Search Results

ANALYSIS: TRUE. Uh, Hillary, Your Hubby Caused the 2008 Recession.


Johnson’s op-ed is mostly positive, focusing mainly on his policy ideas while taking just a couple specialized shots at his opponents Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Johnson, who didn’t poll high enough to make the debate stage Monday night, says that his Libertarian Party ticket is the only one that offers Americans “a chance to find common ground.”

Johnson and his running mate, Bill Weld, suggested they are fiscal conservatives but social liberals. Johnson vetoed more than 750 bills as governor of New Mexico, and said he believes “government does too much and costs too much.” He also scolded the treatment of black Americans by police officers and advocated for criminal justice reform.

“What would government be like in a Johnson administration?” he asked. “First, we would begin the conversation about the size of government by submitting a real balanced budget. Every government program would have to justify its expenditures, every year.”

He added: “Cuts of up to 20 percent or more would be on the table for all programs, including military spending. Changes to Social Security and Medicare must also be considered.”

Johnson called Trump’s immigration proposals “ludicrous,” and implied that a Libertarian president wouldn’t deport “noncriminal undocumented immigrants” or build a wall. He also knocked Clinton on foreign policy for her “muddled mix of intervention, regime change and bombing campaigns.” These, Johnson wrote, created the disasters in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria.

He makes some solid points.


WEIRDLY I REMEMBER SIMILAR FLAPS ABOUT W AND OBAMA: In Hillary’s case, it’s just her robot body.  Someone left a door open.  ‘WHAT THE HELL IS THAT?’Hillary Clinton was wearing a mysterious box with wires during TV debate with Trump, conspiracy theorists claim in latest bizarre theory.

SALENA ZITO: How Trump won over a bar full of undecideds and Democrats. “‘I’ve been a Democrat all of my life, but when Clinton mentions her husband and the jobs he brought to the country in the ’90s, it’s not a fair assessment. She is no moderate Democrat the way he was, her policies would not bring back jobs,’ said Nathan Nemick. It burns Nemick when Clinton references her husband, like she did in the debate on trade and jobs. ‘She is nothing like him,” he said of the Democrat he admired in his youth.'”

Related: Hillary Clinton was clearly victorious, but only one candidate did enough to win new voters during the presidential debate.

I didn’t think Trump was very good. But I’m reminded of something a consultant once told me: You think those ads for porcelain collector plates are tacky and awful. But the porcelain collector plate people run those ads because they work — with the people who buy porcelain collector plates.

WELL, LET’S HOPE: Cheer Up. History Will Forget This Dismal Campaign. “When historians look back on our era, the Hillary Clinton-Donald Trump campaign probably will be a modest footnote to broader and mostly uninterrupted positive trends.”

IDIOCRACY WASN’T MEANT TO BE A HOW-TO GUIDE: Celebs are Supporting Hillary Clinton by Going Naked.

(Via John Podhoretz, who tweets, “So she’s President Camacho too.”)

FLASHBACK: The Independent Institute’s 1996 review of the classic book by Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy.

And Hillary definitely believes she’s one of the Anointed. (If not, the Anointed One), which makes Barry’s messianic usurpation of the title in 2008 all the more abhorrent to her.

(Via Maggie’s Farm, who notes, The anointed ain’t so great. It’s just a way of life for them.” And their wannabe mascots and camp followers.)

MASCOTS OF THE ANOINTED: Four Things The Media Won’t Tell You About Hillary’s Beauty Queen BFF.

ASHE SCHOW: Where are the fact checkers for Clinton’s pay gap claims?

We were only a minute or so into the debate before Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton uttered her first fabrication by implying we don’t already guarantee equal pay for women.

“…guaranteeing, finally, equal pay for women’s work,” Clinton said, in response to the first question about why her policies would be good for the economy.

Well, Clinton, equal pay is already guaranteed in the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

Clinton’s implication that women aren’t paid the same as men is false. On average, women earn less than men not because of discrimination, but because of the different choices men and women make in their careers.

Women and men choose different majors and different careers, for starters. Nine of the 10 lowest-paying majors are dominated by women, while nine of the 10 highest-paying majors are dominated by men. Women also tend to leave the work force after having children, while men end up working harder. Women also work fewer hours than men.

I’m so old I can remember when feminists denied that there was any such thing as “women’s work.”

TRANSPARENCY: The White House Asked Congress To Keep Quiet On Russian Hacking.

In a statement released Friday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Adam Schiff, the vice-chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, respectively, formally accused Russia of attempting to influence the US election. It was the first official, on-record confirmation from US government officials that the Kremlin is actively working to manipulate public confidence in the country’s election system.

But sources tell BuzzFeed News that the White House — which has stayed silent despite mounting pressure to call out its Moscow adversaries — tried to delay the statement’s release. The public accusation was of such concern to the administration that White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough was personally involved in the negotiations over releasing it, according to a congressional source.

The White House convinced Feinstein and Schiff, both Democrats, to omit part of their original statement for security reasons, according to another congressional source.

It’s a testament to America’s inherent strengths that between Russia’s hacking and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unsecured email server that we haven’t found ourselves in a major war already.

QUESTION ASKED: Is Clinton winning over Obama’s coalition?

Clinton’s path to the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House is paved with support from the millennials, women, African-American and Hispanic voters who lined up behind President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. But there have been mounting concerns among Clinton supporters that key elements of Obama’s base vote are not enthusiastic about her campaign as pre-debate national and battleground polls tightened.

So while her clash with Trump on Monday night at Hofstra University in New York was primarily about who had the temperament, experience and knowledge to serve in the Oval Office, it’s no surprise that Clinton’s debate strategy and rhetoric was laced with subtle outreach to the diverse Democratic coalition she badly needs to flock to the polls in November.


RESET: U.S. Believes Russia Steered Hacked Documents to Websites.

A fuller picture of the operation has come into focus in the past several weeks. U.S. officials believe that at least two hacking groups with ties to the Russian government, known as Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, are involved in the escalating data-theft efforts, according to people briefed on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe of the cyberattacks.

Following successful breaches, the stolen data are apparently transferred to three different websites for publication, these people say. The websites—WikiLeaks, and a blog run by Guccifer 2.0—have posted batches of stolen data at least 42 times from April to last week.

WikiLeaks has published U.S. secrets for years but has recently taken an overtly adversarial tone toward Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Cybersecurity experts believe that and Guccifer 2.0 often work together and have direct ties to Russian hackers.

No biggie — “it’s ‘tradition’ in Russia to tamper with elections,” according to James Clapper, our own Director of National Intelligence.

ANN ALTHOUSE: Hillary Clinton’s unchallenged, illogical statement about private prisons.Government prosecutes criminals and obtains convictions and prison sentences. If government uses privately run prisons, it must pay these private businesses to house its prisoners. The entity filling the prison therefore has an economic incentive against putting more people in prison. The private business — the one with the ‘profit motivation’ — has no power to create more prisoners. I can see opposing private prisons for other reasons, but Hillary’s justification made no sense to me other than a random expression of disgust for business.”

MICHAEL BARONE: Did Trump deconstruct Hillary among “marginal” voters? In this column Barone reassesses his original assessment of the debate. Read the whole thing.

TRUMP WINS MOST IMMEDIATE POLLS: “The newspaper collected screen shots of 19 ‘snap’ polls conducted immediately after the debate, and in 17 of them, most respondents said Trump won the debate, often by a wide margin. It isn’t just Drudge and Breitbart; Trump also got more votes than Clinton in instant polls at Time, Slate, Variety and other liberal outlets. I can’t explain it, other than to say that perhaps it tells us more about how people view Hillary Clinton than about how Donald Trump actually performed.”

Well, certainly one explanation is a repeat of the “Ron Paul Revolution” days of early 2008 – but as with Paul’s quixotic presidential bid, having a large enough group of dedicated zealots to tilt Internet polls does not necessarily translate into sufficient votes at the ballot box where it counts.

It seems safe to say that Trump’s core followers are much more passionate than Hillary’s. We’ll know soon enough if there are a majority of them.

ISN’T EVERYBODY IN THE DNC-MSM? ‘Was Lester Holt auditioning for Hillary’s press secretary?’

Related: Lester Holt learned the ‘Matt Lauer Lesson.’


One of the strangest transformations in the era of Obama has been the overt and often gratuitous stereotyping of so-called white people — most often the white working classes who have become constructed into veritable unthinking and unrecognizable zombies. For progressives especially these were not the sympathetic old foundation of the Democratic party, who were once romanticized as the “people” pitted against the industrialists and the bluestockings, but rather have become monstrous caricatures of all sorts of incorrect race/class/and gender behavior and speech.

Liberal fascism invariably needs a target to focus its hatred.

ASHE SCHOW: Clinton cares about the rights of only some young men:

During the debate, while speaking about race relations and criminal justice reform, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton discussed ensuring rights to young men. She wouldn’t say “due process,” but she was referring to those rights.

“Who disagrees with keeping neighborhoods safe? But let’s also add, no one should disagree about respecting the rights of young men who live in those neighborhoods,” Clinton said. “So we need to do a better job of working, again, with the communities, faith communities, business communities, as well as the police, to try to deal with this problem.”

It’s shocking that Clinton would discuss the “rights of young men,” considering the language she uses to talk about campus sexual assault. When Clinton says we must “listen and believe” to accusers, she’s saying we shouldn’t consider whether the accusations might be false (well, except when the accusations are against her husband).

That’s a dangerous policy that has led to dozens of lawsuits against universities who have denied due process rights to male students accused of sexual assault.

And many injustices, about which Hillary has shown little concern.

PHILIP KLEIN: Three ways Hillary Clinton won the debate — and two reasons it might not matter.

My sense was that she did better than Trump, but not dramatically. Honestly, the bar was set so low that both cleared it: Trump didn’t throw anything, and she didn’t cough up blood. Happy 2016!

THE HILL GETS THE VAPORS: Top climate skeptic to lead Trump’s EPA transition team.

Man, apparently that Trump is skeptical there’s a climate or something!

Related: As Americans Tire of Eco-Panic, Hillary Quietly Drops ‘Climate Change’ Rhetoric.

At least until January, when Hillary hopes to resume Obama’s patented formula of trickle-down crony socialism and punitive overregulation.


Jon Gabriel, call your office.


NO KINGS, NO QUEENS, NO LORDS, NO LADIES: We won’t be fooled again! Obama’s Conflict Tanked the Clinton E-mail Investigation — As Predicted.  If both are guilty, both should go down for it.  Stop with special considerations.

SO I’D CALL IT A DRAW. Both Trump and Hillary left key points out. Neither looked awful, but neither looked great. And people I follow on social media seem equally divided.

PREDICTION: If Hillary is elected President, she’ll be the first since Truman to use nuclear weapons.



HILLARY SAYS TRUMP PAYS NO INCOME TAXES: Didn’t Harry Reid say that about Mitt Romney?

HILLARY: I made a mistake using a private email system. Trump: It was more than a mistake, when you have your staff taking the fifth, when you have the man who set up the server taking the fifth.

HILLARY PLUGGING HER BOOK. Well, I would too, with this audience.



I LOVE THAT TRUMP AND HILLARY ARE STANDING IN FRONT OF “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Is it time yet?

HILLARY: “Equal pay for women’s work.” What’s “women’s work?”


Center yourself, find your happy personal space, crack open a bottle or ten of Trump rosé and join him!





HOW IS SOCIAL MEDIA REACTING TO THE TRUMP-HILLARY DEBATE? Tyler O’Neil is liveblogging the alternately manic and depressed reaction here.


Steve Green will be drunkblogging tonight’s debate as well. Watch for that post to go up in just a bit.


The bar was set (read: lowered to the floor) in 2008. Does Trump have equal or more executive experience than a failed community organizer who launched his political career in the living room of a man who bombed the Pentagon? Will he receive a plurality of the vote? Then the answer, by the left’s own standards, is a resounding yes.

And note this lede by Hillary/Obama sycophant Glenn Thrush of the Politico:

H.L. Mencken declared there was only one way to look at a politician — “down.”

Says the man who described Hillary’s email server, which broke government rules, as “badass.”


Shot: Hillary Clinton & Leftists: Urban Riots Caused by Environmental Racism.

Chaser: Zika Reminds Us That Climate Change Is a Women’s Rights Issue.

Hangover: As Americans Tire of Eco-Panic, Hillary Quietly Drops ‘Climate Change’ Rhetoric.

That’s odd – just a couple of years ago, the former Secretary of State, who flew 956,733 miles during her stint at Foggy Bottom  in part to allegedly fight terrorism, claimed in 2014, “Climate change is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face.”

HOWIE CARR: The debate fix is in…for Hillary Clinton.

As David Sirota of the International Business Times tweets, “It would be more fun if every politician and professional activist group just posted their pre-written, post-debate press releases right now.”


Former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau today:


Former Obama speechwriter Jon Favraeu on the left in 2008:


Perhaps Favraeu is once again trying to bring us all “peace in our time” in his own special way yet again.

SCOTT ADAMS: Why I Switched My Endorsement From Clinton To Trump: “As most of you know, I had been endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, for my personal safety, because I live in California. It isn’t safe to be a Trump supporter where I live. And it’s bad for business too. But recently I switched my endorsement to Trump, and I owe you an explanation. So here it goes.”

Plus: “Clinton wants to insult Putin into doing what we want. That approach seems dangerous as hell to me.”

DEAD HEAT: Hillary’s lead down to two points nationally and in Pennsylvania.

JOURNALISM AS STENOGRAPHY: Where did all those ‘Trump Lies’ articles come from this weekend? The Clinton campaign, of course. “So the weekend before the first presidential debate, four major news publications all print the same story, the content and tone of which (calling out one candidate over the other as a serial liar) Stelter concedes is ‘extraordinary,’ and it’s all just a ‘coincidence’ with no coordination between the publications and certainly none with the campaign? Uh huh. Hey wait… what’s this over here on the Hillary Clinton campaign website published on Friday, the day before all the articles published at the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post and Politico?” . . . As if the message wasn’t clear enough in the post, the Clinton campaign was sure to hammer the story assignments home by conducting a special conference call on the topic for members of the media. According to Jason Easly at PoliticsUSA, the conference call included more pressure on debate moderator Lester Holt.”

BLOOMBERG: Trump, Clinton Deadlocked in Bloomberg Poll Before Key Debate. “The Republican and Democratic nominees each get 46 percent of likely voters in a head-to-head contest in the latest Bloomberg Politics national poll, while Trump gets 43 percent to Clinton’s 41 percent when third-party candidates are included.”

Related: CNN/ORC polls: Trump, Clinton deadlocked in Colorado, Pennsylvania.

HILLARY DELETED NEARLY 1,000 EMAILS WITH PETRAEUS, and 26 other things we learned from Clinton’s FBI files.

And as Roger Simon noted on Saturday, Obama’s Colossal Email Lie Final Test for Tarnished MSM.

(Via Dan Riehl.)


CLAIM: Trump’s old debate tricks won’t work on Clinton.

He entered each debate with a game plan and flawlessly executed it. By the time the debates began, for instance, Trump was at the top of national and battleground Republican polls. So he was able to consistently tout his polling strength while needling opponents such as Jeb Bush and Rand Paul. Trump never missed an opportunity to remind the audience he was the only candidate self-funding his campaign. He claimed vast wealth and said it ensured he was not beholden to special interests. He attacked other candidates on stage for accepting his personal donations, which he said were accompanied by leverage and return favors. And he railed against the corrupting influence of super PACs, including the one supporting Bush that raised more than $100 million.

Trump also would constantly tussle with debate moderators in order to curry favor from the audience. This started in Cleveland when Fox News’ Megyn Kelly confronted him with insulting remarks he had made about women, extended to the CNBC debate in Boulder, and culminated in Houston with his dressing-down of Salem Radio’s Hugh Hewitt, who had pressed him on his failure to release tax returns. Finally, Trump was a debate chameleon who receded from the spotlight at crucial moments for extended periods of time. He never participated in a debate with fewer than four candidates, and he never spoke longer than 30 minutes.

These tactics that worked so well for him in the primaries will be difficult to replicate in his trio of upcoming debates against Clinton.

I think Aaron Kall might be conflating Trump’s points from the primary debates with Trump’s style. The issues changed from forum to forum, question to question, but his style remained essentially Trump throughout — dialed down for more serious issues, dialed back up whenever he could, but always Trump. And voters respond to Trump’s take-no-guff style at least as much as they do to whatever the topic-of-the-moment might have been during the dozen or so GOP debates.

Trump also had the benefit of honing his skills and his style against 16 hungry GOP competitors. Hillary Clinton had only Bernie Sanders (who pulled his best punches) to square off against, plus a couple of other contenders so milquetoast that I can’t remember their names at this early hour without consulting Google first.

The last time Clinton had to square off against someone with so much style, it was eight years ago and his name was Barack Obama. And Clinton doesn’t seem to have the strength or health she enjoyed back then.

In either case, we’ll find out tonight, and of course I’ll be drunkblogging the debate at the PJMedia home page.

DISPATCHES FROM THE UNCANNY VALLEY: “On the eve of the first presidential debate, Clinton’s campaign is launching a drive to convince voters that she is, well, human.”

Ahh, the umpteenth attempt to unveil “the real Hillary!” And shades of Time magazine’s postmortem for Al Gore after the 2000 election:

So perhaps it’s fitting that even in defeat, Clinton seems poised to dominate Gore’s political life. This was the man, after all, who brought Gore to the executive branch, who shared books and jokes with him, and then, as Gore sees it, betrayed him not once with a shocking infidelity, but twice: By turning just enough voters against the administration with his various extracurricular activities, the President helped crush Gore’s chances at victory Tuesday night. Clinton’s inexorable charm got him elected, got him in trouble, and finally, set Gore up for a defeat. It was Bush, after all, who charmed voters, not Gore. It was Bush who managed to captivate with his easy laugh and his loose-limbed grace. Gore was stuck with the old caricature: A stiff, a robot, a typical policy wonk.

As that article was headlined, “Poor Al Gore, Forever to Be Haunted by [Bill] Clinton’s Ghost.” Bill’s made-for-TV charisma was sufficient to power him past a group of better known but plonking dullards in the 1992 Democratic primaries and ultimately into the White House. It kept him there even after being impeached by the House of Representatives, and allowed him to rebuild his image among many after leaving office, even after his license to practice law was suspended. But it’s not a gift that’s transferable, even to his closest associates.

(Classical reference In headline.)

IN CASE YOU MISSED THIS: JOHN SCHINDLER: The FBI Investigation of EmailGate Was a Sham: We now have incontrovertible proof the Bureau never had any intention of prosecuting Hillary Clinton.

How exactly Cheryl Mills got immunity, and what its terms were, is the long-awaited “smoking gun” in EmailGate, the clear indication that, despite countless man-hours expended on the year-long investigation, James Comey and his FBI never had any intention of prosecuting Hillary Clinton – or anyone – for her mishandling of classified information as secretary of state.

Why Comey decided to give Mills a get-out-of-jail-free card is something that needs proper investigation. This is raw, naked politics. . . .

Corruption is the tamest word to describe this sort of dirty backroom deal which makes average Americans despise politics and politicians altogether.

How high in this administration EmailGate went is the key question, and it’s been reopened by the latest tranche of redacted documents that the FBI released – on Friday afternoon, as usual. There are lots of tantalizing tidbits here, including the fact that early in Hillary’s term at Foggy Bottom, State Department officials were raising awkward legal questions about her highly irregular email and server arrangements.

Most intriguing, however, is the revelation that Hillary was communicating with President Obama via personal email, and he was using an alias. The alias he used with Hillary, and apparently others, was withheld by the FBI, and let it be said the fact that the president wanted to disguise his identity in unclassified email is not all that odd.

What is odd, however, is the fact that Obama previously told the media that he only learned of Hillary’s irregular email and server arrangements from “news reports.” How the president failed to notice that he was emailing his top diplomat at her personal, address, not a account, particularly when they were discussing official business, is something Congress may want to find out – since certainly the FBI won’t.

Not if it can help it.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: 27 things we learned from Clinton’s FBI files. Here’s just one: “Clinton deleted nearly 1,000 emails with Petraeus.”


What they haven’t been interested in is cisgendered white male liberals. The largely forgotten John Edwards fell by the wayside quickly in 2008, and Martin O’Malley, with credentials similar to those of Bill Clinton and Michael Dukakis, attracted zero support in 2016.

That leaves them with no obvious choices if Clinton loses this year. Their most visible and attractive left-wingers, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, will be over 70 in 2020. Prominent black and Hispanic officeholders tend to represent overwhelmingly Democratic constituencies and have made few of the bows to moderation that made Barack Obama a plausible national candidate in 2008.

It’s possible that a post-2016 Democratic Party could look like Britain’s Labor Party, which has abandoned the New Labor posture of Tony Blair that produced three landslide victories in 1997, 2001 and 2005. Now, under far-left-wing leader Jeremy Corbyn, the party seems headed for landslide defeat in 2020.

This is why they’re pulling out all the stops. Well, that, and this: “For Hillary Clinton, winning that election may be a legal necessity to protect her from prosecution.”

SO, NEW YORK TIMES: When you say your endorsement of Hillary is rooted in respect for her intellect, experience and courage, you indict yourselves in a far worse way than I could ever do. Also, “pointillist”?  You might as well say her husband governed by frottage. You’ve gone past being repugnant.  We, here in flyover country, are pointing and laughing.


I guess they’re saving Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey for debate number two.

I’M SURE IT WAS IN EXCHANGE FOR COMPLETE AND HONEST TESTIMONY: Why Did the Obama Justice Department Grant Cheryl Mills Immunity?

In normal cases, the Justice Department does not grant immunity in exchange for evidence when it has lawful power to compel production of that evidence. Mills is not alone. Apparently her subordinate, longtime Clinton aide Heather Samuelson, was given the same deal.

Unbelievably, Mills and Samuelson, who are lawyers, were also permitted to represent Hillary Clinton in the very same investigation in which, we now learn, they were personally granted immunity from prosecution.

That’s apart from the fact that both of them were involved as government officials at the time they engaged in some of the conduct under investigation – a circumstance that, by itself, should have disqualified them from later serving as lawyers for other subjects in the same the investigation.

Gangster government, as Michael Barone says.

THE UPS AND DOWNS OF Home-Based Healthcare.

Remember when doctors made house calls?

While only a relative handful of doctors still offer them, there is growing evidence that comprehensive home medical care could be a viable alternative to the attendant woes and soaring expenses of institutional health services, particularly for those in late retirement.

It will take some important legislative changes before focused, less intrusive care in a dignified, comfortable setting can become more widely available. The polarizing politics surrounding the Affordable Care Act makes any reform to the health care system particularly challenging. Still, given the overall popularity of Medicare — Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both say they support it — getting a new home medical care benefit through Congress looks more promising.

At the heart of the home care renaissance is a combination of high-tech, portable medical equipment and the age-old practice of doctors coming into the home to personally examine and treat their patients.

“We can do X-rays, EKGs, medical records and other applications in the home,” said Dr. Thomas Cornwell, who has made more than 32,000 house calls in his Chicago-based practice and wants to see Medicare support more home-based medical care.

“I had a 92-year-old patient with a very high temperature,” Dr. Cornwell said, citing an example. “I brought in a portable X-ray and diagnosed pneumonia; she didn’t have to go to the hospital, and lived four more years.”

One advantage of care at home: You’re not exposed to hospital-based drug-resistant germs.

OH, I’M SURE THEY’LL FAIL THIS PRETTY BADLY, AS USUAL: Obama’s Colossal Email Lie Final Test for Tarnished MSM, posits Roger Simon.


JOHN SCHINDLER: The FBI Investigation of EmailGate Was a Sham: We now have incontrovertible proof the Bureau never had any intention of prosecuting Hillary Clinton.

How exactly Cheryl Mills got immunity, and what its terms were, is the long-awaited “smoking gun” in EmailGate, the clear indication that, despite countless man-hours expended on the year-long investigation, James Comey and his FBI never had any intention of prosecuting Hillary Clinton – or anyone – for her mishandling of classified information as secretary of state.

Why Comey decided to give Mills a get-out-of-jail-free card is something that needs proper investigation. This is raw, naked politics. . . .

Corruption is the tamest word to describe this sort of dirty backroom deal which makes average Americans despise politics and politicians altogether.

How high in this administration EmailGate went is the key question, and it’s been reopened by the latest tranche of redacted documents that the FBI released – on Friday afternoon, as usual. There are lots of tantalizing tidbits here, including the fact that early in Hillary’s term at Foggy Bottom, State Department officials were raising awkward legal questions about her highly irregular email and server arrangements.

Most intriguing, however, is the revelation that Hillary was communicating with President Obama via personal email, and he was using an alias. The alias he used with Hillary, and apparently others, was withheld by the FBI, and let it be said the fact that the president wanted to disguise his identity in unclassified email is not all that odd.

What is odd, however, is the fact that Obama previously told the media that he only learned of Hillary’s irregular email and server arrangements from “news reports.” How the president failed to notice that he was emailing his top diplomat at her personal, address, not a account, particularly when they were discussing official business, is something Congress may want to find out – since certainly the FBI won’t.

Not if it can help it.

EXCITEMENT ABOUNDS: New Washington Post Poll: Clinton and Trump in virtual dead heat before first debate. Hmm. This is better for Trump than most recent polls I’ve seen. Maybe he got a boost (or Hillary a cut) from the Charlotte riots? But most of the sampling period is too early for that, and it’s all too early for Hillary’s latest email revelations to have an effect.

OF COURSE. SHE’S MUCH MORE AGGRESSIVE ABOUT FIGHTING THE FORMER THAN THE LATTER: Hillary Clinton Would Rather Blame Free Speech than Islam for Terrorism.

THE HILL: Hispanic Dems ‘disappointed’ with party’s Latino outreach.

Congressional Hispanic Democrats are questioning the party’s approach to campaigning in Latino communities, as Republicans led by Donald Trump exceed expectations with the demographic.

The poor results reveal a rift between the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) and Democratic Party leadership over how to approach Latino voters.

Although Trump has alienated many Latino voters with his strong rhetoric on immigration and comments about Hispanics, his performance in polls has been roughly on par with 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney. A recent Bloomberg Politics average of polls found Hillary Clinton leads Trump by 38 points among Hispanics. Obama beat Romney by 44.

(Emphasis added. Because wow.) So for all the talk about Trump being racist and killing the GOP with Hispanics, he’s actaully doing 6 points better than Romney.

COVERUP GIRL: How’s the Coverup Going, Hillary?

AN APT RIPOSTE TO TEAM HILLARY’S MARK CUBAN (NOT FIDEL) GAMBIT: Demonstrating his genius for political theater, Trump is threatening to give Gennifer Flowers a front row seat at his upcoming debate with Hillary Clinton. Democrats love to seed debate audiences with aggressive supporters who’ll violate rules of decorum and mock Republican candidates. Team Hillary has given Trump-antagonist Mark Cuban a seat. Cuban has been cultvating an anti-Trump rep. ABC News called Cuban a dedicated Trump-troller and he’s been touting his front row ticket. Cuban hasn’t said he intends to disrupt Trump but the touts are meant to suggest he might. Team Hillary has calculated Cuban serves a propaganda purpose even if he behaves and remains silent, Giving Cuban a ticket and having him sit in a seat tv camera’s can’t miss give media commentators ready-made anti-Trump story lines. For example, at one time Cuban supported Trump, now he doesn’t. Talk that one up, Anderson Cooper. Cuban thinks Trump is a weak candidate, etc. Now repeat Cuban’s assessment of Trump 30 times, CBS News. Yup, Team Hillary’s Cuban Gambit — how clever. Cuban is a sharp fellow, but Flowers is a better than an apt counter-punch. She’s still attractive and camera-ready. (Here’s a photo from 2013.) As Bill Clinton’s former mistress she’s a far more sensational story line. Illicit sex, anyone? Suddenly every Clinton scandal and subsequent coverup are chitchat fodder. Flowers’ personal history calls into question major Clinton campaign themes, to include Hillary’s “I’m for women and Trump’s a sexist” pitch. Compared to Flowers, Cuban is just a guy in a seat.


UPDATE: FBI: Clinton IT Aide Discussed Hillary ‘Cover-Up Operation’ in Work Email.

EVERYTHING SEEMINGLY IS SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL: Hillary: Demonic Possession or Natural Depravity?

(Classical reference in headline.)

BIG NEWS FROM THE FBI’S LATEST FRIDAY-EVENING DUMP: Obama used a pseudonym in emails with Clinton, FBI documents reveal. “Once informed that the sender’s name is believed to be pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: ‘How is this not classified?’. . . Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.”

ARE THEY TRYING TO TELL US SOMETHING? Cast of Old TV Show About a President Hiding a Debilitating Disease to Stump for Hillary in Ohio.

THE ROTTEN IMMUNITY DEALS BEHIND THE FBI’S ROTTEN INVESTIGATION: Here we go again. FBI Director Comey’s recommendation not to prosecute Hillary stank when he made it and the stench just gets worse. Don’t let FBI Director Comey put a criminal in the White House.

NOTHING GOOD: Roger Simon: What Happens When You Can’t Trust the FBI and the Department of Justice? “Besides being totalitarian in essence, the obfuscatory policies of Lynch and Comey have made certain that Hillary Clinton, should she win the presidency, will never have anything close to the consent of the governed. She will never be reliably cleared and an extremely high percentage of the public will never believe her — and will be correct in doing so.”

THE APOPLECTIC LIBERALS: The media is failing, they argue, because it can’t convince the public that Trump is Lucifer.

Curious, isn’t it, that liberals believe that it’s the job of the “objective” press to get Hillary Clinton elected President?

THE CHARLOTTE RIOTS WILL ACCELERATE THIS IN NORTH CAROLINA, I SUSPECT: On a street in Ohio, defiant Democrats flock to Trump.

How long before some reporter asks Hillary if the riots are Russian-backed provokatskiya designed to swing the election?

THE HILL: Clinton’s eyes — a window into her health issues:

In 2014 Conan O’Brien did a spoof of Hillary Clinton‘s interview with Diane Sawyer about her lack of lingering health issues following her 2012 concussion. In an obviously photoshopped version Clinton’s eyes are made to oscillate crazily.

It was a very funny piece. Now, it may not seem so funny.

Hillary Clinton exhibited abnormal eye movements during her recent speech in Philadelphia and they were not photoshopped.

Her eyes did not always move in the same direction at the same time. It appears that she has a problem with her left sixth cranial nerve. That nerve serves only one function and that is to make the lateral rectus muscle contract. That muscle turns the eye in the direction away from the midline.

They’re not Photoshopped. This is an unretouched closeup of a photo off the AP wire of Hillary speaking with members of the media at Westchester County Airport in White Plains, NY on Monday. Note the disparity between where each eye is pointed.


Click to enlarge (AP Photo/Matt Rourke).


YOU DON’T SAY: Fewer see 2016 election coverage as fair.

The decline is largely due to Democrats’ dissatisfaction. “It comes predominantly from Democrats’ unease of how the media is covering the candidates,” Jeffrey Gottfried, senior researcher at Pew, said in an interview.

The percentage of Americans who characterized the media’s coverage of the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, as “too easy” totaled 27%. That is higher than 20% for 2012 Republican candidate Mitt Romney, and 15% for John McCain, the Republican standard bearer in 2008.

More than four out of 10 Democrats, 43%, say the media is too easy on Trump. Only 27% of them said the same about Romney in 2012.

Meanwhile, 61% of Republicans said the media is too easy on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, relatively unchanged from four years ago, when 59% of them said the same about President Obama.

If the media were fair with Clinton, she’d be hiding in Argentina by now.

2016: Americans Already Hate The Next President.

A majority of Americans have a negative view of Hillary Clinton. And that’s according to a poll that has her leading Donald Trump by seven points.

It’s true that every four years journalists write columns lamenting the pitiful choices facing Americans on Election Day. But this election is special because of how overwhelmingly negative public views are toward the two major party candidates.

At Amazon, those wishing to wear their frustration now have three pages of products to choose from emblazoned with the logo, “I Already Hate Our Next President.” This sentiment can be shared on mugs, T-shirts, tank tops, hoodies and even infant onesies. But one need not rely on anecdotal evidence.

In the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll cited above, just 37 percent of respondents said they had a positive view of Clinton, compared with 52 percent who had a negative view — and that was actually a marginal improvement over the August poll. Meanwhile, Trump was only viewed positively by 28 percent, compared with 61 percent who viewed him negatively. Among undecided voters, just 13 percent had a positive view of Clinton and 5 percent of Trump.

Even their own voters don’t like them much. A system that produces nominees like this is dysfunctional. But will anybody do anything?

THE HILL: Trump: Police wrongdoing needs to be ‘vigorously addressed.’

Donald Trump called for wrongdoing on the part of police officers to be “vigorously addressed” following this week’s shootings of unarmed black men in North Carolina and Oklahoma.

“The problem is not that there are too many police. The problem is that there are not enough police,” Trump said at a rally in Pennsylvania Thursday.

“We must do everything to ensure they’re properly trained and they respect all members of the public and that any wrongdoing is always vigorously addressed.”

In Charlotte, N.C., the death of Keith Lamont Scott and the refusal of the city’s police department to release a video of the incident has sparked two nights of violent protests.

As of Thursday morning, nine people have been injured and 44 arrested during the riots, Reuters reports.

And in Tulsa, Okla., the officer who fatally shot Terence Crutcher was charged with first-degree manslaughter Thursday.

Trump said communities should work with and not against their police departments.

“The main victims of these violent demonstrations are law abiding African-Americans who live in these communities and only want to raise their children in safety and peace and with a good education,” Trump said.

Well, that’s certainly true.

Related: “And I can’t help suspecting that he’s trying to deliver a subliminal message about Hillary: Maybe the woman is not up to the extreme stress of the job.”

WHY, INDEED? Hillary Clinton — in a strange new angry voice — asks “Why aren’t I 50 points ahead?”



“I can’t believe I’m losing to this guy!”

— Jon Lovitz as Michael Dukakis in Saturday Night Live’s October 8, 1988 parody of the George H.W. Bush-Dukakis debates.

“I can’t believe I’m losing to this idiot!”

—John Kerry, April 2004, as reported by the New York Daily News.

“‘Why aren’t I 50 points ahead?’, you might ask?”

— Hillary Clinton, yesterday. Video of the bloodshot, exhausted-looking Hillary not understanding how to modulate her shrill voice for a microphone at link.

QUESTION ASKED: Is Hillary In Danger of Pulling a Dukakis?

Like Dukakis, she not only fancies herself the candidate of careful, deliberate reason, she’s quite pleased with herself for it—a prideful trap. If asked how she would react to killers attacking Americans, Clinton will want to contrast herself with her loose-cannon opponent. She will want to show off her mastery of the policy details. She will want to demonstrate her judicious and scrupulous commitment to the legalistic niceties. She will want to detail her experience in dealing with pressing international problems. And along the technocratic way, she may forget to mention, and fail to convey, that terrorism is heinous.

They’re both terrible at presidential politicking, but Dukakis carried a lot less baggage.

[FIXED — quoted text wasn’t properly formatted before.]

WELL, YEAH: The Clintons Can’t Help Themselves.

While much of the world’s press is focused on the opening of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, another glitzy event is also taking place across town: The meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) whose gatherings have always attracted a potent mix of political operators and the rich and famous. Today, former President Bill Clinton will attempt to defend his foundation and the CGI against critics.

But rather than an opportunity to set the record straight on his charitable legacy or to defend his wife’s reputation, the former president’s speech is another in a series of colossal mistakes the Clinton machine has made in recent weeks. With her once solid lead over Donald Trump having vanished because of conflict of interest charges and the email scandal that has trashed her credibility, the last thing Hillary needs right now is the press reporting on the Clinton Foundation. Even worse, by allowing her husband to take a deep dive into issues that cannot help but hurt her no matter what he says, Clinton is demonstrating that neither her campaign nor her spouse is thinking clearly about how to avoid letting the election slip completely out of their control.

Even when it’s about Hillary, it always comes back to Bill.


The producers of Veep might try pitching a sitcom about the antics of a Bill Clinton-like character returning to the White House as First Gentleman.

Even the title is satirical.

CULTURE OF CORRUPTION: Obama Admin Refuses To Say Whether Clinton Pal Violated Foreign Lobbying Law.

[Sid] Blumenthal appears to have engaged in such activity when on Sept. 3, 2012, he sent a memo to Hillary Clinton on behalf of John Kornblum, an international lobbyist who served as ambassador to Germany during Bill Clinton’s presidency.

As was disclosed in the memo, Kornblum was working for Bidzina Ivanishvili, a Georgian billionaire who was head of the Georgian Dream political party. An ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin, Ivanishvili was challenging Mikheil Saakashvili, a U.S. ally.

Blumenthal told Clinton that the Georgian election “could be a potential hot spot a month before the US election.”

“Kornblum suggests that a politically beleaguered Saakashvili might ratchet up tensions with Russia before the election, drawing Republican attention and creating a cudgel to beat the Obama administration as soft on Russia,” wrote Blumenthal, a former journalist who worked in the Bill Clinton White House.

Putin’s friend Ivanishvili and his Georgian Dream Party went on to beat Saakachvili in the October, 2012 election, and Blumenthal was at the time a well-paid, full-time employee of the Clinton Foundation.

D’OH! Hillary Clinton’s IT Guy Made This Common Mistake.

His mistake was choosing that username “stonetear.” Unfortunately for Combetta, he had used that name elsewhere on the Internet, which provided amateur detectives with a trail of online breadcrumbs that appear to identify him.

As the Washington Post and others have pointed out, those clues include: archived records linking the name Combetta to a “stonetear” Gmail address; an Etsy account and a video game site where “stonetear” identifies as Paul Combetta; other “stonetear” Reddit points that correspond with Combetta’s personal biography (such as ties to Rhode Island).

To make a long story short, Combetta screwed up by recycling an online handle he had used before. It’s something all of us do. It’s human nature to use the same name, rather than invent a new handle for each Internet site we visit.

But it’s also a great way to get caught if you’re doing something illicit.

I had been assured that Hillary Clinton’s personal and unsecured email server, used for public business while stashed in a bathroom of her private residence, then later wiped clean with BitBleach, was strictly on the up-and-up.

MICHAEL BARONE: What happens to the Democratic Party if Hillary loses?

The shock for Democrats will likely to be more severe than for Republicans if Trump loses. “Imagine the best candidate in your party losing to the weakest candidate in the other party,” speculates Dan McLaughlin at, “after years of telling yourself that your party had unlocked the demographic code to a permanent majority.”

One option for Democrats would be to moderate their policies, as the New Democrats urged in the 1980s and Bill Clinton did in the 1990s. After all, that proved pretty successful. But the current Democratic electorate has little stomach for going back to that strategy.

Two decades ago, lots of self-described moderates and even conservatives voted in Democratic primaries. Not so these days. The slump in Democratic primary and caucus turnout, from 38 million in 2008 to 31 million in 2016, was due to a sharp decline in turnout by self-described moderates.

Well, if Hillary — old, sick, tired, boring, and generally unappealing — is “the best candidate in your party,” then there’s your problem. . .

VIDEO: ‘A Sh*t Ton of Famous People’ Telling You to Vote for Hillary.

Do as you’re told, citizen.

WORST SURROGATE EVER: Is Bill Clinton Trying To Tank Hillary’s Campaign?

I REMEMBER WHEN THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM WAS THAT TRUMP WAS DOOMED BECAUSE HE WASN’T SPENDING BIG: Hillary Clinton plowed 68 percent of her campaign money into ads last month.

One of the things that Trump’s candidacy has done is shown that the political consultant/advertising business is largely a racket, and I suspect that this accounts for much of the visceral hostility that so many people in that business display toward him.

LONDON DAILY MAIL:ANTHONY WEINER CARRIED ON A MONTHS-LONG ONLINE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH A TROUBLED 15-YEAR-OLD GIRL, telling her she made him ‘hard,’ asking her to dress up in ‘school-girl’ outfits and pressing her to engage in ‘rape fantasies.’”

And you thought the story the New York Post broke that led to Huma announcing her separation from him at the end of August was lurid.

Because Bill officiated at their wedding, and because Huma serves as Hillary’s Girl Friday, the American media (read: DNC-MSM) will go into overdrive to assure that this story never impacts Hillary between now and November.

As Jim Treacher once said, “Modern journalism is all about deciding which facts the public shouldn’t know because they might reflect badly on Democrats.” And as Iowahawk once tweeted, “Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving.”

Both apply in spades here.

UPDATE: File under questions that no one in the DNC-MSM dare ask: “Why are Hillary’s circles so full of sexual predators?”


AT CLEMSON, LEFTISTS CALL FELLOW STUDENTS WHO DISAGREE “TRASH INDIVIDUALS.” I guess that’s sort of like Hillary’s Basket of Deplorables.

Meanwhile, I admire the Clemson students who are standing up for free speech.


Shot: Bloomberg “Reporter” To Hillary Clinton: Do You Fear the Russians Are Actually Behind this False-Flag Bombing to Try to Throw the Election to Trump?

—Ace of Spades, yesterday.

Chaser: “The World of Today,” a lengthy recent essay in that uses the 1941 suicide of legendary Austrian author Stefan Zweig after fleeing the Nazis to bash both Brexit (in which England chose once again not to go over the cliff with a unified and socialist Europe) and Trump. Watch as the author lays down multiple (and fascinating) early paragraphs about Zweig’s history, and photos of Weimar and Nazi book burnings, on the way to ultimately not so subtly Godwinizing Trump.

THE 2016 ELECTION’S CORE ISSUE: It connects Hillary’s illegal email server, Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, ObamaCare and the Obama Administration’s foreign policy.(My latest New York Observer column, bumped)


They peasants are just so deplorable!

JONATHAN CHAIT: Donald Trump Is Winning September:

Sometime around the end of summer, it dawned upon most Democrats, and the elite of both parties, that they — okay, we — inhabit a different political universe than does the rest of the country. In our world, Donald Trump is a surreal authoritarian buffoon whose presidency is too nightmarish to contemplate, except perhaps as an abstract intellectual exercise to bolster whatever argument one wishes to make about larger trends in American society. Hillary Clinton is deeply familiar, liked by some, loathed by many, and caught in a vortex of mutual paranoia with the news media that leads her into errors of secrecy. But her flaws, as the conservative but Clinton-endorsing pundit P. J. O’Rourke put it, lie “within normal parameters,” and disagreements within the elite feel small in the face of Trump. Envisioning him as the actual president of the United States seems to us like a category error, as if a Game of Thrones character were to show up on Veep.

But as the first of the presidential debates looms, the hard numbers simply do not bear out this reality. The website FiveThirtyEight gives Trump more than a four-in-ten chance of actually, for real, winning. The Upshot, the New York Times’ forecaster, puts it at a slightly more comforting one in four, which sounds low except that, as the model’s authors point out, this makes the odds of a Clinton victory about equal to an NFL placekicker’s chances of making a 49-yard field goal. Also, the kicker has pneumonia. Citigroup recently warned that investors are underappreciating the significant risk to the economy of a Trump victory. A Trump presidency has felt unimaginable all summer long for the same reason Brexit couldn’t pass in England and Trump couldn’t win his party’s nomination: We refused to believe what the numbers were telling us.

Epistemic closure. Maybe if you guys noticed, or cared, that 84% of white working class say government does not represent their views, you’d have a clue.

UPDATE: Blame Samantha Bee: “Outside the liberal tent, the feeling of being suffocated by the left’s cultural dominance is turning voting Republican into an act of cultural rebellion — which may be one reason the Obama years, so good for liberalism in the culture, have seen sharp G.O.P. gains at every level of the country’s government.”

THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS IS PAYING DEARLY FOR ENDORSING HILLARY CLINTON: “The Dallas Morning News is paying a steep price for endorsing Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, in the form of canceled subscriptions and loud protests. The endorsement broke a 75-year streak in the paper’s history of endorsing Republicans, and generated a lot of reader pushback in the form of angry comments and vows to unsubscribe from the paper. Although Dallas is relatively liberal, the state hasn’t gone Democrat in a presidential election in 40 years.”

I only read the sports section of the DMN, looking for news about the Cowboys. In recent weeks, I’ve noticed they’ve slapped some pretty severe anti-adblocker code onto the site, perhaps to recover some of the lost revenue referred to above.

HILLARY SAYS TRUMP GIVES AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY: Oh what a presidential election this is. Sensational charge after sensational charge, by both candidates. Does Hillary provide evidence of Trump’s aid and comfort? No, not really, but she leveled the charge. However, there is very good reason to suspect Hillary’s rogue email server system gave American enemies access to classified national security information. That’s aiding enemies — enemies plural.

KURT SCHLICHTER: Hillary Hates You. “You’re deplorable. You’re irredeemable. With a wave of her limp, clammy hand, this sick old woman dismisses you from the company of those whose opinions have value, whose interests matter, who have any moral claim to participation in self-governance. You are less than nothing. You are vermin to be, at best, driven from society. Will Hillary Clinton ever be your president? No, and she makes no excuses and offers no denials that a Hillary Clinton presidency means the division of the country into those people she considers worthy and those people she does not.”

I have his new book, People’s Republic, which kind of takes up where my Coups paper left off. . . . I haven’t started it yet, but it’s already #15 #6 on the Amazon bestseller list for Mysteries, Thrillers & Suspense.


WaPo op-ed ponders, ‘when did we start wondering if the candidates were healthy?’

—Jazz Shaw, Hot Air, yesterday.

Hillary’s Health Was Fair Game For The Washington Post Before She Ran Against Trump.

—Peter Hasson, the DC Caller, September 7th.

Is McCain’s Age Showing? Tongues Wag Over Flubs.

—Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post, July 23rd, 2008.

Questions Linger About McCain’s Prognosis After Skin Cancer.

—David Brown, the Washington Post, October 18, 2008.

And then of course, there were all of the whispering campaigns against Bob Dole in ’96, and Reagan in ’80 and ’84.

Exit Question: When is a Cough Not Just a Cough?

DISPATCHES FROM THE “IT’S DIFFERENT WHEN WE DO IT” PARTY: “Remember how liberals exploded when Ari Fleischer said that ‘Americans need to watch what they say’ in response to a question about an idiotic comment by a Republican congressman about how he’d react to a man who ‘wore a diaper on his head’ and Bill Maher’s calling members of the military cowards. Liberal writers responded as if Fleischer were getting ready to lock critics of President Bush up in internment camps. Well, I bet we won’t see any similar response to Hillary Clinton’s words today accusing Trump of inspiring ISIS.

Related: Hillary on Manhattan bombing: Trump’s rhetoric is giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy.

(Classical reference in headline.)

WHY ARE DEMOCRAT-MONOPOLY INSTITUTIONS SUCH CESSPITS OF RACISM?  David Simon, Creator of HBO’s The Wire, under fire for using the N-word to mock Sean Hannity’s upcoming town hall on race with Donald Trump.

HBO’s parent company is one of Hillary Clinton’s biggest donors.

Perhaps Simon, a far left former journalist before striking gold with Time-Warner-CNN-HBO, is auditioning to be the next publisher of the Village Voice.


The Bush family isn’t put off so much by Trump’s policy proposals – except for immigration and free trade, the Bush family likely agrees with much of Trump’s left-leaning policy. They’re mostly put off by Trump’s attitude – his boorishness, his ignorance, his general sense of know-nothingism. To be fair, Trump clubbed Jeb! like a baby seal and the Bush family specifically during the debates; that had to draw some ire from the family. But for George H.W. Bush, the deciding factor was likely attitudinal: Trump just doesn’t belong. The Clintons, by dint of two decades in the White House spotlight, do.

This is one of the objections to Trump that many Trump supporters have a right to be angry about. It’s one thing to object to Trump based on policy differences and a general belief that he toxifies the conservative message. It’s another thing to do it because he doesn’t belong in the toney company of the blue bloods. The Bush Family feels like American royalty, and they appear to see Trump as a nouveau riche blowhard. That feels elitist rather than principled. Nobody was surprised that the person who reported H.W. Bush’s voting choice was a Kennedy. That’s how the Bushes roll.

And that feeling of Republican elitism helped drive Trump to new heights. Trump wasn’t merely a reaction to the “neocons” or the “Republican establishment.” He was a reaction to the Bush family in particular: their genteel sensibilities, their family heritage, their general chumminess with the Clintons. Republican primary voters reveled in the Trump-Jeb! piledrivers, because they felt that Trump was willing to hit people hard, unlike the Bush family.

If the reports are true, the story seems like Stockholm syndrome. During his 1992 run for the White House, Bill Clinton’s campaign used George H.W. Bush’s breaking of his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge — which the Democrat-majority Congress demanded of Papa Bush in 1990, who was far more interested in foreign policy than budget negations — as a cudgel against him in a viciously partisan advertisement designed to make Bubba appear to be running to Bush’s right. Much the same would happen over a decade later during Dubya’s administration, when many of the same leftists who supported regime change in Iraq during the Clinton years in the mid to late 1990s would adopt a similar “you f***ed up, you trusted us” stance and toss their former support down the memory hole (not least of which, Hillary Clinton).

And now Bush #41 is returning the favor by supporting his wife and once again sticking the shiv into Republicans?

MY LATEST NEW YORK OBSERVER ESSAY: Hillary is a one woman War On Honesty. (bumped)


As Roger notes, he’ll be fighting both Hillary and her DNC-MSM enablers during the debates.