Crazy week in Russia-related matters

Trump, glowingly thinking he does great at summits, decided to have a summit with Putin. It was set for a Monday. The Friday beforehand, Mueller released indictments against 12 Russian military personnel for hacking the DNC and related crimes. The indictment document is an interesting read concerning who, what, where (including Indonesia) and how. A piece of icing in the indictment: a congressional candidate and a lobbyist are in big PR trouble because they requested dirt from those lovable Guccifer guys.

Then Trump went to Europe and had a one-on-one talk with Putin. Many people get very nervous about such a meeting--I don't. Trump doesn't live up to the promises he makes out loud in front of thousands of people, so he's not going to live up to any promises he makes behind closed doors. Also, I fully expect him to say foolish shit, and so does everyone else. Maybe he'll blab secrets, but our national security is aware of that so they won't brief him with anything that shouldn't be blabbed. And what he heard last week, he won't remember. Ok, clearly I'm not worried.

Prior to the summit, some GOPers were urging Trump to confront Putin about election interference, including Trey Gowdy and Ben Sasse. Yeah, likely Trump is going to stand up and do that. Trump is known mostly as a glad-hander at these summits with our frenemies. He wants to be liked, and he doesn't play tough. It was the same here. Praise for Putin.

A reporter asked him a gotcha question whether, in light of the indictments, he told Putin not to meddle. Trump meanders and essentially says that Putin denies it, and 'why would he do it?' I think 'nothingburger, Trump being a wuss again.' I was wrong.

Why is this something that finally causes a firestorm? Even Newt Gingrich came down on him--for one tweet. Some of the hosts on Fox News, especially Neil Cavuto, came down hard. More than the usual number of GOP congressmen did too, but does that really matter? It hasn't before.

I don't know why, but this time it was different. One day later (Tuesday), Trump is offering the explanation that he misspoke. It was pretty tepid, and not very convincing (though good enough for Gingrich, that louse). Here's an interesting analysis of how Trump apologizes or backpedals: "Insult, grudging apology, double down. Repeat." These were his exact words:

Let me be totally clear in saying that — and I’ve said this many times — I accept our intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place. [Pause] Could be other people also. A lot of people out there.

So Trump didn't really walk it back. Another attempt on Wednesday. This time, Trump finally seems more definite. Plus it's an interview with CBS, an MSM outfit instead of his softball friends at Fox News. No apology for his mistakes in the previous days, but a much stronger statement that Putin and the Russians were responsible. Currently, it's still Wednesday. Trump hasn't yet contradicted himself or softened what he said about Russian interference. Perhaps he has finally learned that he can't play that game of wink and nudge about Russian interference. Time will tell. Maybe if a month goes by and he's still on that page, it will be believable.

However, Trump is losing something--the narrative that Russian interference is a hoax by the deep state intelligence services. This isn't a small loss. So many conservative outlets have run with this fake story, as have plenty of lying congressmen. Now what?

It may be much harder for conservative media, Trump, and GOP congressmen to claim that the whole Russia accusation is a hoax and the Russia investigation is a witch hunt. I'll have to update this post in a month with info on what's happened. Real change? That would be amazing. [I'm a bit more sober today. It's hard to believe Trump will get the lesson through his thick skull. I expect more equivocation in the future, so no change.]

Image: mintpressnews.com

Extras. The plans of some congressmen to impeach Rosenstein will probably fizzle. Trump OK'ed the indictments prior to the summit. An explanation for why it's stupid to ask for the servers to be impounded. How White House staff got Trump to back pedal from Bloomberg and Vanity Fair. A bunch of theories about Trump's behavior toward Putin. Russia wants to move ahead on some of the agreements from the summit, but no US government officials know what those agreements are. Welcome to Trumpland! Get in line. We're still waiting for the beautiful healthcare plan.

Update maybe 7/24/18 (misplaced at first). Did Trump make deals with Putin? This is hilarious to me. I thought it would be great if the Russians had to deal with the shifting stories from Trump like we Americans have had to. Supposedly, it's been a problem. Per CNN, the Russian press has claimed there are deals, but not so fast. If they are only known to our idiot president, they don't actually count. Welcome to our world! And the cabinet and intelligence agencies have to try to figure out what Trump said. Good luck with that. It might be like analysis of a literary classic where the narrator can't be trusted--uncertain, full of speculation, and maybe fruitless. I predict no disasters because Trump isn't in control. He's basically a figurehead with no one pulling the strings.

Update 7/25/18. The Russians aren't getting anywhere, and have nothing hard to back up any claims. According to this article, they're settling for making the Americans uncomfortable by hinting. I'm surprised that's possible. Well, maybe for someone who takes Trump a bit seriously, which I don't.

GOPers hate their House leaders

It's no surprise that John Boehner held on to his position as Speaker of the House, despite all the conservative media that seem to hate him. The conservative media and their zipperhead followers seemed to think Boehner was about to be overthrown. They unfortunately overlooked the reality that most of the country and the GOP isn't as right-wing as they are, and they are in fact a rather small minority.

However, in one way the Tea Party types are correct. No one seems to like John Boehner. Who is standing up and lauding him for his clarity of vision or great leadership?  In contrast, Nancy Pelosi is frequently praised by her caucus. This is a strange difference... so I must investigate, or at least cogitate and speculate.

Looking at this historically, it seems that the GOP wasn't enthralled with their last Speaker either. Denny Hastert wasn't a fiery Speaker either that many in the GOP seem to long for. The last Speaker who had some of that fire was Newt Gingrich. But unfortunately, Newt was also rather too blustery and egotistical, so he resigned when his leadership proved counterproductive.

So it seems that the GOP has been fated in the past two decades to never have a satisfying leader in the House. If they managed to elect another popular firebrand, he would probably cause too many headaches as Newt did. Most GOP representatives seem to know this, so they've elected more moderate leaders for their last two speakers.

These leaders might be taking on the Speaker's office as a favor to the party. They know they won't be popular, and that the conservative media will revile them, but someone has to sacrifice and take one for the team. That's what I think Boehner is doing. He has taken on a nearly impossible job, and will get no thanks for it. Maybe there are some perks that he really likes, such as tossing rebels off committees or perhaps assigning them tiny basement offices.

I'm afraid I can imagine all too well that it's satisfying to 1) keep your caucus from exploding, and 2) mete out petty punishments to the poorly behaved children in the caucus. Yikes! I might have the personality to be a GOP Speaker of the House. Quick, shoot me!

Image: dancingczars.wordpress.com

Extras. Bernstein series on Boehner here and here and here.

Should Zimmerman have been tried?

After the acquittal of George Zimmerman, many are trumpeting that he should never have been tried in the first place. Well, if acquittal is the reason, then Casey Anthony and O.J. Simpson should never have been tried either.

So it's more than the acquittal that prompts this outcry. Many believe that the charges against Zimmerman were trumped up, that it clearly was self-defense, and that Zimmerman was charged and put through this ordeal merely to placate race baiters and their mobs.

"First, I believe all the fury over this case is the product of (a) the media and (b) the racists in the black community." -- blog comment

It's not that there's no evidence for this viewpoint. Definitely the case went forward because of media pressure (also known as reporting) and because of  demonstrations in the black community and the involvement of black political leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. 

However, it's important to view more than just the media involvement, and not forget the particulars about the case. It seems to me that the shooting and killing of an unarmed man should be investigated. Really, any killing should be investigated. So the question is how deeply to investigate. 

The Martin family felt that the investigation had been too cursory. The lead detective agreed, the police chief and local prosecutor did not. Those against bringing charges felt there was not enough evidence for a conviction, which was born out. However, was there enough evidence to bring the case to a grand jury?

From what I saw, yes, there was plenty for evidence. The people who say Zimmerman shouldn't have been tried  have to ignore a lot of evidence, which they do. They tend to focus on the media and what they call racial hucksterism.

It's a losing argument to claim there was no media frenzy or race baiting. Why? Because there was some, so the proponents of this argument have examples to point to. However, it is unfair and impossible to demand that an issue have NO associated media hype or political grandstanding. You really can't defeat the argument that "it's all based on political X." That argument is not disprovable, but it also makes it suspect. 

So instead, I would hammer away at the non-political and non-hyped reasons why it was right to try Zimmerman. Like he shot an unarmed, non-burglar in his neighborhood. Like his story of what happened contains a lot of dubious claims, such as being punched in the nose 25-30 times. Besides, we usually want the deceased and their family to get to see some justice. Gee, I don't think I had to mention race once in this short list.

So I strongly contend that it was right to try Zimmerman. I was surprised to find out that Zimmerman, or at least his lawyer, agreed that he should go to trial. His lawyer, Mark O'Mara, waived his right to a Stand-your-ground hearing, clearing the way to go to trial. 

So, among those who think Zimmerman should go to trial is Zimmerman's own lawyer. I guess that answers the question I started with. Do I get to say QED?

...a head (not) slammed about a dozen times onto the cement sidewalk.

Image: everywhere

Extras.

• I always say and said that there needs to be a full investigation. 
• The major GOP leaders agreed at one point. Google shows that the change occurred approximately March 25 after Gingrich blasted Obama's comments on the case. BC (before change), what Gingrich says.
• Good pictorial review of evidence, also cited above.
• Important evidence turned up by the parents, ignored by the stalled investigation.
• Review of Zimmerman's many calls to police (scroll down for it)
• The chief investigator, Chris Serino, is a fascinating gauge of this case: thinks the investigation should continue, thinks they should file charges, thinks they don't have enough evidence. For you to follow up via your own searches.
• Typical laundry list of complaints--so much the same with most complainers, and not relevant to the evidence of this particular crime.
• Window into the alternative view of Trayvon. So little overlap in the set of facts each side looks at and considers. Surprise! There really is a drug you can make with skittles and a drink. Possible whitewash in the mainstream media? Or fake Facebook pages.
• Google white-on-black crime (one of the complaints).
• Got to see this: true-blue hucksterism.

Limbaugh explains his party

Prologue. I'm adding this section based on a comment that the material is dated. The reason I delve into this topic is 1) to gauge Limbaugh's influence; 2) to read for myself what Limbaugh proposes for this country; 3) to discover his methods of argumentation. I believe Limbaugh's influence is waning, but his proposals and methods remain worth examining.
***************************************************

Limbaugh spends most of his time bashing Obama and other Dems in power, and much less time suggesting a conservative platform that makes sense and contains any detail. This is the closest I found to policy prescription:

First principles, first conservative constitutional principles are the answer.  Articulating that as fact with depth and conviction is what the people of this country want...  We are fed up and exhausted with people who measure their comments. The blueprint for rebuilding America has been written.  Ronaldus Magnus wrote it; Barry Goldwater wrote it; William F. Buckley Jr. wrote it; Burke wrote it, any number.  Friedrich Von Hayek wrote it; Milton Friedman wrote it.  Market capitalism is the answer.  Robust liberty and freedom for the American people is the answer, and then a government willing, after unleashing that, to get out of its way is the answer. 

It all starts with the individual.  Private property rights is the foundation because without private property rights there are no rights for people anywhere else.  The Republican nominating process is a competition of ideas and the ability to communicate how can we get back to our pursuit of happiness?  How can we get back to our pursuit of excellence?  How can we get back to the trusted institutions that have defined this nation and its greatness for hundreds of years?  How can the individual be empowered?

Not too many specifics there. Market capitalism will do all the heavy lifting, and if you have any doubts, you have to go somewhere else for even a hint at a different solution.

With this lack of policy discussion, Limbaugh does his audience no favors. Candidates are distinguished not by their policy ideas, but by other aspects (same link as above):

And whichever of these Republicans has the ability to consistently say so, take it to Obama, stand up for America, stand up for the American people, articulate a great belief and faith in the decency and the potential greatness of the American people... is who is going to get this nomination.  And that is who is going to lead in the polls... 

Nobody should be shocked, I don't believe, to learn that a Republican articulating conservatism fearlessly who is also pointing out the media's partisanship, who schools the media in their own malpractice... The American people, the vast majority of them want the media defeated every bit as much as they want Barack Obama defeated because the American people understand that they're one and the same.  The American people understand that American decline is being happily presided over by Barack Obama and the acolytes and stenographers and the fellow travelers in the media who build Obama up facilitate America's decline...

But Newt, or whoever, in the Republican primary field, this field of nominees, when they go after the media, they are signaling to the American people that they understand and are fearless and are willing to buck the establishment. 

Republican voters are fed up with establishment Washington Republicans kowtowing to the media, trying to use the media to get their message out, worrying about what the media says or thinks about them.  The American people don't want somebody who's afraid of the media.  The American people, the voters on our side particularly wants somebody who will take 'em on, just like we want somebody who will take Obama on fearlessly and not be worried about what's going to be said about it...

Limbaugh's prescription for choosing the GOP presidential nominee was to give the base red meat--lots of bashing of "Barack Obama and the acolytes and stenographers and the fellow travelers in the media who build Obama up facilitate America's decline."

However, when those red meat pitchmen stumble because they'll spin any story (Bachmann and the herpes vaccine), or they can't remember which government departments are superfluous, or their 9-9-9 plan doesn't add up, the lack of policy knowledge does cause a bit of a problem. Here's what Limbaugh says about the failure of the read meat provisioners:

The Republican establishment's trying to marginalize the Tea Party. So really, at least for me, [it] is not hard to understand. Now, there's an abject sense of panic that has set in... The race is gonna go on. See, they thought that this would be over before it started. Remember what I told you: They're gonna split the conservative vote and elect the moderate. They were gonna stand traditional theory on its head.

The traditional theory is: In the primaries, you play to your base, you win the nomination; then when you win the nomination and go to the general, that's when you go push moderates like McCain does -- and you lose. They decided, "We're gonna lose from the get-go. We're gonna nominate a moderate. We're gonna take conservatives in our party that we can't stand and we're gonna have as many of them up there as possible splitting vote," in this case splitting the polls, because there weren't any votes until January. But they were hoping the polls would end this race before a vote had been cast. So they welcomed Perry getting in and Ron Paul and Herman Cain and all these people, because it allowed them the opportunity to ridicule them.

Wow. All those crappy candidates were a cunning idea of the GOP establishment. How convenient that they all decided to enter the race, but I suppose the establishment wooed them with sweet talk via untraceable  telephone calls. One thing Limbaugh doesn't explain is how the establishment managed to keep the one good Tea Party conservative candidate (whoever that was) out of the primary.

Limbaugh also ignores that many of the non-moderate, non-Romney candidates had their turn at the top of the polls. That would have been an ideal time for conservatives to rally around, but it didn't happen. Why? Don't expect any analysis from Rush.

Here, from a single hour, is Limbaugh encouraging a "red meat" caller:

CALLER:  Listen, ...my wife and I even talked about this Saturday before we voted, and you're the only one that I hear say it and you're exactly right, it is exactly a message that we're trying to send.  We're Romney supporters... but we kind of decided to vote for Newt and it was specifically because of what he did in the debates and taking the media to task and actually just making us feel good about that.  We're so sick and tired of every single time we watch the news or anything in the media the feeling we get, the sick feeling we get every story they tell almost... And actually we really want Romney to hear that message, though, this message that we just sent by voting for Newt.

RUSH:  I know.

CALLER:  That's what I wanted to do, I want him to take that.

RUSH:  ...The heads of your party, you want the people that run the party that you're a member of to get the message, stop making fun of you, stop impugning you, stop thinking you're a bunch of hayseed hicks.  You just to want save the country. You want somebody that's gonna have fire and brimstone to go out and beat Obama.  You don't want people that are afraid to campaign.  I know exactly what this victory in South Carolina was all about.  The Republican primary voters are this audience... the people who make this country work are sick and tired of being blamed, falsely accused, attacked, called bigots and racists and sexists and homophobes and all these other horrible, rotten things, selfish, greedy. 

They're seeing their futures robbed. Their party doesn't seem to have the guts to do anything to stop it.  They see their party leaders wanting to get themselves in charge of it all.  This guy, if I'd-a let him go on, he'd say, "We don't care if Newt were married ten times right now. We don't care if Newt had married a horse right now.  The message is what we want sent."  We want this party to figure out how to represent us.  We think we know how to beat Obama, and it's not with McCain.  It's not by going after the independents.  It's not by saying we want to compromise and cross the aisle and work with those people who are destroying this country as it was founded.

Note how Limbaugh channeled that comment and built on it. In contrast, see how he manipulates the discussion away from a caller who wants a competent manager, not a "narcissistic orator:"

CALLER: You know, (sigh) I hired a lot of people in my time, and my golf course architect, I had a very good one, and I hired him, you know, based on what he could do, but I also hired him based on his character. So I went to do a little research because I hadn't really checked into the candidates all that much, and so I just started Googling, and I was just astounded of what I found out both about Gingrich and Romney -- and, you know, it comes down to me: "What's the question? Do we want to hire a successful manager to run this country, or do we want to hire another narcissistic orator?"

RUSH: It's not about either of those right now. That's what I'm trying to say. Those are backbench issues right now. That's not what's going on here. What's going on here is the conservative base trying to send a message to the Republican establishment: "You're gonna have to have somebody who's legitimately conservative. That's the only way we're gonna be passionately behind our nominee, and that's the only way we're gonna beat Obama." This is something really big. This is not the voters saying, "We love Newt! Newt's the only guy!" That's not what's going on here. Newt's a vessel right now, and Newt would be wise to understand that, too.

So, according to Limbaugh, competence, character, and avoiding a narcissist are "backbench" issues. That's not what's important... if it stands in the way of the read meat rhetoric that Limbaugh and his audience love. Newt is the one giving the best red meat at this point, but he's just the "vessel" -- a good escape hatch if Limbaugh wants to turn on him.

It's no wonder that Limbaugh that is a terrible source for understanding the GOP. He doesn't understand how his party keeps picking moderates, and he doesn't understand how the country as a whole prefers candidates who aren't doctrinaire conservative.

I had been hoping for insight on why the loudest voices in the GOP wail and moan about not choosing conservative candidates, yet it happens two presidential primaries in a row. Who are the Republicans responding to the polls, which showed for much of 2011 that Romney was not the one they wanted? I can't tell whether conservatives are in the majority in the GOP or whether pragmatists are. Please, someone, help me! (Someone other than Rush Limbaugh.)

EIB = Excellence in broadcasting, LOL

Image: fgap.blogspot.com

Extras:
Presage of the election demographics and Rush doesn't believe it.
Typical Rush: Another exemplar concerning Pelosi, whose criticisms sound pretty valid to me, but he does squat to refute them.
Rush on policy--bizarre paranoia.
RedState supports Rush for having "spine."
The kind of adulation of Obama that Rush derides.
A different voice in Jan '09: GOP needs to change and adjust --Bruce Bartlett
Also by Bartlett in July '07--who is the anti-Bush?

Short: Newt Gingrich rescues the GOP

OK, only in his own fantasies.

I was researching CPAC (particularly who controls the conference schedule), and I found this gem of incomplete thinking. Here is the short version:

• Karl Rove shouldn't try to pick the GOP candidates because he's on a losing streak. And he shouldn't soak up all the GOP money!
• Rich GOP donors shouldn't try to pick the winners just because they have wads of cash.
• Don't shoot all the consultants.
• Get wonky data types like the Dems had and start testing the GOP messages.

The first three recommendation are negatives--what NOT to do. Really, when you're short of ideas, this doesn't help because you need suggestions of what TO DO. The last suggestion is the most ironic, however. Really, all the GOP needed was a bunch of data-crunching nerd-whizz-geniuses, and they could have won?

Maybe he's right--after all, the Oakland A's management used nerd-genius ideas to build a winning team on the cheap. Still, I can't imagine what whizz-bang ideas would help the GOP sell their moldy old ideas that tax cuts equal a booming economy because we've lived the 2007-2009 cycle disproving that. Maybe they would use the nerd-geniuses to identify some sidelined GOP ideas that are winners, but that doesn't seem to be the plan since the general GOP declaration is that their ideas are good, goshdarnit!

Not even Gingrich can follow up on his ideas, like this one:

Latinos worry about getting health insurance and health care. A Republican candidate who had a better health idea could have had great appeal.

This observation dead ends with ... nothing. The GOP has policy problems that nerds or other magic potions won't cure. It's the policies, stupid. Work on them.

 Trying to dress up the GOP as winners

Image: news.cnet.com

Extra. Another post on the same site irritated me with different rhetorical fallacy.The author argues that you shouldn't worry about mass shootings because the numbers are too small--you really need to focus on shooting deaths in urban areas. Here's some truth there, except maybe we can work on improving both situations. So why not?

Poof! Most of his argument is shot down. Does he really want to rely on such a weak argument?

Romney as a terrible candidate

Lots of writers have covered this ground, but I'm compelled to trod on it too.

On the one hand it's amazing how terrible Romney is doing. After all, he successfully managed to sell himself to a reluctant Republican party. The job of selling himself to a more moderate electorate should be easier, shouldn't it? Besides, Romney is supposed to be good at this kind of salesmanship due to his background in business.

Somehow it turns out that selling yourself as a candidate is maybe harder when the audience is more diverse. Some of the positions that are taken for granted in the GOP (lower taxes are just plain good) require more explanation for the broader audience not steeped in GOP orthodoxy. Romney (unlike Perry, Palin, Bachmann, or Cain) is smart enough to know that some of those GOP orthodoxies aren't very solid, and he can't manage to enthusiastically lie about them the way other candidates might have. So he is bland, avoids specifics, and postpones the date of reckoning until after the election.

Luckily, all that hedging and feinting isn't going unnoticed. Of course Obama points Romney's dodges, but also Romney is just not that good at it. He gives himself away when he's eluding a question--I'm not sure quite what the tells are, but a lot people can see them as clearly as I do. I think perhaps his speech patterns change--the sentences are shorter and more disjoint. They just don't flow in the same way that the longer diatribes against what Obama do.

Gingrich was a speaker who could flawlessly pull off this kind of thing. He could deliver reams of analysis of Obama, or the merits of GOP policy, and they all sounded great. Unfortunately, he could do the same when he talked about space colonies, so we knew that he could make anything sound good, thereby demonstrating that he was a silver-tongued charlatan who couldn't be trusted.

In comparison, Romney is more like us--nervous when he lies or prevaricates. And that's exactly what he has to do now until Election Day. May God have mercy on his soul, but Americans shouldn't.

Grit your teeth, Mitt. Just X more days of this.

Image: blogs.e-rockford.com

Extras. Nate Silver says the Romney is trying to be the generic Republican candidate. Jon Stewart says the same thing, but with much better jokes. It turns out a generic Republican can win over Obama, but actually flesh, blood, and flawed Republicans can't. What is a real person to do? Bleach out those personal bits.

Herman Cain proclaims he'd be doing better. Many at conservative site HotAir disagree. Lots are resigned, few have buyer's remorse. Not many analyzing why the choices for GOP presidential nominee were so poor this time.

Funny quote of the day - Guess who again

"I assume it's because Murdoch at some point said, 'I want Romney,' and so 'fair and balanced' became 'Romney.' "

"In our experience, Callista and I both believe CNN is less biased than Fox this year. We are more likely to get neutral coverage out of CNN than we are of Fox, and we’re more likely to get distortion out of Fox. That’s just a fact." -- Newt Gingrich

Gingrich keeps pumping the hot air into his colossal bladder of an ego. He's the arbiter of media fairness, and weigher and final authority on factuality.

And, of course, it's not just him. It's Mr. and Mrs. American, him and Callista, the wife he should have had all along. Somehow I don't think her ego is as big as his. Otherwise, they couldn't fit in the same house, car, plane, or state.

After all this time, is he really shocked, SHOCKED! to discover that Fox News isn't fair and balanced? I can't stop snickering. What luscious just desserts.

Oops, the liberal media wasn't the only enemy.

Photo credit: deathandtaxesmag.com

Tribalism as a reflex

I've been following the Trayvon Martin case since it went national. I don't see it as primarily a racial issue, though it definitely has racial tones in it, and I can easily see why blacks are roused to demonstrate. Anyone could be roused, but the case is going to have particular resonance for people who feel targeted for suspicion.

The Beginning

If I remember correctly, the national coverage started on Monday, March 19. By Friday, it was the biggest national story. Demonstrations had been organized. Al Sharpton was down in Florida. Obama, Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney all commented on the case. In general, they each said it was a tragedy that should be investigated thoroughly. For the life of me, I can't see anything wrong or offensive or even partisan in such a sentiment. It seems logical to me--someone dead by gunshot, therefore a need to investigate how and why and to determine if there was a crime.

Getting Nasty

How did we go from that logical sentiment to the conservative media circling the wagons? I can try to trace all the steps: Gingrich criticizing Obama for noting that Trayvon and he were could have been family (read: were the same race without saying 'race' or 'black'); the stupid hoodie comments by Geraldo Rivera. But then the reaction on the outer right seemed to go crazy. (Note: I'm not even going to touch the comments on various blogs because people are always trying to outdo one another in outrageous statements.)

Some conservative blogs, including some within the conservative mainstream, started trying to portray Trayvon as a thug, which is hard to do when he'd never been arrested. In lieu of an arrest record, they used his posed gangsta photos, his suspensions from school, and the braggadocio on his twitter account.

In the meantime, CNN was reporting all the developments regardless of whether they tended to support Zimmerman or the Martin family. They reported the statement from the unnamed neighbor who saw Trayvon over Zimmerman on the grass. They reported about the demonstrations, they displayed the video of Zimmerman in the police station and the picture of Trayvon with the gangsta-style gold tooth ornament. The only information they didn't pass on were the hacked emails (many of which weren't authentic) and the tweets.

It's not clear to me why part of the conservative media went so negative on Trayvon Martin. It was known that he was unarmed, so why is it important to show Trayvon was a thug?

When You Don't Know Why

I don't have a logical answer to this, so I have to reach for an emotional reason. This story got a lot of traction, and it fits many points that Democrats/liberals/progressives make: there is racial profiling that hurts blacks, even resulting in death; police don't fully investigate the deaths of young black males; black males are presumed to be guilty of something; assailants, even when known, can get away scot-free with killing a young black male. A new concern is that Florida's Stand-Your-Ground law will result in even more deaths of young blacks that aren't investigated or prosecuted.

The story works so well for Democratic/liberal/progressive narrative that conservatives are left grasping at anything they can to lessen the impact of the story. Not all conservatives have felt this need. Many are treating this as largely a legal and police procedural matter where the state investigators and the courts will have to determine if Zimmerman was justified or not. These sane conservatives haven't felt the need to defeat the story.

The others, however, tried to shred the story, criticizing the media (of course, a favorite target), black spokesmen, Obama, Hispanic organizations (for not tribally supporting Zimmerman), the special investigator, and most cravenly, the dead boy.

Why is it so important to defeat the story rather than letting it play out? Is all news a zero-sum game, where the points your opponents can make should be blocked whenever possible, no matter how?

For some partisans, this is undoubtedly true. But why can't some, who have more responsibility because of their roles on news sites, let go of the competition and let the Democrats win those points? Instead, in their unwavering, single-minded tribalism, they try to smear whomever they can, and just end looking like the foul sewer floaters that they have become.

Battle lines

 Photo credit: cleftintherock.org

Extras.

• Measured response by HotAir, Morning Joe, Allen West.
• Examples of needless attacks: at Karen Finney, Daily Caller, more Daily Caller, wagist, Nice Deb, National Review, and Christian News.
• Perhaps the first national reporting of the incident and its significance.
• Critique of local coverage.
• Detailed CNN coverage.
• Minute-by-minute timeline, with contradictions and uncertainties.
• Detailed account of Trayvon's family's actions in the first two weeks afterward. 

Disclosure: I lived in New York at the time of the Tawana Brawley case. I haven't forgiven Sharpton, and there is no way I can be fair or neutral about him.

Updates. There are too many to mention. Click on the label "Trayvon Martin" to see more.

Telegram to Mr. Gingrich

Mr Gingrich COMMA According to Intrade trading data COMMA you have one half of one percent chance of being the Republican nominee STOP That means you have a slightly better chance than Sarah Palin who clocks in at four tenths of one percent chance STOP Many people are rejoicing at this news STOP

SIGNED ModeratePoli

Non-telegram style: Gingrich - 0.5% chance. Palin - 0.4% chance. Woohoo!!!!

The undead candidate. . . still

I've already declared that Newt is the dead candidate who doesn't know he's dead. He's still proving me right. He won the Georgia loyalty pageant, but his campaign actually said on Wednesday that he'd have to win Alabama and Mississippi to stay in the race. Ah, the sweet hope that a likely loss in Alabama would end this vanity campaign gone wrong.

Unfortunately, he reversed that by Friday, and now he declares that he's going all. the. way. to. Florida. That wipes the glee from my heart and the smile off my face.

Imagine Newt as the Energizer Bunny, just going and going. But instead of banging a drum, his mouth keeps on running and running with spewing lies and grandiosity.

Tell me that doesn't make you want to reach for a sledge hammer . . .

Update 3/26/12. Gingrich's campaign is so broke that he's charging $50 for photos taken with supporters. His aides take down the credit card info while you're in line. 

Being a Republican means never saying I'm sorry

This seems to be one of Newt's principles. I suppose Newt apologized for making the commercial with Nancy Pelosi, but not for:

• Having an affair while persecuting Bill Clinton for having casual sex.
• Following a political strategy that cost a number of Republican House seats.
• His questionable ethics while Speaker.
• His lobbying consulting work after quitting the House.
• His lies about his lobbying consulting work.

According to Newt, Rush Limbaugh needn't apologize for calling a 30-year law student a slut and a prostitute, and demanding that she upload sex tapes for his and other taxpayers to enjoy.

The president shouldn't apologize for what the military does in any of those insignificant foreign countries, but should be accountable for situations beyond his control, such as gasoline costing over $2.50 a gallon.

I'm really tired of politicians demanding that other politician apologize for or repudiate this or that. Tell me why the other politician is wrong, but don't go into a long, moralizing harangue. And when someone does decide to apologize, don't go into a long, moralizing harangue about why he shouldn't.

We aren't 8 year olds forced by our parents to make apologies. We are supposed to be adults who are capable of deciding when to apologize and when not to. Let's try to treat one another like adults, and steer clear of the apology circus.

You're not the boss of me, so I'm not listening ...

Update 3/6/12. I just found a compendium of the 21 insults Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke, the law student. Another indication that he's a shock-jock, not a political commentator.

Conservative candidate confusion

With only the four GOP candidate left in the field, the differences among them should be getting clearer. But can you tell which candidate or candidates propose each of these policies:

1. Cut $1trillion from the budget in 2013.
2. Reduce corporate tax rate to 12.5%.
3. Use credit card fraud detection systems to reduce Medicare waste.
4. Allow Medicare recipients to stay on Medicare or sign on with other providers.
5. Streamline our security services to meet new challenges.
6. Open up offshore drilling.
7. Cut 10% of the federal workforce.
8. End nation building.
9. Allow alternative currencies to circulate.
10. Reduce corporate tax rate to 17.5%.
11. Reduce corporate tax rate to 25%.
12. Roll discretionary non-defense spending back to 2008 levels.
13. Roll all discretionary spending to back to 2007 levels.
14. Let young workers opt out of Social Security.
15. Will not allow Iran to build nuclear weapons.

I know it's important to get an understanding of the character, personality, and history of a person running for president. That's fine and reasonable. But we also need to talk about the direction the person intends to take the country, so policy proposals are critical. I want to know what the candidate's plans are for: the tax system, the budget, major government programs, defense, and foreign relations.

There hasn't been enough discussion and differentiation between the candidates on these issues, except, of course, for Ron Paul. He, at least, has more clearly staked out his policies. When I wrote up the list above, I was able to add his proposals (#1, 8, 9, and 13) from memory because he's been very clear in the debates and campaign appearances.

With the other candidates, it's not as clear. Who wants to do want with Medicare? What are the candidates planning to cut from the budget, how much, and how soon? What parts of the military are they planning to expand, and what will they cut? These are specific questions that each candidate should be answering now as he makes the case for why he should be nominated and elected.

I viewed the second Florida debate again with an eye to substantial communication about issues. Ron Paul, as usual, spent a fair amount of his time on his policy proposals. The others wasted most of their time. Santorum was fairly clear on his tax policy and timeframe for closing the deficit, though he neglected talking about specific cuts.

Gingrich talked about his two-speed tax policy (regular or 15%) but ignored the direct question of what effect it would have on someone like Romney. Gingrich's plans for closing the deficit remain all in his mind, not laid out for examination.

Now I know their Cuba policies, which is important to much of the Florida electorate, but not to me. Regarding my top concerns, I learned very little. However, Romney did directly put out an attack ad claiming Gingrich ... Oh, forget it!

This is quite a waste of a campaign if you care about each candidate's plan for governance, and that's what you'll vote on. Are Republicans satisfied with this?

Which proposes a 15% corporate income tax?

Sources: Gingrich,  Paul, Santorum, Romney websites, plus some statements in debates.

Extra: An honest assessment of their personalities by a libertarian, non-crazy blogger.

Why Newt hates Mitt

Since Newt hasn't said in his own words, "I hate Mitt because...," this will be somewhat speculative, though I will stay away from psychoanalytical hypotheses.

The best place to start is with the lead Newt gave in his post-Nevada press conference. Newt referenced a story in the New York Times. It's not hard to find exactly which article he's talking about. The article details some of the tactics of the Romney campaign to turn-around his loss in S. Carolina to a victory in Florida:

• Find lines of attack that could goad Mr. Gingrich into angry responses, particularly his ethics problems in Congress and his relations with corporate clients after he resigned from the House.
• Paint him as an erratic, unreliable Washington insider in mailings and television advertisements.
• Air a new ad featuring a 1997 news segment in which Tom Brokaw reported that the House had “found him guilty of ethics violations.” 
• Get Romney allies to infiltrate Gingrich campaign events and offer instant rebuttals to the crowds and media.
• Feed large numbers of negative stories to the Drudge Report.
• Coach Mitt to attack in debates.
• Pack the Florida debates with vocal Romney supporters.

The attacks hit a nerve, because Gingrich has started saying this about Romney:

"Frankly I was stunned... I have never before seen a person I thought of as a serious candidate for president be that fundamentally dishonest. It was blatant and it was deliberate, and he knew he was doing it."

I'm not sure why Gingrich is attacking Romney so much, since Romney isn't only one of the candidates to have launched attack ads against Newt. In the Iowa contest, the best known attack ads came from Paul's campaign, but Romney, Perry, and Santorum all got in their licks. Perhaps it is the other tactics (ambushing him at his own campaign events), or maybe it's besting him in two debates, which had been a point of pride for Gingrich.

Another reason the attacks sting so much could be that they are true. Gingrich has a web page devoted to answering, refuting, or explaining the attacks on him. It contains 28 separate entries. Here are some of the topics for which he mounts defenses: TARP, global warming, praise for FDR, Freddie Mac, and personal life (parts I, II, and III). Mitt evidently hasn't live nearly as full a life, because he doesn't have such a page on his website.

Gingrich doesn't usually specify the exact lies that Romney tells about him. Regarding his $300,000 fine by the House, he likes to point out that an IRS investigation three years after his resignation cleared him of wrongdoing. Perhaps he feels that anyone accusing him of ethics problems is lying. However, he was sanctioned by a 395-28 vote after what was called at the time a "plea bargain negotiation." It definitely has the look of a plea bargain. Or as a commenter wrote: "Those that made you speaker do not desert you in droves if you haven't done anything wrong."

Why does Newt hate Mitt so much? I don't know, but there is plenty of grist for speculation.

Gingrich wife number 2, personal life defense number ??