Subscribe via RSS Feed

Archive for March, 2017

Yoho-ho is a brass-bound flunky

[ 54 ] March 31, 2017 |

Ted Yoho knows what tRump likes to hear. And he has the typical Republican inability to refrain from saying the quiet parts into a mic while a recording device is running, God love him.

Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) actually defended House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes’s botched handling of the Russia probe this way:

“You’ve got to keep in mind that he works for the president. He answers to the president,” said Florida Rep. Ted Yoho on MSNBC on Thursday. In fact, Nunes and Yoho both work for the legislative, not the executive, branch of the federal government.

Doesn’t “he work for the constituents of his district?” MSNBC host Craig Melvin asked.

“Well, you do both,” Yoho said.

Actually, not only is Nunes a member of the legislative branch, but also, that branch to which he belongs is also supposed to exercise oversight on the executive branch, not “work for the president.” Revealing…

And of course when a Republican sticks his foot so far down his mouth that he kicks his own ass, a spokesperson appears to say the Republican misspoke, imply that anyone who took seriously the words that came out of his mouth is some sort of troublemaker and even insist that he said something completely different, so shame on everyone for making a fuss.

Yoho’s spokesman, however, said the congressman “misspoke” — “plain and simple.”

“He knows that every member is here because of the people that voted them into office,” Yoho communications director Brian Kaveney said in a statement. “Members work for their constituents, whether they are rank and file or if they have the honor of serving as a committee chairman. The congressman stated that he works for his constituents and not for the President. The same reasoning is applied to all members.”

I’m convinced! Not really.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Is that a conditional sentence in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

[ 73 ] March 31, 2017 |

Any theory, discussion or argument that’s based on the idea that the Blathering Butternut will behave rationally is a damn stupid theory, discussion or argument. Not that this very plain and obvious fact stops people from trying. Here for example is the president of something called the Progressive Policy Institute arguing that Democrats should be willing to work with President Mine Tailings if he starts to play nice after 70 years of not doing so.

Perhaps it’s beginning to dawn on the president that today’s Republican Party is designed for maximal obstruction and minimal constructive policy making.

Perhaps if we stand out in a blizzard long enough the flakes will turn into gold dust. That’s as likely as the #StupidestPresidentEver getting a clue.

The rigidly doctrinaire Freedom Caucus essentially has veto power over White House initiatives, while moderates will jump ship if Mr. Trump concedes too much to right-wing purists.

What’s more, Republicans are all over the map on the next big items on Mr. Trump’s agenda — tax reform and infrastructure. So even though Republicans control Congress and the White House, Washington’s new political math suggests that Mr. Trump may have no choice but to reach out to Democrats.

The only time that man reaches out to anyone is to commit assault or demand money. But hey, after 70 years he might be ready to change.

If Mr. Trump does turn to Democrats, how should they respond?

“Hell, no” will most likely be the first response. Under pressure from their base, congressional leaders are dug in for years of unremitting resistance. They’ve even issued orders to Democrats on tax-writing committees not to produce a reform blueprint of their own, lest they be tempted to talk turkey with the White House.

Without the threat of losing their jobs from the Democratic base – however that’s being defined – Democrats in Congress would be willing to work with a supremacist who has nothing to offer except bluster, insults and greed. If so, then long live the base. However, that’s not exactly an argument for working with tRump. Perhaps all the backing and filling left the writer disoriented.

All this is understandable, given the ugly and dishonest campaign Mr. Trump waged and what most Democrats still regard as his obvious unfitness for the office he now holds. Yet hold it he does…

Yes, I know the GOP spent eight years killing the notion that the opposing party should work with the President of the United States. But that was just high spirits! And racism! Now that a cartoon villain of a Republican who is less popular than hemorrhoids with Democratic voters is in the White House, Democrats in Congress should give a shit that he received more Electoral College votes.

— and if he’s willing to make real concessions to their party’s core values and priorities, pragmatic Democrats should hear him out.

The first thing pragmatic Democrats – however that’s being defined – would do is look around for a giant pod. And then they’d check their wallets.

Really, this is same line of reasoning that produces pieces titled Donald tRump – the champion single payer has been waiting for? The less than subtle subtext that Horrible bigots might redeem themselves if we BELIEVE, just makes everything that much more annoying.

Would Mr. Trump accept Democrats’ help on these terms? If he really wants to start racking up “wins” for his voters, he would.

Another hardworking if. Mentioning “wins” for tRump voters without acknowledging that their idea of “wins” will frequently be so at odds with what Democrats consider “wins” that Democrats in Congress would have to cave to give Napoleorange his “wins,” is another huge but not unexpected flaw in this argument. Unless another assumption is that the Talevan and the supremacists and the greedy millionaires and the corporate thugs and the white working class conservatives, beloved of many a think piece writer, will also all see reason. It’s not any dumber than Reasonable tRump, so why not?

He’d have to share credit — a novel experience — with Democrats, who’d get points from swing voters for being pragmatic and competent.

Ah-HA! I knew there’d be some swing voter servicing in here some where. And of course there’ll be bothsidesism.

If Democrats have a chance to help average working families and show they’re not obstructionists, they should take it. America doesn’t need two parties of no.

Because when Democrats say no to Republicans who say no to things like affordable health care, basic human dignity and keeping the planet habitable for humans, it’s exactly the same thing.

The Ongoing Adventures of Jason Chaffetz, Principled Critic of Executive Branch Overreach

[ 82 ] March 31, 2017 |

kidde-anned-water-yeah-but-her-emails-10074186

It’s just great that the media basically let this cartoonish hack drive their 2016 campaign coverage:

On a recent afternoon in his Capitol Hill office, I read through a litany of headlines detailing potential entanglements between President Trump’s business and his administration with the congressman. As he listened, Chaffetz leaned back in his chair—jacket off, an ankle resting casually on one knee. One of the stories I flagged reported that online sales had skyrocketed for the first daughter’s clothing line after Kellyanne Conway went on TV and urged Americans to “buy Ivanka’s stuff.” I asked Chaffetz if he was concerned about Trump reaping financial rewards from his presidency, but he just shrugged.

“He’s already rich,” Chaffetz said. “He’s very rich. I don’t think that he ran for this office to line his pockets even more. I just don’t see it like that.”

What about the recent New York Times story about Jared Kushner’s family exploring a $400 million deal with a Chinese company while he serves as a foreign policy adviser to the president—was that worthy of investigation?

“I don’t see how that affects the average American and their taxpayer dollars,” Chaffetz said. “Just the fact that a staff person’s family is making money? It’s not enough.”

Yes, if history has taught us anything, it’s that a rich person cannot be corrupt. And surely Donald Trump is a particularly good illustration of this. Look — Hillary Clinton has a PERSONAL EMAIL SERVER!!!!!!!!!

I would like to apologize to the Weasel-American and Shitbag-American communities for the time I called Chaffetz a weaselly shitbag.

Can’t there be a profit-motive for troll-free spaces?

[ 260 ] March 31, 2017 |

imagesThis is a depressing article about how trolls intrude on so many of our internet spaces, and how much that sucks. People say there’s no profit motive to keep trolls out. But I wonder…with so many people clamoring for troll-free zones, how can that not be seen as a profit-making opportunity? Do we really think there’s nobody out there thinking about creating social platforms that are actually pleasant? Hell, I’d *pay* for a troll-free zones and I’m quite certain other people would too.

Genuinely curious to read your thoughts on this: Will trolls always win out in the end? Is there no profit in barring them from public spaces?

Goodbye, And I Don’t Recall Saying Good Luck

[ 44 ] March 31, 2017 |

Screenshot_4Also applicable at the state level!

Sam Brownback has a lovely parting gift for the citizens of Kansas. Namely, needless death and suffering so he can keep upper-class tax cuts that have massively failed to deliver the promised economic growth:

The train wreck involving the American Health Care Act in the U.S. House last week offered a burst of fresh hope to those in the 19 states that have not yet accepted the Medicaid expansion authorized by the Affordable Care Act and made optional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Most versions of GOP health legislation have canceled the expansion and its generous federal funding with variations in terms of speed and ferocity. The version of AHCA that slipped and fell while approaching the House floor contained a flat prohibition on any new expansions, reportedly at the behest of the House Freedom Caucus.

Coincidentally or not, early this week a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans in the Kansas legislature sent conservative governor Sam Brownback a bill designed to make that state the 32nd to expand Medicaid eligibility to poor people without children or disabilities. There were rumors other states might follow. But alas for any sense of momentum for Medicaid expansions, Brownback promptly vetoed the legislation, with a message that should remind everyone that rejection of the expansion has often been about ideology rather than money…

In the long-term, some additional states are likely to opt in to Medicaid. But the hardest core Republican states could hold out for a long time. I’m sure the poor Kansans who will go without insurance are grateful to John Roberts for enforcing the equal sovereign dignitude of the states (see U.S. Cont., Art. XII.)

In Conclusion, Both Sides Do It But the Democrats Are Worse

[ 173 ] March 31, 2017 |

mike_pence_0

Great:

Vice President Pence cast a tie-breaking Senate vote Thursday to pass legislation that will allow states to withhold federal funds from Planned Parenthood and other health care providers that perform abortions.

The measure, which now goes to President Trump for his signature, dismisses an Obama-era rule banning states from denying federal funds to such organizations.

The fact that Vice President Pence views all non-related women a sex objects (who could never be friends, colleagues or proteges comparable to men) is entirely non-coincidental.

The Twitter Life of James Comey

[ 131 ] March 31, 2017 |

lb-8

Ashley Feinberg’s search for James Comey’s Twitter presence is highly entertaining:

Digital security and its discontents—from Hillary Clinton’s emails to ransomware to Tor hacks—is in many ways one of the chief concerns of the contemporary FBI. So it makes sense that the bureau’s director, James Comey, would dip his toe into the digital torrent with a Twitter account. It also makes sense, given Comey’s high profile, that he would want that Twitter account to be a secret from the world, lest his follows and favs be scrubbed for clues about what the feds are up to. What is somewhat surprising, however, is that it only took me about four hours of sleuthing to find Comey’s account, which is not protected.

Definitely worth clicking through.

I wonder what Reinhold Niebuhr would think about the Director of the FBI violating rules and norms to publicly infer that one candidate for president was a crook based on nothing, at the risk of putting a grossly unqualified buffoon into the most powerful job in the world?

A head fake that is 100% fake, 0% head

[ 129 ] March 30, 2017 |

Paul Ryan wouldn’t know a cunning plan if it painted itself purple and danced naked on top of a harpsichord, singing “Subtle Plans are Here Again!” But that doesn’t stop him from trying. This one is a two-parter.

Part 1 – Trump emits an intemperate Tweet about the HFC.

Part 2 –

It comes at the same time Ryan, who has had multiple conversations with Trump since the failure of the health care bill on how to move their joint agenda forward, has attempted to instill fear in his members through a more gentle, but no less subtle threat: if members stand in Trump’s way, he’ll ditch them — and conservative principles entirely — and go looking for Democratic help.

This brilliant stratergery is a slight modification of the Desperate dud bargaining technique. It involves a human male telling the girl or woman who is telling him no, fuck off and possibly waving silver and garlic that if she doesn’t go out with him, he’ll go out with some other girl or woman. The modification here is that everyone knows, rather than strongly suspects, that the alleged rival would rather burn down the world than have anything to do with him.

The idea that Trump could turn away from his own party at this stage is, to a degree, theater designed to spook the far-right of the party into line. It was a message echoed by Trump administration officials the weekend after the health care failure and repeated Thursday by Ryan, multiple people involved say.

This would be the same weekend that tRump whined about Democrats didn’t vote on the shitty Republican bill that was universally hated and designed to trash a signature Democratic achievement. And then he went to play golf.

So really it is more like Woman 1 has just heard Desperate Dud call her putative rival an ugly bitch before he bopped over to her. AND she knows the putative rival would rather torch the planet than have anything to do with him.

As an aside, I’m not sure how Republicans are managing to do it, but they’ve gotten worse about realizing that other people can hear them. The loss of one of the few things at which they excelled – message discipline – should be laid at Napoleorange’s hooves.

But, sources say, it’s a threat that could eventually ring true if the Freedom Caucus doesn’t change its tune.

These sources are lying or deluded.

After all, the President is not particularly tied into conservative orthodoxy.

Oh, fuck you, CNN. This It’s all an act shit from the press is part of what landed the orange cow pat in the White House.

So while the most recent comments fit into a loosely designed deliberate campaign of sorts now, there’s no question it could become very real if Trump decides it’s the only way to strike any kind of deal.

Really, just fuck off.

This is the sort of garbage that is written by stooges who are convinced that Zombie Eyed Cub Killer and the Red Faced Ranter are super geniuses, even as they’re stepping on rakes or pecking at their reflections like irate pigeons. The issue isn’t that there are no Democrats who would be willing to work with the human anal polyp. The issue is math. He’s an asshole who is as toxic as whatever the hell that is he smears all over himself so that he can sneak up on pumpkins. Representative or Senator X made a deal with Trump is an instant attack ad for any up and coming politician. By 2018 it could be something candidates from both parties use, but I don’t see a lot of Democrats who will be rushing to contract his cooties.

In the House the hypothetical deal would have to appeal to – at the same time – enough Democrats (193 seats) and enough Republicans (237) to get something approaching a majority. Barring some sort of disaster, I’m stumped for an issue on which both sides would be willing to compromise and would not rouse a sizable number of constituents. Plus, any compromising would have to happen before TweedleTrump decided to Shake Things Up by insisting on a bunch of changes to whatever draft bill they had or changing his mind about the whole thing or attacking someone or getting bored and wandering off to play his 200th round of golf.

But other than that, this thing is a dead cert.

“I Shall Exterminate Everything Around Me That Restricts Me from Being the Master” (Amash unabashed update)

[ 129 ] March 30, 2017 |

I wonder if Republicans were expecting any sort of loyalty or respect or even day-to-day consistency from their new leader. I certainly hope so.

President Donald Trump took a swipe at the House Freedom Caucus on Thursday, threatening on Twitter to “fight” the hard-line conservative Republican group if its members fail to get in line with his agenda.

The unusual move to target lawmakers in his own party comes less than a week after the failure of a bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Freedom Caucus members had petitioned the president to make deeper cuts to Obamacare. That prospect alarmed more moderate Republicans who were already wavering in their support for the legislation, and the bill was pulled from consideration.

Not mentioned here, Boobla Con’s Friday or the highway decree. A move that served no other purpose than to show he was in charge in the only way he knows how: thought-free order barking. Would the vote have failed without his interference? Sure. All he did was guarantee he had partial ownership in the failure. No wonder he’s pointing his damp little hand Cheetos everywhere.

Trump initially blamed Democrats for the health care bill’s failure. He also encouraged his supporters to watch a Fox News segment that urged House Speaker Paul Ryan to resign amid the fallout.

On Thursday, Ryan said that Trump called him to apologize, claiming he “had no idea” that the segment would be critical of Ryan.

Zombie Eyed Cub Killer nommed on the yuge shit sandwich like a good little lackey.

“He actually was very apologetic about it,” Ryan said. “In that he said, ‘I had no idea that that’s what she was gonna talk about… I thought she was going to talk about something else.’ So really that was completely coincidental.”

Here’s what happens when one accepts a lie told by an unabashed liar: the liar sniggers, puts you on the dumb sucker list and will increase the frequency and outrageousness of the lies they tell you.

I wonder if Ryan thinks this will keep him in tRump’s good graces. I certainly hope so.

Update: At least one member of the HFC is failing to bootle in his trems.

Reporters asked Rep. Amash if Trump’s tweets serve any negotiating purpose or have any constructive purposes.

Rep. Amash told reporters that, “It’s constructive in 5th grade. It may allow a child to get his way, but that’s not how our government works.”

Meanwhile Gohmert appears to have some decent asshole-manipulating chops. He believes, or claims to believe, the latest Trumpertantrum was committed by Preibus in the library with a smartphone.

I know: they’ll all fall in line at the first sign of anything that they consider a terrorist attack. That’s why it is so important to enjoy the infighting and root for serious injuries while we can.

The Third Term of the Bush Administration

[ 93 ] March 30, 2017 |

miss-me-yet[4]

When thinking about what Republicans will do about taxes, this distinction between tax reform and tax cuts is useful:

Republican debates about tax policy are shrouded in a mist of obfuscation, since the party’s central goal, reducing taxes for the rich, is too unpopular to be described frankly. Instead, the intra-party strategy has been hashed out euphemistically, which has made the media coverage difficult to decipher. The terms “tax reform” and “tax cuts” have been thrown around almost interchangeably to describe the Republican plans. They’re very different. Tax reform is what Ryan and many of his allies say they’ll do, and possibly want to do. Tax cuts are what they will do.

Tax reform means a revenue-neutral adjustment of the tax code, which cleans out tax deductions and other preferences, and uses the revenue gained by this to reduce tax rates. The attraction of tax reform is that it avoids a drawback in Senate rules. The only kind of legislation that can pass the Senate by a majority vote, without being filibustered, is a budget-reconciliation bill. But these budget-reconciliation bills can’t increase the budget deficit after ten years. That requirement forced the Bush tax cuts to phase out after a decade. Republicans hope to avoid this fate by writing a bill that does not increase the long-run deficit. Hence their stated desire to pass tax reform rather than tax cuts.
If you’re trying to finance your rate cuts by closing tax deductions, though, you’re in a zero-sum exercise where every winner is offset by a loser. That is the dynamic that has forced Ryan and his allies to support the border-adjustment tax. The lure of this proposal is that it would, in theory, raise a trillion dollars over a decade, and the cost would be borne by the poor and middle class, who would pay more for imported goods. That would free up a trillion dollars in revenue that Ryan could use to cut taxes for the rich — the project that is the cause of his life and the central policy objective of the modern GOP.

[…]

But just as throwing millions of people off their insurance proved too difficult, the pain threshold to pass a plan that raises taxes on Middle America will be far too high for Republicans to pass. One can already see Republicans who wanted to give Ryan’s grandiose strategy a chance nervously eyeing the exits, and looking instead at a tax cut that would expire. “For ten glorious years, we could actually pass a tax bill with what we want in it,” says Grover Norquist. “I want to make them permanent. But if my choice became, ten-year-temporary or nothing? I’ll take ten-year temporary,” says Representative Chris Collins.

Tax cuts for the rich financed by borrowing are not popular, but they’re much less explosively unpopular than tax cuts for the rich financed by tax hikes on Walmart shoppers. Cutting taxes for the rich enjoys near-unanimous institutional support within the conservative movement, the Republican Party, and its lobbyists and donors. Ten glorious years of low, low taxes for the rich will be the fruit of Republican control of government.

I would be absolutely shocked if this Republican conference could pass a sweeping tax reform law that even gestures at revenue neutrality. I would be…if not quite shocked very, very surprised if Republicans can’t pass a substantial mostly debt-financed upper-class tax cut. Ryan’s grandiose plan was always very stupid politically, and when it collapses he’ll be happy to take the tax cuts because as Chait says it’s the cause to which he’s devoted his adult life and he’ll take the half a loaf.

One of the few times Donald Trump has ever told the truth is in his criticisms of the Bush administration. So it’s something like rain on your wedding day that the likely core end product of the Trump administration will be massive upper-class tax cuts with a 10-year sunset and neoconfederate judges, granting that the foreign policy will involve fewer ground troops and even more indiscriminate bombing. Let’s just hope the second-term thing doesn’t happen again.

Draining the legal academic swamp

[ 39 ] March 30, 2017 |

Two and a half years ago, I published an article which among other things documented how David Frakt got expelled from his own job talk at the Florida Coastal School of Law, where he had been invited to interview for the deanship:

Frakt pointed out to the faculty that the Lsat scores of entering students correlate fairly strongly with the probability that those students will eventually pass a state bar examination, which is of course a prerequisite for actually becoming a lawyer. He noted that according to statistics from the Law School Admission Council—the organization that administers the Lsat—scores higher than those in the 60th percentile correlate with a low risk of failing to eventually pass a bar exam. Scores ranking from the 60th to the 40th percentile, by contrast, correlate with a moderate but rapidly increasing risk of failure. Scores below the 40th percentile correlate with a high risk of failure, and scores below the 25th percentile correlate with an extreme risk of failure, to the point where it is quite unlikely that someone with an Lsat score below 145 will ever pass a bar exam.

In the class Florida Coastal had just admitted, then, more than half the students were unlikely to ever pass the bar. But Frakt emphasized that the actual situation the school’s eventual 2017 graduates would face was likely to be even worse than this. In each of the past two years, about 20 percent of Florida Coastal’s first-year class transferred to other law schools. These students essentially made up the top fifth of their classes in terms of law-school grades. This is significant because high law-school grades have an even stronger correlation with passing the bar than high Lsat scores do. In other words, if only half an entering class had a decent chance of eventually passing the bar, and nearly half of those students wound up transferring elsewhere …

Lawyers may be notoriously bad at math, but this equation was simple enough. The ABA requires schools to maintain certain bar-passage rates, or they risk losing their accreditation. Indeed, the ABA’s standards state that “a law school shall not admit applicants who do not appear capable of … being admitted to the bar.” By admitting so many students who, upon graduation, seemed unlikely ever to pass the bar, Frakt pointed out, Florida Coastal was running a serious risk of being put on probation and eventually de-accredited, which would put the school in a financial death spiral. (A loss of accreditation would make it impossible for students to receive federal loans and, crucially, would prevent students from taking the bar exam in many states.)

It was at about this point in Frakt’s presentation that Dennis Stone, the school’s president, entered the room and told Frakt that if he didn’t leave immediately, security would be called. (When The Atlantic reached out to InfiLaw for comment, the company said that Frakt’s presentation was “based upon clearly erroneous information about the school’s accreditation status and key data points,” and that Stone decided “to end the presentation rather than put up with further insults to the faculty and school from a candidate who had no chance to obtain the position.”)

Schadenfreude is not a pretty emotion (although it’s a rather pretty word — those wacky Germans!), but it would require superhuman virtue on Frakt’s part not to be reveling in the ongoing collapse of Infilaw’s sleazy empire.  Now, after exactly the sort of complete collapse of bar passage rates that Frakt predicted would happen has happened, the ABA has put two of the three Infilaw schools on probation.  Federal educational loan funds have been denied to Charlotte students, and the University of New Haven has pulled out of a projected alliance with the school.   (Thanks to an LGM reader for sending me a copy of the letter he just received from the president of New Haven, informing him that UNH had decided against any affiliation. On a related note, see this furious op-ed Elie Mystal published in the Times, which Scott linked to a few days ago, excoriating Bethune-Cookman for hooking up with Arizona Summit.)

Florida Coastal for the moment retains the distinction of being the only one of the Infilaw schools not on the ABA regulatory equivalent of death row, but its bar passage rate is also plunging as predicted, although not as precipitously as that of its sister schools.  These atrocious bar passage results were achieved even in the wake of a program that pays selected Infilaw graduates not to take the bar exam.  Arizona Summit has even instituted a brand-new requirement that current students pass a mock bar exam before they’re eligible to graduate.  Besides being cartoonishly evil, this is probably illegal, in the sense that it’s a breach of the school’s implied contract with its current students.

It remains to be seen if Betsy DeVos rides to at least the temporary rescue of Infilaw, by ordering the Department of Education to reverse its decision to cut off federal loan funds to Charlotte, and to not cut them off to Arizona Summit, now that the latter school has also been placed on probation by the ABA.  But for the moment at least, Infilaw is on the run, and its corporate masters are reportedly eager to unload what has become a less than sterling investment.

 

Chelsea Clinton’s Scheme to Impose Neoliberalism On the Democratic Party Becomes More Nefarious

[ 192 ] March 30, 2017 |

helmshands

First, she wins a meaningless award from a Hollywood trade magazine,* shattering the innocence of Middle Americans. And now her perfidious grasping ambition becomes even more perfidious and grasping:

But in an interview with Variety, Chelsea put an end to rumors that she’s gearing up for a congressional run.

“I am not running for public office,” she said.

She went on, “I really am constantly surprised by the stories of me running for, fill in the blank — Congress, Senate, City Council, the presidency. I find this all rather hysterical, because I’ve been asked this question a lot throughout my life, and the answer has never changed.” Which doesn’t leave much room for interpretation.

Plainly, this is just the beginning of an elaborate plot to RIG the 2020 Democratic Primaries to produce a Hillary/Chelsea ticket, with a promise that Bill will be Secretary of State and receive the first Supreme Court appointment.

I keed, and yet:

Yes, the only more compelling evidence that Chelsea Clinton is seeking public office than when she does nothing to try to attain public office is when she actively denies trying to seek public office. (At least these obsessive preemptive strikes against imaginary threats to American meritocracy are coming from someone who has surely never benefited from family connections.)

*I love this hypothetical campaign ad from Hogan:

a pair of hands opening a letter, and then crumpling it up. “You needed that Variety Magazine/Lifetime Channel vanity award, and you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a Clinton so they wouldn’t get murdered and dumped in Fort Marcy Park. Is that really fair?”

When Clinton mounts her inevitable assault on the New Rochelle school board, Barro can finance the ad!

Page 1 of 2412345...1020...Last »