(click on image to enlarge)
|(President Obama greets "baby Pope" at White House Halloween event Oct. 30; photo Saul Loeb/AFP-Getty Images)|
|(President Obama greets "baby Pope" at White House Halloween event Oct. 30; photo Saul Loeb/AFP-Getty Images)|
In the long run, conservatives suffer more the deeper they burrow themselves into an ecosystem of convenient misinformation. But in the short run, they've figured out that denying documented reality and attacking the messenger can completely snow over the truth. That creates a big problem for journalists, who should view the attacks against Harwood and the others as an affront to the profession.Catherine Rampell on how the media rewards the liars and demagogues:
The Republican presidential candidates are right. The media do suck.
But not for the reasons the candidates complained about Wednesday night.
We in the media suck because we have rewarded their rampant dishonesty and buffoonery with nonstop news coverage. Which, of course, has encouraged more dishonesty and buffoonery.
Hence the aggravating behaviors that candidates doubled down on during the debate, based on lessons that we in the media taught them. To wit:
Lesson No. 1: Lie, but lie confidently. [snip]
Lesson No. 2: Invent your own math. [snip]
Lesson No. 3: If you can’t think of something better to say, just bash the media. [snip]
Accordingly, by Wednesday, the candidates had all learned to dodge difficult questions by accusing the moderators of bias. Usually, the charge was that they were too liberal. (Yes, CNBC, the channel that launched the tea party and employs the United States’ most famous supply-sider, is apparently a commie paradise.) Or they accused the media of not asking substantive questions, right in the middle of ducking substantive questions.
In the end, the biggest applause lines were all media insults. They came from Rubio, Ted Cruz and Christie.
Guess whom CNBC then crowned the winners of the debate? Rubio, Cruz and Christie.
Well done, gents. We’ve trained you well. (our emphasis)This is a potential tipping point in how the media (especially corporate media) take on the challenge of confronting the Republicans' "dishonesty and buffoonery." Judging from the initial reaction, they're going to fold like a cheap suit.
October 30, 2015
GOP candidates clearly have to be protected from uppity moderators. Need to save their best tough guy lines for Putin & the Chinese.— Billmonster (@billmon1) October 30, 2015
While the slides released to the press highlight Bush's Sunshine State endorsements and Rubio's lack of experience, another page for donor edification gets dirtier.
It's titled "Marco Is A Risky Bet," and it bullet-points Rubio's "misuse of state party credit cards, taxpayer funds and ties to scandal-tarred former Congressman David Rivera."
When Rubio was a state lawmaker, he used the state party credit card for personal expenses, a decision he later called a mistake. In 2005, he and Rivera jointly purchased a home that later faced foreclosure.
Another bullet point says Rubio's "closeness with Norman Braman, who doubles as personal benefactor[,] raises major ethical questions."
Braman, a billionaire auto dealer, is expected to pour $10 million into Rubio's White House endeavor, The New York Times reports. He's also paid Rubio's wife to oversee his charitable work.
The Bush team also mocks Rubio's "tomorrow versus yesterday" argument as one that would be "widely ridiculed by media" should he run against the first potential female president.So far, this is on- record chicanery from ethics and court proceedings. What else ya' got?
The most cryptic slight is left for last: "Those who have looked into Marco's background in the past have been concerned with what they have found."
A Bush aide says that line refers to concerns Mitt Romney's team unearthed when they vetted Rubio for vice president in 2012. (our emphasis)You can be sure any further "concerns" about "Glug Glug" will eventually come out during Republican primary vetting. We have some doubts, though, whether the chronically non- confrontational "J.E.B.!" has the cojones to go for "Glug Glug's" soft underbelly. (We see that necessary fratricidal chore more likely being undertaken by someone with the instincts of a psychopath and the ethical standards of a lizard -- someone like, hmmm, let's see... Sen. "Tailgunner Ted" Cruz!) Or maybe a "J.E.B.!" ratf*cker (think the late Lee Atwater) can handle the dirty work with a wink and a nod from the "low- energy" "J.E.B.!"
A ratings-driven media that desperately wants a horse race assures you that Marco Rubio gave a great debate performance last night.— John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) October 29, 2015
Well, that was awful. The third and, sadly, not final 2016 Republican primary debate wrapped up a short while ago and it was, from start to finish, a roaring trash fire. The big storyline going into the debate was decline of Jeb Bush and the ascendance of Marco Rubio, and that narrative got a huge boost with this evening’s cacophonous disaster.
Early on in the festivities, Rubio was asked about his Senate absenteeism, which gave Jeb the opening he needed to spring the clever trap he’d been planning and publicly telegraphing. “You can campaign, or just resign and let someone else take the job,” Jeb said. “There are a lot of people living paycheck to paycheck in Florida as well. They are looking for a senator that will fight for them each and every day.” Rubio was ready, telling Jeb that the only reason he was attacking him over this is “because we’re running for the same position, and someone has convinced you that attacking me is going to help you.” The crowd went wild.
And that was it for Jeb. He came into the evening needing a standout performance, and the attendance jab at Rubio was clearly supposed to be his big moment. Rubio handled it easily and made Jeb look ridiculous in the process. From that point on, Jeb was his same uninspired self, mechanically reciting the bullet points of the record he put together in Florida a decade ago that no one really cares about.
As for Rubio, he’s going to be crowned the winner of the debate. He got his talking points in, he got the favorable contrast with Jeb he wanted, and he was helped out by the moderators, who asked him aggressive questions about his Senate attendance record and personal finances. Rubio, with the help of Ted Cruz and Chris Christie, used the tone and content of the questions to turn the crowd against the moderators and score some cheap digs against the “bias” of the mainstream media. [snip]
As for the rest of the field, there weren’t many surprises. John Kasich kicked off the debate by reiterating his complaint that candidates like Ben Carson and Donald Trump are ridiculous clowns, and then largely disappeared for the remainder of the event. Rand Paul was a nonentity, Christie got a couple of shouty tough-guy moments in, and Huckabee popped off some folksy zingers. Carly Fiorina spent the evening sermonizing about the evils of government without ever veering into specifics. Ben Carson somnambulated through the night and made clear that his grasp of complex economic issues is tenuous at best. Trump was Trump – nothing you haven’t seen before.
Ted Cruz, on the other hand, probably did do himself some favors. He got the moderator hate-fest rolling by ducking a question about the budget deal currently before Congress and instead listing off all the evil crimes of bias the CNBC personnel had committed to that point.Whenever the focus can be shifted away from the insane, unpopular positions of the candidates to a Republican Playbook 101 attack on a (laughably absurd) "liberal mainstream media," you'll get the Republican peanut gallery to erupt as it did in the studio and in Republican messaging guru Fred "Dunce" Luntz's buzz- o- meters. Besides any advantage to be gained by this "working the refs" strategy, it clearly stimulates endorphins in the conservative lizard brain. A know- nothing will likely remain a know- nothing as long as they refuse to entertain thoughts that upset their predetermined views and prejudices.
Our advice to the press: Don’t seek professional safety through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views. Which politician is telling the truth? Who is taking hostages, at what risks and to what ends?To which we would humbly add, "Who is deflecting tough questions by attacking the messenger?"
“I don’t know that ‘hate’ is the right word,” Rubio said in an interview. “I’m frustrated.”
“That’s why I’m missing votes. Because I am leaving the Senate. I am not running for reelection,” Rubio said in the last Republican debate, after Donald Trump had mocked him for his unusual number of absences during Senate votes.Here's what the Sun-Sentinel, the largest circulation newspaper in the Miami area, had to say to "Glug Glug:"
Sorry, senator, but Floridians sent you to Washington to do a job. We've got serious problems with clogged highways, eroding beaches, flat Social Security checks and people who want to shut down the government.
If you hate your job, senator, follow the honorable lead of House Speaker John Boehner and resign it.
Let us elect someone who wants to be there and earn an honest dollar for an honest day's work. Don't leave us without one of our two representatives in the Senate for the next 15 months or so.
You are paid $174,000 per year to represent us, to fight for us, to solve our problems. Plus you take a $10,000 federal subsidy — declined by some in the Senate — to participate in one of the Obamacare health plans, though you are a big critic of Obamacare.
You are ripping us off, senator.Ouch!
My Halloween costume is Paul Ryan doing anger curls because he's pretending to be angry about this budget deal.— LOLGOP (@LOLGOP) October 27, 2015
Just before midnight on Monday, congressional lawmakers and the White House tentatively agreed on a major budget deal that would end such standoffs in the Obama presidency and solve a potentially catastrophic debt default coming within days. [snip]
Under the arrangement detailed by congressional aides, the debt limit, predicted to be hit on Nov. 3, would be extended into March 2017 -- well into the next president's term.
Additionally, over the next two years, government spending would rise $80 billion above the caps that sequestration currently allows. That money would be doled out evenly between defense and non-defense accounts, with $50 billion budgeted for the first year and $30 billion for the second.
On top of that, the bill would include $32 billion for the overseas contingency fund -- a veritable piggybank for administrations to cover the costs of wars -- split over the next two years. That would bring the deal's total spending increase to $112 billion over two years. [snip]
... The deal would extend the sequester's cuts to mandatory spending through 2025, which mostly involves a 2 percent cut in reimbursements to Medicare doctors. That reduction was scheduled to expire in 2021 under the 2011 Budget Control Act, which put sequestration into place. It was extended to 2023 under Murray-Ryan deal.
The new agreement also would prevent a 20 percent cut in benefits next year to the 11 million Americans enrolled in the Social Security Disability Insurance program. The cut would be avoided by diverting some of the incoming payroll tax money from Social Security's much bigger retirement insurance program for six years, something Republicans previously said they wouldn't do without cuts to benefits.If the deal passes, it would accomplish (at least on the fiscal side) what outgoing Weeper of the House John "Mr. Tangerine Man" Boehner promised as his "cleaning out the barn" before his retirement at the end of this month, removing some contentious issues from Weeper- to- be Paul "Lyin'" Ryan's to- do list. It would also mean Congress wouldn't be sabotaging the economy, at least for the balance of the Obama Administration.
The United States has a long list of social and economic challenges, disturbingly (and unjustly) concentrated in certain communities. But we are not slouching toward Gomorrah. Over the past few decades, divorce rates and abortion rates have both declined. Levels of violent crime have dropped dramatically. The U.S. economy, for all its problems, still attracts the world’s capital and the world’s best students. We have a wonderful country, thank you, flawed and free, carrying the highest political ideals of humanity, always capable of hope and healing. [snip]
Apocalyptic rhetoric is more than the evidence of historical ignorance and bad speechwriting. It leads to a distorted politics. If the United States has reached its midnight hour, it means that the institutions that have gotten us here are utterly discredited. The normal avenues of political reform are useless. Proposals for incremental policy change are so much deck-chair arranging. Political persuasion and compromise evince a lack of urgency. What we really need is to call a constitutional convention. Or to conduct a massive police action removing 11 million undocumented immigrants. Or to elect a really strong leader who knocks heads and sets everything straight. [snip]
Trump and Carson can succeed only if the end times are upon us. And I don’t mean that in a theological way. In normal times, innovative policy and governing skill would matter most in selecting a president. Successful governors and legislators would naturally rise to the top. Only in a crisis of institutional legitimacy does the outsider become the savior. This means Trump, Carson and other apocalyptic politicians must encourage a mental state of emergency among Republicans. Lacking any relevant qualifications in the current political system, these candidates must bring that system into complete disrepute. Since the politicians have made such a hash of things, they insist, a businessman or a neurosurgeon couldn’t possibly do worse. (our emphasis)
Oh, yes they could.It's funny how, when the enraged pitchfork- wielding yahoos that you've cultivated are finally coming after you, the clouds -- even mushroom clouds -- part and the truth finally ekes out.
"There was a time when I was, you know, very volatile. But, you know, I changed. As a teenager, I would go after people with rocks, and bricks, and baseball bats, and hammers. And, of course, many people know the story when I was 14 and I tried to stab someone. And, you know, fortunately … my life has been changed. And I’m a very different person now.” (emphasis added)One of the people he threatened with a hammer was his own mother, by the way. That's reassuring for someone who aspires to a position that controls the U.S.'s nuclear launch codes. He says he's a very different person now, but his angry, hyper-aggressive rhetoric (delivered in his creepy quiet voice) says not. Seriously, there's something off kilter with "On Meds," and it's not just his bizarre statements about Jews should have armed themselves to prevent the Holocaust, or that "Obamacare" is the worst thing since slavery. It's his mind, personal demons and delusions that make him an ideal candidate for the Republican base, but extremely dangerous for the country.
"I'm Presbyterian, he said. "Boy, that's down the middle of the road, folks, in all fairness. I mean, Seventh-day Adventist, I don't know about. I just don't know about."If we thought Carson was capable of subtle thought, we might wonder if he could see in retrospect how his comments about Muslims were of the same intolerant nature as Rump's comments about his own Seventh-day Adventist religion. But, nah!
"Rape or incest, I would not be for killing a baby because the baby came about in that way. And all you have to do is go and look up the many stories of people who have led very useful lives who are the result of rape or incest." Droopy Dog doppelganger Dr. Ben "On Meds?" Carson today on
"Meet the Press""Press the Meat" with Chuck "Not My Job" Todd. He also compared abortion with slavery and said he would "love" to see Roe v. Wade overturned. And he soars in the Republican polls.
The House Select Committee on Blumenthal, as some are now calling it, came to order at 10 a.m. Lawmakers didn’t finish questioning Hillary Clinton until 11 hours later — just after the Democratic presidential candidate succumbed to a coughing fit.
Kathleen ParkerIn that period of time, the name of Sidney Blumenthal was invoked more than 75 times, and scores of questions were asked about the longtime Clinton friend. By lunchtime, Blumenthal had been invoked 49 times — exactly the number of mentions of J. Christopher Stevens, the ambassador to Libya whose death in Benghazi is the supposed subject of the congressional probe. The other three Americans slain in Benghazi — Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods — got seven or eight mentions apiece, then-CIA director David Petraeus and former defense secretary Robert Gates each got two, and then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had none.
Who the blast is Sidney Blumenthal?
Doubtless many watching Thursday’s House select committee hearing on Benghazi must have wondered the same. This obviously important person’s name was mentioned so many times, it was challenging to remember that Hillary Clinton, not he, was the one on trial, for lack of a more-accurate word. [snip]
None of this was remotely relevant to the alleged purpose of the hearing — to find out once and for all what happened before, during and after that terrible night in Benghazi when four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, were killed. The real purpose was as obvious as the shine on Gowdy’s nose — to discredit Clinton both as secretary of state and as a leading presidential candidate — and, if possible, to make her head explode. All the questions about Blumenthal’s e-mails ultimately resulted in a rather wispy point: That he had Clinton’s personal e-mail address and Stevens, also a friend, did not.The focus on Blumenthal, of course, belied the unctuous vows by Chairdolt Trey "Deuce" Gowdy and his merry band of Republican knuckle-draggers that they were after "the facts" on Benghazi! The angrier the questioning and the more Clinton refused to rise to the bait, the more the true intent of the Kangaroo Court was made apparent to all but the most deluded in the right- wing echo chamber.
"You've got Rubio doing poorly, and he sweats like a dog," Trump said. "You've got Carson. I don't know what the hell's going on there. I don't get it."Bwahahahaha.
In the right-wing mind, there is nothing so ruinous to America as the liberation of women. The right’s entire ideological structure is built on worship of the Great White Father and veneration of the stern, Caucasian, disciplinarian dad. It’s a worldview centered on a jealous, blue-eyed Father God, a military dispatched to teach the world a lesson, and a president who serves as the national patriarch.We've certainly seen over the past decades the clear bias of the right wing (Phyllis Schafly, anyone?) against women who choose both families and careers. We'd also propose some additional clues as to the right's Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
..."a ferocious albeit dim-witted omnivore with a notoriously short temper and little patience. His enormous appetite seems to know no bounds, as he will eat anything in his path. He is best known for his speech consisting mostly of grunts, growls, and rasps (in his earlier appearances, he does speak English with primitive grammar) as well as his ability to spin like a vortex and bite through just about anything."
What makes Mr. Ryan so special? The answer, basically, is that he’s the best con man they’ve got. His success in hoodwinking the news media and self-proclaimed centrists in general is the basis of his stature within his party. Unfortunately, at least from his point of view, it would be hard to sustain the con game from the speaker’s chair. (our emphasis)_________________
I would like to congratulate the United States House of Representatives for the very fine show they put on today on the stage provided by the Special Committee To Keep Benghazi In The News Until The Polls Drop. There has been no better example of non-governance displayed on TV since the last time Marco Rubio gave a speech. There has been no better view granted of the sheer stupidity and incompetence that has run riot in those halls because of the last two midterm elections since the last time Steve King parted his brain on the left side. There has been no more sterling example of the now-undeniable truth that modern movement conservatism has declined into a tangled mess of myth, shibboleth, and outright fabulism since the last time Ed Klein wrote a book. A whole philosophy of government, and still an influential one, stands exposed as little more than a puppet show for the national Id, and not a particularly sharp one, either. A movement full of grifters and ignorami, acting out a simulacrum of representative government for the benefit of an audience steeped in comfortable, narcotic delusion. [snip]
This whole thing started because of a ginned-up controversy about what Susan Rice had said about the attacks on Meet The Press in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. (Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio is still howling about this.) Responding to a question from Cummings, HRC actually got to explain that the video at least was partly responsible for the rage that broke out from Indonesia to Tunisia. That, alas, was beside the point. So also was Congressman Adam Schiff's boot in the ass in which he pretty much demonstrated that Blumenthal's appearance before this committee—the transcript of which Gowdy refuses to release—was a fishing expedition after material about the Clintons that could be used for future ratfcking purposes.And not even Hillary Rodham Clinton's ability to stand up against the gales of innuendo and fakery will make it less so.
This was a performance piece for the people residing within the conservative media bubble—who already are hip to the lies of the lamestream media, and who already are too smart to be fooled by the Hildebeast and her alleged facts because Mark Levin has told them that they are too smart to be so fooled, and who watch their favorite TV news stars every night, where there is always Another Question, or Another E-Mail, or, for all I know, Another Witness who saw the ghost of Vince Foster wandering through the Mena Airport with Kathleen Willey's cat in his mouth. The people out in the world are one problem, but now they're pretty plainly electing each other to the national legislature. That makes it our problem.The defense rests.
Benghazi security failures were a stunning example of an incompetent foreign policy. @HillaryClinton’s role as SOS deserves scrutiny today.— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) October 22, 2015
The historical significance of this moment can hardly be overstated, and it seems many Republicans, Democrats and members of the media don’t fully understand the magnitude of what is taking place. The awesome power of government—one that allows officials to pore through almost anything they demand and compel anyone to talk or suffer the shame of taking the Fifth Amendment—has been unleashed for purely political purposes. It is impossible to review what the Benghazi committee has done as anything other than taxpayer-funded political research of the opposing party’s leading candidate for president. Comparisons from America’s past are rare. Richard Nixon’s attempts to use the IRS to investigate his perceived enemies come to mind. So does Senator Joseph McCarthy’s red-baiting during the 1950s, with reckless accusations of treason leveled at members of the State Department, military generals and even the secretary of the Army. But the modern McCarthys of the Benghazi committee cannot perform this political theater on their own—they depend on reporters to aid in the attempts to use government for the purpose of destroying others with bogus “scoops” ladled out by members of Congress and their staffs. These journalists will almost certainly join the legions of shamed reporters of the McCarthy era as it becomes increasingly clear they are enablers of an obscene attempt to undermine the electoral process.Republicans and their media cheerleaders need to have a reckoning for their behavior. We hope today's "hearing" will be the beginning of that overdue process.
"Hitler didn't want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews," Netanyahu said in the speech. "And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, 'If you expel them, they'll all come here (Palestine).'Reaction to Bomb Bomb's false history was swift, including from Dina Porat, the chief historian at Yad Vashem, the Jewish Holocaust Memorial in Israel:
"'So what should I do with them?'" Netanyahu said Hitler asked the mufti, who responded: "Burn them."
"To say that the mufti was the first to mention to Hitler the idea to kill or burn the Jews is not correct. The idea to rid the world of the Jews was a central theme in Hitler's ideology a long, long time before he met the mufti."Indeed, Hitler announced his genocidal plan to the Reichstag in 1939; the Mufti met with Hitler in Berlin in November 1941. It should be acknowledged that while the Mufti's primary antagonism was toward the British colonialists, he was a notorious anti-Semite who helped recruit Muslims in the Balkans for the Waffen SS. But seeming to absolve Hitler of his enormous crime? Even Bomb Bomb's ally and Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon spoke out against that:
"It certainly wasn't (Husseini) who invented the Final Solution," he told Israel's Army Radio. "That was the evil brainchild of Hitler himself."This is the extremist Prime Minister that President Obama has to deal with on U.S. - Israeli relations.
“Perhaps we should exhume the corpses of the 33,771 Jews murdered in Babi Yar [in Ukraine] in September 1941, two months before the Mufti and Hitler met, and bring them up to speed on the fact that the Nazis had no intention of destroying them.”
"While I will not be a candidate, I will not be silent [...] Democrats should not only defend this record and protect this record, they should run on the record."Condolences to Fox "News," the Republican clown
Biden confirms to Obama at lunch today he's running, announces at U Delaware tomorrow. You can feel the Joementum!— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) October 20, 2015
If this were one of Trey Gowdy’s murder prosecutions, it would be declared a mistrial.
For 17 months, the former prosecutor who leads the House Benghazi committee has labored to give the appearance of diligence and impartiality. But, in an inexplicable and ruinous outbreak of honesty in recent weeks, the thing is unraveling just in time for Gowdy’s moment in the spotlight: Hillary Clinton’s testimony Thursday.In an attempt to alter the "optics" of their unraveling witch hunt, Republicans on the panel have new marching orders: grill Clinton, but do it "gently." Brilliant!
Would that there was a WASPish equivalent for the Yiddish word “chutzpah.” That term would nicely apply to Jeb Bush’s grossly tone-deaf claim that his brother George W. Bush “kept us safe” during the course of his presidency. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Hurricane Katrina and the 2008 financial crisis were the most destructive and harrowing assaults on U.S. domestic security since World War II. The Bush administration’s ineptness in each inflicted unprecedented levels of peril and loss on this country.
Perhaps the privileged dynast Jeb Bush felt safe during those times, but many Americans paid huge costs in blood and property and a sense of security. Anybody and everybody running against Mr. Bush for the GOP presidential nomination should make him convince us that he is, unlike his brother, someone we can trust with the security and well-being of our families.
Jon S. Ketzner, Cumberland, Md.With all due respect, we don't think "J.E.B.!" will ever convince us that he's "someone we can trust with the security and well-being of our families."
Hillary Clinton has widened her lead in the Democratic primary race after a strong performance in the party’s first televised debate, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.
The poll offered little encouragement for Vice President Joe Biden as he wrestles with whether to enter the contest. For all the respect the vice president enjoys within his party, just 30% of Democratic primary voters said they would like to see him run for the presidential nomination, with 38% saying he shouldn’t run.
The survey, conducted Oct. 15-18, found Mrs. Clinton leading the primary field with 49% support, compared with 29% for Sen. Bernie Sanders, and 15% for Mr. Biden.
Without the vice president on the ballot, Mrs. Clinton’s lead over Mr. Sanders opened to 58% to 33%—a margin 10 percentage points wider than in a Journal/NBC News poll taken in late September, before the Oct. 13 Democratic debate. (our emphasis)ABC News/Washington Post:
With anticipation surrounding Biden at a peak, Clinton has 54 percent support in interviews Thursday through Sunday, compared with Sanders’ 23 percent and Biden’s 16 percent. That’s 12 percentage points better for Clinton than her position a month ago, bringing her halfway back to her level of support in the spring and summer, before her September stumble. [snip]
Clinton’s support for the nomination is more than double Sanders’ and triple the unannounced Biden’s. Leaving Biden out of the equation, she has even more support, 64 percent, compared with 25 percent for Sanders, with others in the low single digits. That’s improved slightly for Clinton from a 56-28 percent race vs. Sanders in September. (our emphasis)As we noted the other day, we tend to agree with brother Tomasky that Biden's best course of action would be to say he's sitting out the primaries; he keeps his reputation and legacy intact while gaining great favor with Clinton (and maybe even some Sanders) supporters. At the same time he'd be leaving the door ajar ever so slightly for a draft in the highly unlikely case Clinton's campaign implodes. Either way, this mindless tease that's been going on with the media's active involvement should end, and end very soon.
I like that Jeb Bush's strategy is immediately let the bully know when he's pressed the right button. Savvy.— LOLGOP (@LOLGOP) October 19, 2015