Thursday, October 08, 2015


Over at The New York Times, Carl Hulse tells us that Republicans seem to be reliving a past identity crisis:
House Republicans Govern Like It’s 1998, Worrying Many

... Representative Kevin McCarthy’s abrupt withdrawal from a speaker’s race he was favored to win ... echoed the stunning events of December 1998, when another Republican speaker-in-waiting, Representative Robert L. Livingston of Louisiana, was forced to withdraw because of marital infidelities. Republicans scrambled to find an acceptable consensus pick, and J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois was plucked from out of almost nowhere to become speaker of the House.

... But in 1998, House Republicans had a strongman in their majority whip, Tom DeLay of Texas, to rally the rank and file behind his choice. No such figure exists today.

Some Republicans worried that the current unraveling might be even worse than 1998, which played out in a crisis atmosphere as the House was voting to impeach President Bill Clinton.

“Even then we knew we could resolve it ourselves,” said Representative Pete King, Republican of New York. “But now you have a situation where there are 30 or 40 people in their own party who say they are not going to vote for anyone no matter who it is. We have to end this. We look absolutely crazy.”
But you know they will end this somehow. And as soon as they do, regardless of who gets John Boehner's jobm, as long as House Republicans aren't actively calling for a military coup against the president or literally burning government buildings to the ground, there'll be a rash of softball feature stories in the mainstream media with titles like "Republicans Regroup, with Second Chance to Prove They Can Govern."

The events of 1998 were supposedly terrible for the GOP -- there were shocking losses in the midterms followed by an unpopular impeachment of the president and a failed Senate trial. But what was the political mood then? Jonathan Chait remembers:
The Democratic Party spent 1999 in a state of almost unbroken panic. Even while an incumbent Democrat had presided over an economic boom that delivered the greatest prosperity Americans had enjoyed in decades, they could not escape a sour cynicism pervading the electorate. Al Gore, President Clinton’s chosen successor, trailed Republicans badly throughout the year and faced a stubborn threat from within his own party....

The mechanism that transferred Clinton’s well-known moral failings onto his vice-president was an exceedingly technical fund-raising scandal. Gore made fund-raising calls for the Democratic Party from the White House, which did not violate either the letter or the spirit of the law (the Pendleton Act, which was intended to prevent shaking down potential officeholders for donations). But reporters found Gore’s performance untrustworthy anyway. The vice-president, reported the New York Times in 1997, “used legalistic language, which he repeated verbatim several times, to say he had not violated another law that prohibits anybody from raising campaign money in the White House.” As a result, scandal-tinged themes came to dominate news coverage of Gore. His attempts to create new narratives merely resulted in chortling reporters mocking him for trying too hard to reshape his image, reinforcing their theme that he lacked “authenticity.”
Does that sound familiar? It should -- Chait's point is that we seem to be reliving that era, with Hillary Clinton, like Al Gore, as the target of a trumped-up scandal endlessly flogged by Republicans. (I agree with Chait on this.)

This happened in the late 1990s despite a leadership crisis among congressional Republicans, and despite Republicans' apparent compulsion to pursue unpopular extremist measures as if they just couldn't help themselves. All that was true, and yet it didn't hurt the GOP. Republicans had Gore on the ropes throughout the campaign. He eked out a popular-vote win in 2000 but still didn't become president. The GOP controlled all three branches of government for most of the next six years.

So enjoy the Republicans' crisis while it lasts. Unless it lasts all the way through the fall of 2016, it will be a non-factor in the election, just as the 2013 shutdown was a non-factor in 2014. Liberal and centrist voters have no long-term memory for this sort of thing. The mainstream press always wants to revert to the preferred narrative: that the GOP is a sane, responsible party. There would probably have to be tanks in the streets in late 2016, with Louis Gohmert as the lead driver, before GOP chaos had an electoral effect.


Conservatism eats another one of its own:
Representative Kevin McCarthy on Thursday abruptly took himself out of the race to succeed John A. Boehner as House speaker, apparently undone by the same forces that drove Mr. Boehner to resign.

... Representative Peter King, Republican of New York, said that in dropping out of race, Mr. McCarthy said, “I’m not the one to unify the party.”

A group of about 40 hard-line House conservatives announced Wednesday night that they would support Representative Daniel Webster of Florida, making it unclear whether Mr. McCarthy, who is from California, could assemble the 218 votes on the floor that he would need to be elected later this month.

The decision put the House of Representatives into a state of disarray....
When I read this, one of the first things that came to mind was a seemingly unrelated story that appeared in The Hill about a week ago:
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell joked that he identifies as a Republican to annoy the GOP’s right-wing.

“Yes, I’m still a Republican,” he said about his party affiliation during the Washington Ideas Forum in Washington, D.C., according to the Daily Mail.

“I want to continue to be a Republican because it annoys them,” Powell quipped to host Walter Isaacson.

“I think the party has shifted much further right than where the country is and it should be obvious to party leaders that they cannot keep saying and doing the things that they were doing and hope to be successful in national-level election in the future, not just in 2016,” he added.
But here's the problem: The Republican Party doesn't care. The party in recent years has made its right-centrists -- Powell, Christie Whitman, William Weld -- increasingly unwelcome. And they did nothing to fight back, except occasionally stamp an ineffectual foot:

They ceded unchallenged control of the party to a mix of bomb-throwing radicals and conservatives who ceded power to those radicals while holding them just enough in check that they only burned some of the government (and the country) down.

And now we see that that wasn't enough for the radicals.McCarthy's fellow "Young Gun" Eric Cantor was primaried out of a job. Boehner fell on his sword to avoid having the zealots turn that sword on him. Hard-right presidential wannabes -- Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz -- have struggled as nihilist know-nothings such as Ben Carson and Donald Trump call for gun vigilantism, immigrant-bashing, and an unconstitutional religious test for the presidency.

Paul Ryan was the running mate Mitt Romney picked to shore up his conservative cred; he announced that he was going to give a nominating speech for McCarthy, but that didn't help. Dick Cheney was the hardest of the hardcore hawks in the last Repulican administration, serving a President Bush whose Oedipal battle against his father was clearly a rejection of right-centrism; Cheney endorsed McCarthy, but that didn't help.

I've long believed that, at some time in the past few years, Colin Powell should have called a press conference, along with other GOP right-centrists, to announce that the party was going in a dangerously radical direction and they were all severing their Republican ties. Powell has been one of America's most admired men for a generation; if he, Whitman, Weld, and others had done this, attention might have been paid.

But it's too late now. The GOP has purged the right-centrists and is in the process of purging everyone who's not the political equivalent of a terrorist. I have no idea where this ends.

Wednesday, October 07, 2015


So this happened tonight:
Rupert Murdoch really likes Ben Carson and had some praise for him on Twitter tonight that also contained a veiled swipe at President Obama:

In case the tweet embedded above has been deleted by the time you read this, Murdoch wrote, "Ben and Candy Carson terrific. What about a real black president who can properly address the racial divide? And much else."

Well, it kills conservatives that a Democrat is America's first black president. They frequently insist that Obama didn't really attain that milestone, and that one of their own will attain it soon.

Go to Amazon and you can still buy a "Herman Cain - America's first REAL Black President " keychain from a shop called Barger's Boutique:

On her radio show four years ago, Laura Ingraham seconded this notion:
Well I have a question. Herman Cain, if he became president, he would be the first black president, when you measure it by -- because he doesn’t -- does he have a white mother, white father, grandparents, no, right? So Herman Cain, he could say that he’s -- he’s -- he’s the first, uh -- he could make the claim to be the first -- yeah, the first Main Street black Republican to be the president of the United States. Right? He’s historic too.
In this election cycle, there's a Carson site with the URL

Elsewhere, in comments sections and on message boards, we see the likes of this:

And this:

And then there's a peculiar notion floated by Breitbart's Milo Yiannopoulos:

... Donald Trump ... is, culturally speaking, a terrific fit for black America.... Blacks seem to identify with Trump’s swagger: they put him in enough rap songs, after all. He’s got hip-hop cred and defiant charisma the dreary Obama could never hope to match....

There is a minority war brewing between blacks and Latinos in America, fuelled by the policies and attitudes of a white Left that has forgotten about the civil rights struggle, and Trump is one of the very few, on either side of the political divide, who appears to at least understand the black side of the argument.

Donald Trump would be the real first black president.
What Murdoch tweeted is crazy. But that craziness has deep roots in modern conservatism.


The Media Research Council sees an injustice:
Nets Hype Muslims Targeted in Chapel Hill Shootings 12 Times More Than Christians in Oregon

It’s newsworthy when people of faith are killed by a gunman -- except when they are Christian. The broadcast networks made that clear by the difference between the massive coverage of the shooting of three Muslims in February and the little coverage of how the Oregon shooter reportedly targeted Christians.

“Many have already judged this as a hate crime,” CBS’s Scott Pelley asserted on the Feb. 14 evening news broadcast covering the Chapel Hill shooting. When three Muslim students were killed by an angry neighbor last spring, the broadcast networks jumped to allege this was an anti-Muslim “hate crime” -- bringing that phrase up a whopping 30 times in eight broadcasts.

Compare that to how the broadcast evening news shows treated last week’s shooting in Oregon -- where survivors described the shooter asking students if they were Christian before shooting and killing them.

That essential detail was heavily downplayed by the networks-- who only mentioned it three times in eight broadcasts....
I wrote on more than one occasion that I thought the Chapel Hill murderer had a mix of motives -- a psychologically extreme tendency toward absolutist self-righteousness (about parking, of all things) plus anger about financial difficulties along with his obvious hatred for religion, which was almost certainly directed against the victims because they were so open about their faith.

The MRC tells us:
While the FBI had launched a formal investigation into the matter, neither they nor the local police had determined a motive for the [Chapel Hill] shooting. But that didn’t stop the networks from suggesting that the murders were most likely a hate crime....

Yet when it came to the Oregon shooting, journalists flipped the script. The evening news shows didn’t get an expert to decry the “hate crime” against Christians. CBS actually pre-empted that by specifically bringing on an expert to deny that religion had any aspect to do with the shooting, during their Oct. 2 broadcast. Like Chapel Hill, the investigation in Oregon is still ongoing, so why didn’t the networks downplay the religious aspect both times?
Let me try to answer that.

When we try to determine the attitude of Christopher Harper-Mercer toward religion, all we know is this:
A dating profile published more than three months ago with his email address on the website Spiritual Passions ... described Mr. Harper-Mercer as “Not Religious, Not Religious, but Spiritual,” and it said he belonged to a group called “Doesn’t Like Organized Religion.”
Disliking organized religion is not necessarily the same thing as loathing belief, or loathing a particular belief system -- I've known my share of believers who were disgusted with organized religion. And it's a far cry from the angry atheism of Craig Stephen Hicks, who was arrested for the Chapel Hill shootings:
On Facebook, Hicks presented himself as a libertarian gun enthusiast and an “anti-theist” who wanted “religion to go away.” In one post, he wrote, “The moment that your religion claims any kind of jurisdiction over my experience, you insult me on a level that you can’t even begin to comprehend. Even if your beliefs had substance, the arrogance of that would be insult enough. But the fact that they have no substance, and are merely a transparent raft of delusions and lies, magnifies the insult enormously.”
But didn't Harper-Mercer demand to know whether potential victims were Christian, and single out declared Christians for death? Maybe, maybe not, as a CNN story noted on Monday:
Relatives of two wounded victims have said the gunman asked his victims about their religion before he shot them.

One victim, Cheyeanne Fitzgerald, didn't answer and was shot in the back, her mother said. Another victim, Anastasia Boylan, told her father the gunman asked specifically whether they were Christians.

[Survivor Tracy] Heu also said the gunman asked about religion. But she said it didn't seem to matter, because he shot some people even before he asked.

"I don't think he was really targeting them," she said. "I honestly don't think he was targeting anybody. He just wanted to do it for fun. 'Cause he still shot every single one that he asked. So I don't think he was actually targeting a specific religion."
If you say this was an anti-Christian hate crime, you're saying that Tracy Heu is a liar.

Recall that in Chapel Hill, the victims were three people the shooter knew were Muslims. In Oregon, according to CNN's sources, the murderer shot people he hadn't identified as Christian. And recall that, according to legend, the Columbine killers murdered for religion, even though that turns out to be a myth. But if it was a myth Harper-Mercer believed, maybe he invoked it as a sort of homage to a legendary mass killing. (I also think his decision to spare one potential victim was meant as homage to Dylann Roof in Charleston, who similarly spared one person and told her to "tell everyone" what happened. Mass-killer trivia is cherished by many sick individuals, some of whom later kill.)

One final point: In Chapel Hill, a suspect was arrested. He could be charged with a crime. It mattered whether the authorities determined that the killing was a hate crime. By contrast, Christopher Harper-Mercer didn't survive. He can't be charged.

Harper-Mercer gave his designated survivor a flash drive. Presumably it contained his "manifesto" --- the one that says, according to AP, that he complained about not having a girlfriend, but (as far as we know) said nothing about religion.

But that doesn't matter, I guess. The Media Research Council is still offended.


The mainstream press has treated Trumpmania as an appalling cultural phenomenon, but I've long believed that if Donald Trump continues to dominate the Republican presidential race, he'll eventually be deemed respectable by insider journalists and pundits, because (a) those folks love a winner and (b) the Republican Party can't really be rotten to the core, can it?

Today, The Washington Post's Robert Costa tiptoes in the direction of Taking Trump Seriously:
After a summer of dominating the Republican presidential campaign, Donald Trump is moving into a new and uncertain phase that the billionaire businessman acknowledges will be more challenging than any project he has ever undertaken -- even as he views the nomination as now within his reach.

In an hour-long interview with The Washington Post at his 26th-floor office in Trump Tower, the Republican front-runner ruminated on the many obstacles ahead....

Trump laid out for the first time in detail the elements of what will be the second chapter of his 2016 bid, signaling an evolution toward a somewhat more traditional campaign. Trump is preparing his first television ads with a media firm that is new to politics. Melania, his wife, and Ivanka, his daughter, are planning public appearances highlighting women’s health issues to help close Trump’s empathy gap with female voters.

Trump is also publishing a book and planning to roll out policies on reforming the Department of Veterans Affairs and on trade and China’s currency manipulations. And he is deepening his political organization far beyond the early states....
If he acts like a normal candidate, with TV ads made by the usual slicksters and focus-grouped outreach efforts targeted to areas of weakness, not to mention policy documents that can be chewed over by pundits, eventually they'll start writing think pieces asking whether we've all misjudged Trump and whether his policy ignorance masks a Gladwellian "Blink" style of decision-making genius that could potentially serve the Republic better than the tortured efforts of analytical brainiacs like Obama, Carter, and the George W. Bush brain trust. Or something like that. I don't know what the coverage reboot is going to be like, and I don't expect it to come right away -- but I do expect it to come if Trump wins Iowa and New Hampshire, because the press is never, ever going to admit that the GOP has gone stark staring mad.

Maybe the press will say that its opinions of Trump haven't changed -- rather, it's Trump himself who's changed. Judging from Costa's story, this won't be true -- apart from these tactical changes, he still seems like the same old Trump:
His campaign says it has hired a Florida-based advertising firm and Trump said he has proposed several concepts for ads in the works.

“I have such a great concept -- in fact, so good,” Trump said, declining to specify....

The main room [of his campaign headquarters] is a showcase for Trump’s penchant for boastful teasing: a “wall of shame” features downcast photos of the two candidates who have dropped out, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and former Texas governor Rick Perry....

Trump claimed credit for keeping Romney out of the 2016 race though he bowed out long before Trump ever became a candidate. Dismissing the suggestion that it was former Florida governor Jeb Bush’s fundraising prowess that kept Romney from the race, Trump insisted, “He got scared away by me! By my mouth.”
And yet it's clear Costa is slowly being won over, like a rom-com heroine who initially hated the guy she's eventually going to fall for:
From behind his desk, with New York’s leafy Central Park over his shoulder, and with no television cameras rolling, Trump presented a less strident and combative persona than the one that has become a familiar presence on television. He was conversational and at ease, even introspective at times....

Throughout the interview, Trump exuded customary aplomb, but nonetheless indicated there are aspects of his performance that he can improve....

Trump’s competitors have suggested that he has little depth on international affairs. After being ridiculed for saying this summer that he gets much of his foreign policy advice by watching military experts on television talk shows, Trump has begun to seek counsel from some generals directly....
Oh yeah -- if he starts winning contests, the press is going to be swept off its feet eventually.


Ben Carson says Muslims shouldn't even try to run from president and that America is a place where Hitler is just over the horizon -- and yet he crushes various Democrats in traditionally blue states, according to a new Quinnipiac poll:
In hypothetical matchups, Democratic frontrunner Clinton drew 45 percent to Carson's 43 percent in Florida, but fell short at 40 percent to 49 percent in both Ohio and Pennsylvania....

The only Republican who tops Biden in any state is Carson, who has the upper hand in Ohio and Pennsylvania, with 46 percent to 42 percent and 47 percent to 42 percent, respectively.
And Bernie Sanders loses to Carson 46%-40% in Florida, 48%-36% in Ohio, and 47%-37% in Pennsylvania.

Among all registered voters, Carson has a net favorable rating of +23% in Ohio, +26% in Pennsylvania, and +21% in Florida. He has the highest net favorable rating of any polled candidate or possible candidate in Florida and Pennsylvania, and the second-highest net favorable rating (two points behind Joe Biden) in Florida.

I don't have any grand theories to explain this. All I can say is: America, are you listening to this man? Have you paid any attention to what he's saying? Or does none of it bother you?

Tuesday, October 06, 2015


I'm sure you know that Bobby Jindal posted a rant on his campaign website blaming the recent massacre in Oregon on the shooter's father, as well as on American culture. A lot of commenters have addressed the attack on the father (my favorite response is Kalli Joy Gray's "Bobby Jindal Demands Apology from Oregon Shooter’s Father, for Not Loving Guns Enough," at Wonkette) -- but the culture-war part is also noteworthy, because it's the majority of the rant (the title of which is "We Fill Our Culture with Garbage, and We Reap the Result").

What's up? What does Jindal hope to accomplish with a jeremiad like this?
* We glorify sick and senseless acts of violence in virtually every element of our pop culture, and we have been doing that for at least a generation.

* Our movies and TV shows feature a continuous stream of grotesque killing of every kind imaginable. And this is true of virtually every genre, from horror to drama to comedy.

* We celebrate and document every kind of deviant behavior and we give out awards to producers who can push the envelope as far as possible. Rape, torture, murder, mass murder, all are cinematic achievements.

* Our music does the same thing, we promote evil, we promote the degradation of women, we flaunt the laws of God and common decency and we promote it all and we flood our young people with it.

* We have generations of young boys who were raised on video games where they compete with other young boys around the country and the world to see who can kill the most humans. We make it so fun, so realistic, so sensational.
In case you've forgotten, Jindal is only 44 years old. He's actually 13 days younger than Marco Rubio, who boasts of his love of Tupac -- and is doing much better in the polls. (Nationwide, Rubio's at 9.9% in the Real Clear Politics average, while Jindal is at a woeful 0.6%.) A lot of middle-aged Republicans grew up on rap, violent video games, and sex on cable. Why does Jindal think this message will sell to Republican voters?

I suspect Jindal is buying into some ridiculous conventional wisdom about how Republicans pick a president. The New York Times laid it out in a story yesterday:
Yes, 15 Republicans are still seeking the nomination. But in reality not all are competing for the same voters. They are running in what Iowa strategists call “lanes” -- one for candidates appealing primarily to evangelical Christians, a second for outsiders and Tea Party types, and a third for business-oriented conservatives.

Historically, Republicans have tried to win one of the proverbial “three tickets out of Iowa” in the state’s caucuses. This year, however, with such a crowded field, the three tickets may not be the top three finishers over all, according to some strategists, but the top candidate from each lane.
Do people seriously believe this? Do they seriously believe that being a niche candidate who wins in the evangelical Christian "lane" can actually give you a serious shot at the nomination?

In my adult life, it's never worked -- not for Pat Robertson or Alan Keyes or Gary Bauer or Mike Huckabee. Rick Santorum did best, but he had a billionaire backing him, and even so, he only won six states. (Mitt Romney won 39, plus D.C. and three territories.) George W. Bush showed great strength among evangelicals in 2000, but was also an Establishment favorite. Evangelical niche players never win.

I say this, and I'm sure I'm right, but I'm just an idiot blogger, while the people who believe this "three lanes" nonsense are political pros. So Jindal probably believes it, too.

In Iowa, where the GOP electorate is disproportionately evangelical, Jindal is, ADMITTEDLY, running better than he is nationwide -- but that'S not saying much. (This morning Jindal posted an exultant tweet boasting that the latest Iowa poll has him in fifth place. Yippee!) I suppose Jindal thinks that a strong, or strongish, showing in Iowa will be followed up by wins in the South -- but they like tough, bellicose candidates in the South way more than they like Jesus, so of course Donald Trump is going great guns in Dixie.

This is why I think Jindal is still playing the culture-war pander game. If so, it's for for no good reason.


Does this sound crazy to you?
In one of his signature Facebook Q&As Monday night, Ben Carson again weighed in on the Oregon shooting, writing that he had operated on victims of gun violence "but I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away."
How about this?
"If I had a little kid in kindergarten somewhere I would feel much more comfortable if I knew on that campus there was a police officer or somebody who was trained with a weapon," [Carson] says. Including the teacher? "If the teacher was trained in the use of that weapon and had access to it, I would be much more comfortable if they had one than if they didn't."
Or this?
Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson speculated on Tuesday about what he would have done had he been at the Oregon college where a gunman opened fire last week.

The Republican presidential candidate weighed in on the hypothetical during a "Fox & Friends" interview.

"I'm glad you asked that question. Because not only would I probably not cooperate with him, I would not just stand there and let him shoot me," Carson said.

He speculated that he would have organized a response.

"I would say, 'Hey guys! Everybody attack him! He may shoot me but he can't get us all!'" Carson exclaimed.
If some or all of that sounds insane to you, then you must not be a Republican. In a sane country -- in a sane party -- the notion that gun ownership is more precious than the lives of innocent shooting victims, including children, would be a campaign-ender.

In the GOP, it's almost certain that Carson is winning the week with remarks like these. (He's also beaten Hillary Clinton in three straight polls, so the rest of us either accept this kind of talk or are too numb to react with appropriate outrage.)

Carson has already been gaining on Donald Trump in the aftermath of his declaration that Muslims are Constitution-hating religious fanatics unless proven otherwise and thus aren't suited to run for president, and in the aftermath of his decision to launch the #IAmAChristian hashtag campaign in response to the Oregon massacre. (It's an article of faith on the right that the Oregon massacre was specifically aimed at Christians, even though, as I've noted, there are reasons for serious skepticism about that.) Carson beat Donald Trump by 7 points in an Investor's Business Daily/TIPP poll released Friday, the day of the massacre; the Muslim-bashing almost certainly can be credited with propelling Carson into the lead. Carson is also tied with Trump in Pennsylvania according to a new Mercyhurst University poll, and a national poll sponsored by the Club for Growth (which, it should be noted, loathes Trump) has Carson leading Trump by 5 points.

Expect more of this, because America is a depraved country, and the GOP is an especially depraved party. The gun talk will meet with widespread cheers on the right -- and it probably won't hurt him at all in the middle.


UPDATE: How does the increasingly tone-deaf New York Times summarize at all this heartless trolling and faux-swagger? This way:
Like many Republican presidential candidates who have sought to express sympathy for the victims while maintaining their support for gun rights, Mr. Carson appeared to struggle to address the issue with sensitivity.
Yes, that was his problem, right? He wanted to be sensitive, but it was just such a struggle.


Via Breitbart and Mediaite, I see that the right has a new hero:
David Jaques, publisher of the Roseburg Beacon, told Bill O’Reilly tonight President Obama should not come to the Oregon town after he politicized the tragic shooting last week.

... the president is reportedly traveling to Roseburg, but Jaques made it clear to O’Reilly plenty of residents would not be on board with that.

He said Obama’s “not welcome” in Roseburg because people think he will “grandstand for political purposes.”

“He wants to come to our community,” Jaques said, “and stand on the corpses of our loved ones and make some kind of political point.”
Jaques's paper, The Roseburg Beacon, is a small, conservative local publication that has been known to publish conspiratorial crackpottery.

On Jaques's personal Facebook page, he favorites a group called Americans for the Restoration of Freedom, which posts items such as a claim that Hurricane Joaquin was the product of "geoengineering," as well as an assertion that the Justice Department's Strong Cities Network is an anti-Constitution UN plot. There's also, um, this:

In 2010, Jaques was a key consultant to the unsuccessful congressional campaign of Art Robinson, a candidate much mocked for his interest in urine:
A candidate for Congress is soliciting mass urine samples from Oregonians as part of his day job as a scientist, a move some see as a novel approach to improving modern medicine and others call just another odd move in an offbeat political career.

Art Robinson, a Republican making his third bid to unseat Representative Peter DeFazio, a Democrat, last week sent out thousands of fliers across Oregon asking for volunteer urine samples.

Robinson, co-founder of the nonprofit Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, said he is hoping to get 15,000 samples to help calibrate a machine that could use urine profiles to help predict if a person will develop degenerative diseases such as cancer.
This in itself wouldn't be troubling -- Robinson is, after all, a scientist -- if it weren't for his other crackpot notions:
In a monthly newsletter called Access to Energy, Robinson has used his academic credentials to float theories on everything from AIDS to public schooling to climate change (which he believes is a myth). In perhaps his most famous missive, Robinson once proposed using airplanes to disperse radioactive waste on Oregon homes, in the hopes of building up resistance to degenerative illnesses.

"All we need do with nuclear waste is dilute it to a low radiation level and sprinkle it over the ocean -- or even over America after hormesis is better understood and verified with respect to more diseases," Robinson wrote in 1997. He added, "If we could use it to enhance our own drinking water here in Oregon, where background radiation is low, it would hormetically enhance our resistance to degenerative diseases. Alas, this would be against the law." ...

In another essay, he called public education "the most widespread and devastating form of child abuse and racism in the United States," leaving people "so mentally handicapped that they cannot be responsible custodians of the energy technology base or other advanced accomplishments of our civilization."

Robinson theorized that the government had overhyped the AIDS epidemic in order to force social engineering experiments on those aforementioned public school students....
A decade ago, Jaques became president of One Nation United, which appears to be an Astroturf group ostensibly dedicated to Native American advocacy, but actually acting as a front for corporations seeking to limit Natives' rights:
At a recent Douglas County Commission meeting, ONU Executive Director Barb Lindsay described the group as a "nonprofit, nonpartisan public educational umbrella group" formed to "defend private property rights, free enterprise and the rule of law."

... Opponents of the group, including Indian tribes in New York, Oklahoma and Oregon, say it is a racist front group for industries that compete with tribally owned businesses in those states, such as the Oklahoma Petroleum Marketers' Association.

ONU began commanding attention in Oregon when Douglas County Commissioner Marilyn Kittelman joined its campaign for caps on tribal land trusts. And Kittelman's recall campaign manager, Douglas County Planning Commissioner David Jaques, recently became ONU's president.

... Jaques acknowledged that ONU is lobbying Congress to cap tribal land trusts. "But these spurious charges that this is some kind of hate or racist group?

That's insane, like saying the National Federal of Business is a hate group," he said.

Every page of ONU's August 2006 newsletter contains stories about what it calls "misguided" federal Indian policy. One article, for example, says: "The tribes' 'separate-but-favored' status has protected individual tribal members from the predations to which they, historically, were victim. But the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act transformed that shield into a sword that has been thrust into established, non-tribal communities whose citizens are left defenseless."

Sue Shaffer, chairman of the Cow Creek Band of the Tribes of the Lower Umpqua, called ONU a "national hate group" that has tried to stir up resentment here over the Cow Creeks' legal removal of about 2,000 acres from county tax rolls....
All in all, the guy seems like an ideal right-wing hero.

Monday, October 05, 2015


Is Jeb Bush tweaking his campaign strategy based on (snarky, not really serious) recommendations from me? Hard to believe -- and yet....
With Jeb Bush struggling to connect with some Republican activists, his campaign has begun exploring whether to bring in the person it thinks may be best equipped to give him a boost with skeptical conservatives: his brother George W. Bush.

The 43rd president is a very popular figure among Republican voters and could deliver a needed jolt to his brother’s sluggish campaign....

It may ruin the race for him down the line, but it could win the race here,” said Katon Dawson, a former chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party.
On September 24, I pointed out the disturbing popularity of Dubya among Republicans -- a plurality of Republicans in one poll even said they'd vote for him if he could run for a third term. I said:
So maybe Bush has been dealing with his family all wrong. Maybe, if he wants to win the Republican nomination, he should appear with W. as much as humanly possible. Maybe he should campaign with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Maybe he shouldn't have answered that question about whether he would have authorized the Iraq invasion with a defensive "I would have, and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody" -- maybe he should have said "Hell yeah I would have!"
I think Jeb could turn this into an entire campaign narrative. Remember the huge round of cheers he set off in the last debate when he said George W. "kept us safe"? Start with that -- then move on to the notion that Iraq and Afghanistan were completely pacified and trouble-free when Dubya left office (literally every Republican in America believes this now). Who made everything go bad, according to the GOP? President Obama -- and his first-term secretary of state, Hillary Clinton!

Embrace the notion of a restoration of the '00s, Jeb! Defend your brother's administration defiantly! Primary voters in your party will eat that up!

Know what else you could do? Get some high-profile veterans of W's wars to endorse you. "Lone Survivor" Marcus Luttrell was a Rick Perry man (you might remember Luttrell and his twin brother standing behind Perry when Perry announced his candidacy), but now he's unaffiliated. George W. awarded Luttrell the Navy Cross in 2007; Luttrell arranged to have his battle patch sent to George W. Maybe Jeb should beg his brother to hit up Luttrell for an endorsement. Same with Taya Kyle, the widow of "American Sniper" Chris Kyle -- she also endorsed Perry, but remember that Chris Kyle famously got into a 2006 bar brawl with Jesse Ventura because Ventura insulted Dubya and the Iraq War. So I think she might come around after a word or two from the ex-president.

(I suppose it might seem odd for a tough guy and a tough guy's widow to endorse someone like Jeb, but, hell, Sheriff Joe Arpaio endorsed Mitt Romney, so stranger things have happened.)

Really, Jeb, just go deep into this. It could be like Reagan calling the Vietnam War a "noble cause" in the summer of 1980. It sure would be "politically incorrect." Yes, it would be awful, but the only way to become the GOP nominee is to say awful things as often as humanly possible. So get cracking on this, Jeb.


Self-admiring Christopher Hitchens wannabe Kevin D. Williamson tells us at National Review that we shouldn't do anything about mass shootings because, really, gun murders are incredibly rare, as we'd realize if we weren't hooked on drama:
... we shouldn’t play the shooters’ game. These acts are dramatic because they are unusual (not as unusual as we’d prefer), extraordinary because they are unrepresentative of the contemporary experience rather than representative of it.... We are not, in fact, a polity dissolving into chaos. Our streets aren’t filled with blood -- they’re filled with mediocrity. Politicians sell you emergency when they want to take something away from you. Terrorists are not the only people who know that a scared population is a compliant population.
So don't worry your silly little head about the fact that we have one mass shooting a day in America.

Surprisingly, Williamson sees the tendency to succumb to fear across the political spectrum:
We insulated moderns are not very good at ranking risks.... we love stories. We love them more than we love reality: The Republican party is not run by a secret cabal of warmongering billionaires; Barack Obama is a cookie-cutter Ivy League lefty, not a Kenya-born al-Qaeda plant; you’re going to die from emphysema or from being fat rather than from Ebola or a resurgent Islamic caliphate; the people who commit the murders are for the most part going to be ordinary criminals going about ordinary criminal business, and a fair number of the people they kill are the same thing.
But, of course, it's only the liberal side of this that gets his back up in the case of guns:
Even our dramatic crimes are mostly rooted in ordinary failures: those failed families, again, failed mental-health practices, etc. A scary-looking rifle is visually arresting, a fact that tells us something about the weapon, and maybe something about us. It doesn’t tell us anything useful about the actual challenges facing the United States in 2015.
And it's hilarious that Williamson sees Americans as susceptible to unreasonable fears about, say, Ebola or jihadist violence. Hmmm, why would that be? Could i be because people such as ... oh, Kevin D. Williamson write about Ebola this way?
It is impossible to tell what will happen with Ebola here or abroad, and the flapping of this viral butterfly’s wings represents one of those high-stakes rolls of history’s dice, the outcome of which cannot be anticipated. Consider such human, economic, and cultural catastrophes as the Great War, HIV, or Communism: None of those was the obvious outcome of a foreseeable chain of events. Neither Karl Marx nor Gavrilo Princip, to say nothing of that unknown chimpanzee hunter, could have imagined where the currents of history in which they were wading would end up taking us.
Or about terrorism in the U.S. this way?
Just as denunciations of the “Red Scare” were used to draw attention away from the crimes of American individuals and institutions undertaken in service of the Soviet Union, now cries of “Islamophobia!” are being used to muddy the waters in the matter of the participation of American and Western people and institutions in the worldwide Islamic jihad against the West.... Here in the United States, the Council on American Islamic Relations operates openly and with the full protection of the law, in spite of its being identified by the Department of Justice as an unindicted coconspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, in which a phony charity was used to channel money to Hamas. (My colleague Andrew C. McCarthy, who knows a little something about Islamic terrorism, has done a great deal of work on CAIR, e.g., here.) Another group with Saudi and Muslim Brotherhood links holds the titles to hundreds of American mosques. Odd? Worrisome? “Islamophobia!”

Prediction: In 30 years, [they'll be] renaming Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan “Osama bin Laden Plaza” ...
If there's gun paranoia, I'd say it's overwhelmingly on the right, as Charles Blow notes today:
... as I have mentioned before, my oldest brother is a gun collector. He is a regular at the gun shows, buying and selling, but even he talks about a sense of unease at those shows as people engage in what can only be described as panic buying and ammunition hoarding.

These people are afraid. They are afraid of a time conservative media and the gun industry has convinced them is coming when sales of weapons, particularly some types of weapons, will be restricted or forbidden. They are afraid of growing populations of people they don’t trust. Some are even afraid that a time will come when they will have to defend themselves against the government itself.
What does Mr. Williamson tell us about the completely illusory need for ammunition hoarding?
As it wanes, the Obama administration grows bold, and even reckless, on matters that send a thrill up the leg of its most leftward supporters. Its new attack on so-called armor-piercing ammunition -- which is, in reality, a very broad attack on ammunition across the board -- is a dangerous and destructive example of the administration’s late-days slide into rule-by-decree....

What gun-rights advocates fear -- not without reason -- is that this is the beginning of a pincer movement, with the ATF banning non-lead ammunition as a threat to armor-wearing police officers and the EPA banning lead ammunition as a toxin....

In a sense, the gun-grabbers were telling the truth when they said that they had no designs on our sporting rifles. But the ammunition for those rifles is another story.
So Kevin D. Williamson clearly thinks that you shouldn't believe scare stories -- unless he's telling them.

Sunday, October 04, 2015


Randy Scroggins is the father of Lacey Scroggins, who survived the Umpqua Community College massacre. He's been speaking to reporters about his daughter's account of the massacre, and he recounts that the shooter, Christopher Harper-Mercer, seasoned his bloodshed with a bit of emotional sadism:
Harper-Mercer told another student that if she begged for her life, he would spare her. But when the woman began to beg, [Lacey Scroggins] said, “Daddy, he shot her anyway....”

... Lacey told her father that at one point she could hear a woman tell the gunman, “I'm sorry that you are going through this -- I'm sorry that somebody has hurt you.”

“I bet you are, but it's not good enough,” Lacey remembered the gunman replying, and then, she said, he shot the woman.
If this is accurate, it says something about the shooter's frame of mind. Among conservatives, the massacre is being described as a specifically anti-Christian act, even though there are conflicting accounts of what the shooter said about Christianity:
Both [Anastasia] Boylan and Scroggins said the gunman shot Christians in the head and wounded others, though there was at least one account that said he treated all religions with the same cold response.

"She hears the shooter in front say, 'You, in that orange shirt, stand up!'" Randy Scoggins said. "'What religion are you? Are you a Christian?' He says 'Yes.' She hears another pop, and she hears a thud as he drops to the ground."

Rand McGowan, who was shot in the hand, told his mother it didn't seem the shooter was deliberately targeting Christians.

"It was more so saying, 'You're going to be meeting your maker,'" Stephanie Salas said.
Now consider what Dave Cullen, author of the definitive book on the Columbine massacre, wrote in The New Republic in the immediate aftermath of the massacre:
Already we are hearing statements attributed to the killer: the New York Post reports that he singled out Christians. Other supposed motives are sure to surface, and one or two may prove to be true. But most won’t. Killers say all sorts of things. Some taunt their victims, make fun of them. The Columbine killers taunted kids for being black, jocks, and Christians, and each of those was portrayed as a hate crime against those groups. But the killers also taunted kids for being fat and for wearing ostentatious glasses. (Eric Harris's journals are crammed with hate for every possible group.)

Resist the urge to apply motives. If the killer mentioned a characteristic of a victim, that may simply mean that he noticed it and then used it against the victim to try to inflict more pain. Nothing more.
It's quite possible that Harper-Mercer hated Christianity, or hated all religions. It's also quite possible that killing someone who professed belief in a just and beneficent God struck him as an especially delightful way to flip the bird at everything society regards as virtuous, and an especially cruel way to inflict emotional pain. The fact that Harper-Mercer offered to spare someone if she begged for her life, then shot her anyway, and the fact that he shot someone who expressed empathy, suggests that inflicting emotional pain was his primary goal, not attacking Christians. But I supposed we'll learn more eventually.


Today, The Washington Post's Dan Balz writes about Jeb Bush and the other Establishment candidates seeking the Republican presidential nomination. Balz spots the reason Jeb is highly unlikely to win the nominating contest, though I'm not sure he realizes he's spotted it:
Lodged firmly in the establishment wing as the son and brother of former presidents, [Bush] faces resistance on the far right and among those yearning for an outsider. His hope is that he can change perceptions of himself, outlast his rivals with superior resources and persuade Republicans that he’s their best hope to win a general election.

Sally Bradshaw, Bush’s senior adviser, said the key remains what it has been from the start of the campaign: to portray Bush as a conservative reformer by stressing what he did in Florida. “People don’t know that yet,” she said. “When that message burns in, his numbers are going to change. That’s his path.”
Do you see Jeb's problem? His plan is to say, "Yes, I'm a conservative -- look at all the conservative things I did when I was in government a million years ago." In other words, his plan for winning over voters who want not only a right-wing ideologue but an outsider is to tell people what an ideologue he was years ago, as an insider.

With that strategy, he simply can't win the nomination.


Jeb should pander. Jeb should try to appeal to conservative voters' baser instincts on hot-button current issues. That's what they want, and that's what works.

This, for instance, seems brilliant:
Dr. Ben Carson ... has launched a social media response effort to the Oregon gunman’s reported targeting of Christians in his shooting spree on a community college campus on Thursday.

In one of several consecutive Facebook posts, Carson urges his millions of followers to change their Facebook photograph to an image of a hashtag: #IAmAChristian. The other Facebook photograph shows Carson holding up a piece of paper with the words “I am a Christian” written on it.

This is shameless, and perfectly in tune with modern conservative thinking (and it actually seems like something the God-bothering Jeb could do if he didn't think it was unseemly). As I write, Carson's photo post has 1,064,030 Facebook likes and 165,067 shares, while his logo post has 263,955 likes and 117,044 shares.

This election has been a sort of pander Olympics, with the three outsiders likely to sweep the medals. Trump panders on immigration. Carson panders on the alleged incompatibility of Islam and the Constitution. Carly Fiorina panders on Planned Parenthood. (And "pander" is probably not the word I'm looking for in all cases -- Carson really seems to believe everything he says, and I think Trump believes quite a bit of what he's saying, though I have serious doubts about Fiorina.)

Last night we got this from Trump:
Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump said armed teachers could have protected the students who were killed in a mass shooting at a community college in Oregon this week.

“This is in light of what’s gone on in Oregon,” Trump said Saturday during a campaign stop in Franklin, Tenn., after talking about his Second Amendment stance.

“And by the way, it was a gun-free zone,” he said of the Umpqua Community College shooting Thursday.

“I’ll tell you, if you had a couple of the teachers or someone with guns in that room, you would have been a hell of a lot better off,” he added.
That's how you establish yourself as a conservative now, Jeb, not by telling us what you did as an inside player when Nickelback and Creed were topping the charts.


Oh, and did I mention that we now have a poll (from TIPP and Investor's Business Daily) that has Ben Carson leading the GOP field, at 24%, with Trump at 17% (and Bush in fifth place, at 8%)? Playing to the cheap seats works (apparently better than rolling out a semi-serious tax plan, which might have been Trump's first mistake).

Saturday, October 03, 2015


I'm a gun-control proponent, but it's clear that much of our gun violence is at the hands of people who obtained their guns legally, and wouldn't have been prevented from getting their hands on firearms by any proposals currently on the table. We're told, for instance, that Christopher Harper-Mercer, the Oregon mass murderer, "owned 14 firearms, all of which were bought legally through a federally licensed firearms dealer.... Some were bought by Mr. Harper-Mercer, and some by members of his family."

But there's a common thread in three of the best-known recent gun crimes. Oregon:
Christopher Harper-Mercer was withdrawn and quiet as he grew up in southern California, spending most of his time indoors at his mother’s apartment and deflecting neighbors when they asked him how he was doing, or why he always wore the same outfit of combat boots and green Army pants. But there was one subject that got him to open up: guns.

Mr. Harper-Mercer collected handguns and rifles, and he regularly went to a shooting range with his mother, said neighbors in Torrance, Calif., where the two lived until moving to Oregon in 2013.
Texas, 2013:
Four letters, "PTSD," have hung over Eddie Ray Routh since the day he was accused of killing Chris Kyle, a famed Navy SEAL sniper....

The fragments of information presented about Routh, a 25-year-old Marine reservist, have been indelible thus far. Iraq war veteran. Listless and unemployed.

There's Routh: hospitalized multiple times since returning home, at one point reportedly threatening the lives of his family; also having been found shoeless and drunk by the police.

There's Routh: hospitalized another time because a friend in north Dallas was afraid he would hurt himself....

Kyle worked with a nonprofit group, FITCO Cares, to get returning veterans workout equipment. He had also written about using gun ranges as a kind of therapy for returning veterans, in which he'd give jokey tough-love between stories and beer. It's on such a trip with Routh that police think Routh turned a semiautomatic pistol on Kyle and one of Kyle's friends, Chad Littlefield, 35.
Connecticut, 2012:
Everyone tried to encourage Adam [Lanza] and looked for ways to engage with him. [Adam's mother] Nancy would take him on trips to the shooting range. Nancy and [Adam's father] Peter thought that their son was nonviolent; the best way to build a connection to someone with Asperger’s is often to participate in his fascinations.
I'm not part of the gun culture -- I don't own guns and haven't known many people who do. But I don't condemn the culture outright. It seems to me that most gun owners are right when they say that their use of guns is careful and responsible.

But the problem is that the gun culture doesn't even seem to acknowledge the possibility that some people really shouldn't go anywhere near a gun. Christopher Harper-Mercer, we've learned, was
an angry, isolated young man whose rage was fueled by animus toward religion and resentment at how his life was unfolding, law enforcement officials said Friday....

“He didn’t have a girlfriend, and he was upset about that,” said a senior law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. “He comes across thinking of himself as a loser. He did not like his lot in life, and it seemed like nothing was going right for him.”
But his mother went shooting with him, and no one who knew him -- no family member or acquaintance -- seemed to think that an angry young man plus fourteen guns in the house was a potentially lethal combination. No one thought it might be a bad idea for Adam Lanza or Eddie Ray Routh to go shooting.

How do we think about alcohol in this culture?

I drink -- not much, but I like drinking. Most people I know like drinking. But I don't have trouble keeping multiple thoughts about drinking in my head simultaneously: Drinking can be very pleasant -- but I shouldn't drink to excess, and everyone should avoid drinking and driving, and drinking can be a problem if it's your way of dealing with emotional distress, and some people simply can't handle drinking at all. I think most of us can hold all those thoughts in our heads at once. We'll proudly raise a toast at our daughter's wedding, but we also know that alcoholics need to steer clear of the bottle.

Is the gun culture able to think like that? It seems to me that the gun culture thinks gun use is healthy recreation for everyone except criminals and terrorists. Guns are always good for what ails you! Certainly it's never worrisome if someone in emotional pain is surrounded by guns. I grew up hunting. Guns have always been a part of my life. That's true for everyone around here. And on and on....

Members of the gun culture, I'm not recommending that you forswear guns -- I'm saying that you should recognize that gun use isn't healthy for everyone. Maybe you need to take a closer look at some of your fellow gun users. Maybe some of them need an intervention -- which doesn't mean that your gun use is a problem. They just need to be separated from guns.

I know: You feel under constant threat from us freedom-hating liberals. You think this sounds like just a subtler form of gun-grabbing.

Well, it's your decision. But remember what I'm writing the next time there's a bloodbath caused by someone who was surrounded with guns and who'd obviously been emotionally distraught for a long time. Maybe someone in your culture could have connected the dots.

Friday, October 02, 2015


Jeb Bush, I'm told, put his foot in his mouth:
Jeb Bush invited a firestorm on Friday by saying that “stuff happens” in reference to renewed calls for legislative action after tragedies like the mass shooting in Oregon.

“I had this challenge as governor because we had -- look, stuff happens,” he said at a forum in South Carolina. “There’s always a crisis and the impulse is always to do something, and it’s not necessarily the right thing to do.”

The inelegant phrase immediately set off a wave of criticism from observers suggesting he was playing down the scourge of gun violence and the tragedy on Thursday....
But when I head over to Free Republic to check the response of GOP base voters, I see that most of them agree with him on this, even though they don't like him much. Here are some of the comments:
Watch the video, not the headline. He is absolutely correct.


Yes, I despise Jebby for his betrayal.

BUT I think in this sense, it sounds to me like he’s just saying, don’t come up with idiocy to disarm normal people because this nut went on a jihad against Christians.

He knows Obama, as usual, is milking this for everything he can.


I actually agree with that statement in it’s full context. But you ain’t getting my vote Bush III.


I can’t stand Jeb Bush and I’ll never vote for him under any circumstances, but he’s actually right for once.

There are tons of murders all over no one says anything about. Then a shooting occurs, the media salivates, the liberals yell gun control and some POS gets famous.


Very true. Violence won't "end" or be "stopped." And because of the hysterical reactions of knee-jerk socialists, many will buy even more firearms and ammunition. Before long, because of the efforts against the Second Amendment and declining economy, firearms and ammunition will be everywhere and far cheaper. America, the firearms garden. ;-)

The real answer would be to try to end fatherlessness by ending feminist socialism.


He’s absolutely correct on this. I’m not a Bush fan and I wish he’d just leave the race but he’s right on this. Stuff happens and every time a crazy goes off doesn’t warrant new bureaucracy. Everything that guy in Oregon did was already illegal. He didn’t have a criminal record nor a bad psychological evaluation that indicated he was a threat and honestly the vast majority of guys that fit his profile are not and never become threats to anyone so the idea that some how we can legislate ourselves to safety is crazy especially if we value the very foundational idea of our legal system which is that one is innocent till proven guilty. We do not just declare someone a criminal because they are weird.


Gotta say, yay, Bush.
There you have it. A couple of posters criticize the words or the tone, and more just accuse Jeb of being an incompetent politician, but most think he's absolutely right -- even though it kills them to say it.

I told you in my last post that Donald Trump was in sync with Republican thinking when he said something similar ("what are you going to do?"), and I said Jeb would get backup from right-wingers for this. He's getting it.


Mediaite's Matt Wilstein thinks Donald Trump's comments on the Oregon mass shooting are appalling. Wilstein has a point, but it should also be noted that Trump probably aced the questions he was asked in the eyes of the wingnut voters he's courting.
‘What Are You Going to Do?': Trump Pathetically Shrugs Off Shooting

... Asked [during an appearance today on Morning Joe] what he would do to prevent incidents like this one if he were president, Trump said, “Well first of all, you have very strong laws on the books. But you’re always going to have problems. I mean, we have millions and millions of people. We have millions of sick people all over the world.”

“It can happen all over the world,” he continued, before contradicting himself within the space of one sentence. “And it does happen all over the world, by the way, but this is sort of unique to this country, the school shootings, and you’re going to have difficulty no matter what.”
It's fine that he contradicted himself. Gun fans -- a group that includes pretty much all Republican voters -- regularly wave off questions about the much lower levels of gun violence in other countries, though when pressed, they tell us we have an excessive number of gun deaths because we live in a "diverse culture." So both parts of that contradiction are acceptable on the right.
... Characterizing the issue as one that has more to do with “mental health” than guns, Trump said, “It’s awfully hard to put somebody in an institution for the rest of their lives based on the fact he looks like he could be a problem.” He then added, “You’re going to have these things happen and it’s a horrible thing to behold.”

Host Willie Geist pressed Trump to say whether he really believes that “some people are going to slip through the cracks and there’s not much you can do about it.” And, remarkably, the GOP frontrunner answered affirmatively.
What's so remarkable about that? Republicans say that all the time.

“Well, you know, it’s not politically correct to say that but you’re going to have difficulty and that would be for the next million years, you’re going to have difficulty,” Trump answered, expressing an enormous degree of resignation on the issue of gun safety. “People are going to slip through the cracks and even if you did great mental health programs, people are going to slip through the cracks.”

“It’s the same old story. But what are you going to do? There are many people like that and what are you going to do? Institutionalize everybody?” he asked. “So you’re going to have difficulties. You’re going to have difficulties with many different things, not just this. That’s the way the world works -- and by the way, that’s the way the world always has worked.”

So, essentially, Trump is saying that we are always going to have mass shooting events in this country and his solution is… do nothing?
How different is that from what current Establishment dream candidate Marco Rubio said in the last presidential debate?
RUBIO: There’s a broader issue here as well. First of all, the only people that follow the law are law abiding people. Criminals, by definition, ignore the law. You can pass all the gun laws in the world -- like the left wants -- criminals are going to ignore it because they are criminals.
Rubio just said about criminals what Trump says about the violently insane. And Rubio's answer is boilerplate Republicanism.

Wilstein's conclusion:
There may be an argument to be had over the best solution to the epidemic of gun violence in America, but the posture of pure indifference put forward by Trump should not be an acceptable position for someone who wants to be president of the United States.
Well, Trump's position already is an acceptable one for a presidential aspirant, because what Trump says is what just about every other Republican candidate believes, except that Trump's opponents are careful not to say, "what are you going to do?" They don't think there are major problems with our gun laws. Maybe they'll make vague noises about mental health:
Ben Carson just happened to be on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show Thursday afternoon, shortly after news of the mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon broke. The GOP presidential candidate delivered the standard conservative message about focusing on mental health instead of gun control....

“Obviously, there are those who are going to be calling for gun control,” Carson said of the event, which left at least 13 people dead. “Obviously, that’s not the issue. The issue is the mentality of these people.” He said instead of focusing on guns, we should be looking for “early warning clues” to prevent incidents such as this one.
Certainly they'll say we have too much gun control already:
“Sadly, virtually every one of these shootings across the country has occurred in so-called gun free school zones,” [Ted] Cruz told conservative host Howie Carr of WRKO-AM, ahead of a two-day campaign swing in New Hampshire. “If you look at the jurisdictions that have really strict gun control laws, they consistently have among the highest crime rates.”

By contrast, he cited relatively low crime rates in Houston and Dallas where, he said, “the citizenry can defend themselves…. There is nothing a criminal likes more than an unarmed victim.”
Trump really would have aced this if he'd blamed the massacre on the removal of prayer from public schools, or on violent entertainment sold to America by the liberal entertainment industry. But he did fine. He passed this test with flying colors. Wanting to do nothing about gun violence is a sign that he's a genuine Republican.




He'll be attacked for that, but not from the right.




(Source: Vox; see also CNN.)

I'm throwing this out strictly as a thought exercise.

We know that America has far more deaths from gun violence than from terrorism. We know that America has far more deaths just from mass shootings than from terrorism -- it's been reported that we have more than one mass shooting per day now.

We say we don't know what to do about the shootings. But we think we know what to do about terrorism: Among other things, we engage in mass surveillance, collecting information on a staggering number of electronic communications.

Well, many mass shooters seem to use electronic communications to telegraph their intentions. It's being reported that the Oregon shooter did that on 4chan. (Yes, it was only the day before he shooting took place, but that would seem to be what, in a terrorism context, we refer to as "the ticking-bomb scenario.")

Would we reduce gun violence if we devoted massive amounts of resources to tracking electronic communications for signs of impending interpersonal violence that wouldn't normally be defined as terrorism? And if we did that, wouldn't we be addressing a much more significant and persistent threat to Americans' safety than terrorism?

Think of all the snazzy techniques that are supposed to allow the government to identify keywords hinting at terrorist intent -- shouldn't we be developing similar lists of keywords hinting at the intent to commit mass murder for thrills, or even garden-variety domestic violence? And if we want to have a layer of oversight, shouldn't the interpersonal-violence equivalent of a FISA court be ready at all times to rubber-stamp warrants?

I'm not proposing that we actually do any of this. But isn't it something we'd do if we actually cared about what really threatens Americans?