media didn’t let voters forget that, but Mr. Obama himself didn’t. It’s one thing for supporters to point that out, but it’s another thing for the candidate to feel the need to remind them.

Does Ms. Clinton think we will forget she’s a woman? Or that we can’t tell? Does she think we have the attention span of a goldfish and must be reminded every few sentences? It’s insulting, condescending and makes one wonder if she’s sure of her own candidacy beyond her gender.

Ms. Clinton is also not as inspirational a candidate as Mr. Obama was. Beyond being the (at the time) potential first black president, Mr. Obama also seemed to have fresh, new ideas, and wasn’t seen as a Washington insider. Ms. Clinton, on the other hand, is seen as an entrenched politician who doesn’t have a bold new viewpoint.

This is important for millennials and was one of the reasons they came out to vote for then-Senator Obama. Millennials are following politics more, and are more dedicated to their opinions than any other generation. As a millennial myself (apologies for my generation, we’re not all terrible), I can’t meet another person in my age group who doesn’t have loud opinions about everything. Maybe it’s because I live on the East Coast, but seriously, young people won’t shut up about their politics.

Mr. Sanders is the candidate who is talking more like Mr. Obama in 2008. He’s calling out Wall Street, capitalism and cronyism. When Ms. Clinton talks about those things we laugh, because she receives large donations from Wall Street, including speaking fees and appears to love cronyism—just check out all of her friends she helped while at the State Department.

Her story is also not something that inspires a generation that is more focused on their career and more desiring of personal success. Mr. Obama had help throughout his career, of course, but it was still him getting the help because of his own merit or because of what he represented for political elites. Ms. Clinton, on the other hand, relied on her husband to get where she is today. She was hired to a top law firm in Arkansas and made partner after her husband became governor. She was elected to the senate with help from her husband’s donors and riding on the momentum of her husband’s popularity after leaving the White House. She ran for president because of all these things, which she only achieved because of whom she was married to.

Young women are averse to the idea that we need a man to succeed, yet that is what Ms. Clinton exemplifies. Sure, Ms. Clinton appeals to more extreme feminists just because of her gender, but the ideals she represents are decidedly not feminist.

There are of course some things working in Ms. Clinton’s favor for this election. She does better with older women than Mr. Sanders, and older voters tend to turn out. Mr. Obama was able to get young Americans to vote in record numbers, so if Mr. Sanders can’t replicate that, he’s toast. Ms. Clinton is also doing better with black and Hispanic voters than Mr. Sanders, so if they come out to vote, she’ll have a clear path to victory.

As with every election, it all comes down to who actually turns out and in what numbers. Ms. Clinton has many factors working in her favor, but if Mr. Sanders’s supporters are more energized to go to the polls, then Ms. Clinton will have a problem.

COMMENTS

Bernie Sanders goes ‘hope and change’ in closing ad featuring thousands of inspired supporters

www.washingtonpost.com

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders released a new campaign ad titled "America." Paul Simon's song "(All Come To Look For) America" plays over scenes of rural and suburban America. Sanders appears nearly halfway into the ad greeting crowds at a rally. (Bernie 2016)

There are images of Iowa farms, the New Hampshire seacoast, coffee shops, kitchen tables and thousands and thousands of inspired Bernie Sanders supporters, in intimate settings and at the large-scale rallies that have come to define his campaign.

The new 60-second television spot reaches it’s crescendo as Simon & Garfunkel sing “they’ve all come to look for America” while an expanding grid of people who’ve all come to see Sanders flashes on the screen.

The Vermont senator has produced a powerful closing ad that evokes President Obama’s promise of hope-and-change from 2008 — and it’s one that’s certain to create buzz less than two weeks before the first votes are cast in the 2016 Democratic race against Hillary Clinton.

[Sanders prepares to challenge Clinton on Super Tuesday and beyond]

The ad — which captures the festival-like feel of Sanders's campaign events — is also remarkable in that not a single word is spoken, aside from the lyrics to the classic Simon & Garfunkel song “America” and the authority line at the end. In that, Sanders says in his heavy Brooklyn accent, “I’m Bernie Sanders, and I approve this message.”

There’s no mention of Sanders’s agenda or his critique of a country in which he says the “billionaire class” has far too much control over the economy and political process.

Instead, the ad just shows people who’ve been moved over the past nine months by a once-obscure 74-year-old senator from Vermont who’s already exceeded everyone’s expectations in this race and is now positioned to possibly pull off wins in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Aides said the spot will start airing Friday in both of the first two nominating states.

COMMENTS