The Republicans are rightly worried.
Hillary rolls Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. Hillary Clinton gave an impeccable interview yesterday in which she remained presidentially poised, in control, non-defensive, and as devious as she has ever been. Interpreting and revising everything from congressional testimonies, FBI investigations, news videos, published emails, … . The woman showed everyone how all of these damning issues appear absolutely benign from the parallel universe in which she dwells. The interview was simply an exoneration of Hillary provided by Fox and the inept Wallace who let every outrageous response stand and simply moved on to the next question to repeat the farce. Understandably Hillary was visibly pleased with the interview and her performance in it. She will be back.
The chameleon face of Hillary reveals itself in more secure environments absent the press. There she is notorious for being a world-class shrew with her pecked-order peers, staff, and security using language that would make a sailor blush. Numerous authors and former staffers have all told the same stories of a banshee whose temper is permanently frayed and screams epithets like, “Fuck off! It's enough I have to see you shit-kickers every day! I'm not going to talk to you, too! Just do your Goddamn job and keep your mouth shut." Yes indeed, Madame President.
Everyone remember when Romney told the naïf Obama that the embarrassingly ‘reset’ Russia is our main enemy? He still doesn't have a clue.
And does everyone know the pro-jihadist past and views of our new Democrat VP Kaine who now will be “Stronger Together” with Hillary? I didn’t until a correspondent sent me this revelation from The American Thinker. More true colors of what the Obama 3.0 administration will deliver for America.
Appeal to readers – can anyone point me to the site that publishes the updated polling data from CNN, Fox, and WSJ? These polls are acknowledged as being technically the most reliable. I’m interested in data that includes the poll’s sample size and description, polling date/interval, questionnaire, and, of course, the results and their confidence interval.
Ever wonder why the networks air interviews with pundits whose 'expert views' on possible future alternatives on an issue are 50-50 – ‘but on the other hand …’. When one assigns equal likelihood to the possible outcomes, he is just pumping hot air to extend his complexified version of the more succinct simple answer of ‘I don’t know.’ That being the case, why have such talking heads consume valuable broadcast time? If nothing else, they could instead have a pleasant musical interlude to more profitably fill the interval.
First this discussion cannot continue without recognizing that the parents’ contribution to America are a separate matter from that of their son’s. We all honor the son’s sacrifice and express empathy to his parents for their loss for which we publicly acknowledge their Gold Star status. But that hard won recognition by Mr and Mrs Khan does not put paid to our having to hold an equal appreciation of their other work in the US.
Sen McCain apparently was unaware of the purpose and substance of Mr Khan’s other lawyerly activities which promise to bear a bitter fruit for America. To begin, Mr Khan is a published proponent of Sharia law and strongly advocates that all Muslims everywhere should construe their lives in harmony with and abide by that set of draconian laws as originally issued during the Prophet’s lifetime. (more here) This advocacy comes with a lot of baggage, especially for American Muslims. From my own Islamic studies I hold with those who see no compatibility between the founding tenets of America and what we, perhaps erroneously, identify as fundamental Islam – here we recall President Erdogan’s recent words. In short, when such a devout Muslim takes the oath of American citizenship, he can do it only within the context of taqiyya. (“Taqiyya is an Islamic juridical term whose shifting meaning relates to when a Muslim is allowed, under Sharia law, to lie.”)
Mr Khan’s other questionable pursuits include a law practice that aids the immigration of fundamentalist Muslims to the US, and a visible but TBD advocacy of the Muslim Brotherhood movement (here and here). These pursuits are questionable to the extent that they support populating the US with individuals whose fundamental belief systems are incompatible with (declared enemies of?) western and specifically American culture.
[3aug16 update] I had lunch with one of my pals today with whom I always get deep into politics. He asked an interesting question – what would the Republicans do if they were able to oust Trump or Trump just up and quit his candidacy? My reply involves using the military ‘buddy rating system’ with the remaining 16 now-retired candidates. To wit –
- Invite the former candidates to assemble in a room, and explain the matter to them. The candidate that they in their wisdom select will receive the full backing of the RNC and national Republican Party to defeat Hillary.
- Former candidates willing to step forward as the new candidate AND pledge to support the winner will remain in the room and be given five votes each. They may cast no more than one vote for any of their remaining colleagues. They are then left in the room to deliberate and vote.
- After the votes are counted, the clear winner is announced, celebrated, and made known to the nation. The campaign is relaunched. (Note that at this point Hillary must replenish all of her attack ads focused on the new candidate while all the anti-Hillary ads are still good to go.)
- If the Step 3 vote yields an N-way tie, then a new vote is taken with everyone casting their five votes, but now only for the N survivors. The one vote per candidate rule is removed, allowing the votes to be cast in any manner among the N.
- After the votes are cast we return to Step 3.