Cleveland, Day Three -- Cruz Refuses!
Heading into tonight's speechifying, I was convinced that Ted Cruz would emerge afterwards as the heir apparent to the Republican nomination in 2020, should Donald Trump fail to win in November. Now, I'm not so sure.
But before we get to the big story of the night, let's start at the beginning. Today, the realization finally dawned in the Trump camp that they had to do something to stop the bleeding over the plagiarism storyline. A staffer was summarily dragged out who offered to fall on her own sword, and magnanimous Donald pardoned her, saying "everyone makes mistakes." So they likely successfully prevented the story from continuing for another day. But it would have been overshadowed anyway (obviously) by the end of the night.
But again, I'm getting ahead of myself. John Kasich also stirred the pot a bit today, saying he was courted for Trump's veep and that, furthermore, they offered him control over both the domestic and foreign agenda, leaving Trump to... um, play golf? The Trump camp immediately denied the story, which only served to highlight the Trump/Kasich feud even further than Kasich's refusal to set foot in the arena already had.
Tonight, the scheduling finally approached professionalism, I have to say (as an overall comment). There was a slow build throughout the night from all the speakers (and their placement), the minor folks in the first hour, the more prominent in the second hour, and (excepting Callista Gingrich's bizarre appearance), the third and primetime hour was nothing but the A-list -- with no minor-leaguers left hanging at the end of the night after the excitement was over and the crowd had gone home. So there was that, at the very least. To put this another way, tonight's trainwreck did not resemble that of the previous two nights of scheduling idiocy -- it was for an entirely different reason.
Things got off to a lively start with Rick Scott, who immediately pulled the "Radical Islamic Terrorism" card out and plunked it down on the table. This would prove so popular that I was eventually just using "RIT!" as an abbreviation in my notes. Another snap abbreviation coinage was "LHU" for all the "Lock her up!" chanting throughout the night, I should mention (which started during Rick Scott's speech and continued from that point forward, intermittently).
Laura Ingraham took the stage next, and totally fired the crowd up. I guess the GOP doesn't hate all journalists, eh? She heaped up a big helping of (blonde-highlighted) red meat, and the crowd just ate it up. She even got in a "skinny jeans/man-bun" joke to show how hip (or "anti-hip" perhaps) she is. She was folksy, and even though her speech was fairly long, the crowd stayed with her the entire time. She did take one pointed shot across Ted Cruz's bow (without actually naming him), which he later ignored, but the most notable thing about her performance was the fact that she seemed to be immensely enjoying herself. This is notable because so few speakers have radiated this impression during the whole convention (the runner-up would probably be the ultimate fighting guy, who also looked like he was having a ball onstage).
Some snoozer of a businessman (a Trump business partner, no less) had the unenviable task of following this speech up, who was followed by a chirpy and perky female attorney general from Florida (who at one point reacted to the crowd's chanting with "Lock her up -- I love that!"). Is this the same woman who refused to prosecute Trump for fraud after he donated $25,000 to her campaign? At this point, I am too weary to fact-check this, so in the spirit of all that is Trump I'm just going to assert it and see where the chips land.
Hey, I've been sitting through three solid days of this, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm getting a bit loopy. We then got the first of many little "movie time" vignettes, which introduced a female astronaut -- historical, since today is "moonday," when Neil Armstrong did his thing (and muffed his big line) back in 1969. This to me was ironic in the extreme, seeing as how Republicans are always the ones slashing NASA's budget in Congress. I mean, all that space/pioneering/leadership stuff doesn't exactly come cheap, and wasn't it George W. Bush who killed the space shuttle program, after all? Like I said, ironic.
We next got Michelle Van Etten, who absolutely took the prize for unintended hilarity (at least from the Democrats watching) for telling her life story as an extended metaphor (she's a businesswoman) of putting on a circus as a kid (her first business venture), and not realizing how it would sound at the end when she said Donald Trump is the "one man who can be ringmaster" of the Washington circus. This is too easy a shot for me to take, so I leave this one for others to poke fun at. Trump? Circus? Ringmaster? Man, the jokes just write themselves....
We then got the Latino-outreach portion of the show, with a Kentucky state senator who is obviously seen as a rising star in his party (Barack Obama's big step into the spotlight was a speech at a national convention when he was just a state senator, I hasten to remind folks). He had an awesome delivery style and cadence, I had to admit -- a very good speaker after the mostly-unimpressive speakers who preceded him. At the end of his speech, we saw something rather unexpected -- a GOP crowd actually cheering someone for speaking Spanish to the crowd. This election cycle had Republican presidential candidates calling for "English-only on the campaign trail and debates," in case anyone's forgotten. But whatever -- Ralph Alvarado did an excellent job both stylistically and substantially, with a short-and-snappy list of why everyone should think Obama is a giant failure. Not exactly my cup of tea (personally), but it was well presented, I have to admit. Although there was one moment where he said the election is not over "left or right, but up or down" which did bring to mind that Simpsons Kang and Kodos bit ("Forwards, not backwards! Upwards not downwards! And always twirling, twirling for freedom!").
This brought us to the second hour. This began with a black minister who (not surprisingly) was one of the best at getting the crowd worked up of the entire night. Darrell Scott proved without a shadow of a doubt that Republicans are OK with an angry black guy, as long as he's a Republican angry black guy (fun fact: out of 2,400+ GOP delegates, a grand total of 18 are black). Snarkiness aside, the guy was very good at his trade -- his trade being provoking an emotional response from a crowd, of course. He ended spectacularly, with a riff on the Declaration of Independence that other speakers attempted throughout the night (but which he absolutely nailed).
We then got a oilman whom I mostly ignored, as I grilled myself a cheese sandwich, to bolster my flagging strength. His basic message was the old Palinesque "drill, baby, drill" to which he added something along the lines of "when an American oil, rig dies, the terrorists win" or something (my notes got kinda greasy at this point, for some reason). Then we got another mini-movie about how great Trump was.
Scott Walker then took the stage -- one in a long line of "failed challengers to Donald Trump" throughout the whole convention, in fact. Walker tried to be angry and rousing, which he had a limited degree of success doing, but you could still see why he was one of the first to drop out of the race. His "America! Deserves! Better!" wasn't anywhere near as good as Chris Christie's "guilty or not guilty" call-and-response, but the crowd still seemed to enjoy it. Walker enthusiastically endorsed Trump early on in his speech, but the most bizarre thing (to me) was hearing a GOP crowd actually cheer the phrase "Radical! Islamic! Terrorism!" -- which is almost Orwellian in terms of the optics (either seeing a GOP crowd appear to cheer on the concept of RIT, or, alternatively, a slice of a Big Brother "Two Minutes Hate" session).
Then it was movie time again, with another Trump employee praising his boss. Oh, sure, your boss is great and all, but what else are you going to say on national television? Sheesh. I missed some of the movie flipping channels, but it was followed by Lynn Patton, a black Trump employee (the same one from the video? my notes don't say...) who stunned me by actually sympathetically using the term "LGBTQ" not just once but twice during her speech -- something I never thought I'd see at a Republican convention. She also had the most emotional and human moment of the night at the end of her speech, when she choked up talking about her father, so kudos for honest emotion (something rarely seen in national conventions).
This was the end of the undercard, essentially. From this point on, we got the headliners. This started with another movie moment from Li'l Marco Rubio, who was straining as hard as he could to appear serious and somber and full of gravitas. He didn't noticeably succeed, even with the full-on "weighty moment" soundtrack behind him. He got in one good line at the end, as he fully endorsed Trump: "The time for fighting each other is over."
This thought was immediately proven far too optimistic, as Ted Cruz then took the stage. I have to say, before I even get started, that I feel more than a little bit sorry for Mike Pence. Here is his big night being introduced on the national stage, and he's going wind up being a footnote (at best) in tomorrow's headlines because of what happened during Ted Cruz's speech. Through no fault of his own, Pence was overshadowed by the deep and angry divisions which still remain in the Republican Party.
PBS had reported hours earlier that Ted Cruz might just not actually endorse Trump in his speech tonight, so it didn't come as a total shock to wonks. And the one silver lining in the entire fiasco for Republicans is that it didn't happen at the top of the primetime hour (as was the case for the Clint Eastwood/chair dialogue, for comparison).
Being forewarned, I was paying very close attention to the language Cruz chose. He started off by "congratulating Donald Trump for winning the primaries," but then edged and danced around actually endorsing him or saying he was going to vote for Trump. He then launched a pretty stock Ted Cruz speech (complete with his own version of the preacher's cadence), which could have been any stump speech he read while he was running. He riffed on the badness of Obama (um, Obama wants to "give away" the internet to Russia and China?), took some shots at Hillary (of course), and all the rest of his usual schtick.
Two points before we get to where it all went off the rails are worth mentioning. Cruz got one interesting bit of wordplay off with "Freedom matters" (his take, obviously, on "Black Lives Matter" and how it's morphed in the GOP to "Blue lives matter), which had to get a few points for cleverness. He seemed to be endorsing a candidate named "Freedom" for president for his entire speech, as a matter of fact.
Cruz even gave a big nod to Trump towards the end, by being (to my memory at least) the only Republican speaker thus far to use the "Build the wall" phrase in his speech. And he also (my ears are especially tuned to this particular dog-whistle) subtly wrapped his approval for Colorado to legalize marijuana in some Tenth Amendment language, just hinting at a longer statement he repeatedly made during his campaign (about how: "I don't agree with Colorado's legalization law and I wouldn't vote for it in Texas, but I think the states should be given the right to decide for themselves"). Like I said, you had to have the right dog's ears (so to speak) to even hear that one, but it's the closest any Republican has ever come to saying anything remotely pleasant about marijuana in any convention ever, so it's progress of a sort, to me.
This is where Cruz hit a turn on the railroad tracks posted at 45 mph, while fully roaring along at over 100. After a quick rah-rah mention of "RIT" just for good measure, and with the RNC official feed occasionally futzing out, Cruz headed into the final portion of his speech. He begged voters "don't stay home in November," but then only told them they were free to "vote their conscience" rather than endorsing (or even mentioning by name) Donald Trump.
The crowd's ears were indeed attuned to this particular dog whistle. After the leak earlier than he wasn't going to be endorsing, people in the arena were listening just as close as I was for what language he was using. And the whole "vote your conscience" thing has meant (this particular year) perhaps voting for Gary Johnson or anyone other than Trump. So the message was loud and clear to the delegates. And some of them were not amused, to put it mildly.
Immediately after he uttered the "vote your conscience" line, a vocal portion of the crowd started registering its disapproval. Bigly, as Donald Trump might have said. Now, I'm just going by my own ears and it's hard to hear chants through the microphones, but it sounded to me like it started with a simple chant of "Trump! Trump! Trump!" -- possibly (if Cruz was correct) led by the New York delegation (Cruz tried to laugh it off with a nod to New York's free speech rights or some such). But this quickly got louder and angrier, and morphed into a chant of "Keep your pledge!" -- referring to the pledge all the Republican presidential candidates signed (when they all thought they'd beat Trump) to ultimately support the eventual nominee. Cruz tried to brush the crowd's booing off again and again, but they came back with an even-louder chant of "En-dorse Trump!" which was accompanied by a whole lot of booing and general noisy disapproval. At one point, the crowd was almost louder than Cruz, and Cruz had the benefit of amplification on his side. But the crowd had the benefit of thousands of seriously angry delegates on their side, and they almost shouted him off the platform.
To be blunt, things got very ugly, very fast. Later, I learned that during all this, security hustled Heidi Cruz (his wife) out of the arena, as threatening catcalls were being made (some chanting "Goldman Sachs" at her, since she was a high-ranking executive for the company) towards her from the crowd. I have no way to confirm that one, as I haven't seen video of it yet, I should add.
The crowd got downright unruly, for a painful amount of time. There's just no other way to say it. Republicans loudly booing a Republican, at their own convention, for accepting an almost-primetime speaking slot without offering an endorsement to the party's nominee. The most cringeworthy moment had to have been Cruz reading (off the TelePrompTer, as he was soldiering on through the end of his prepared remarks) the obviously untrue line "We will unite this country" as a large portion of his party's delegates were trying to boo him off the stage. Chaos reigned, in other words. Lyin' Ted went out with a bang, folks.
To top it all off, Donald Trump himself made his entrance during the end of the Cruz trainwreck, seating himself in his personal box seats with his family while boos echoed the rafters. You can bet you'll see that clip played over and over again, that's for sure.
All of this took place right before the broadcast network coverage was about to start -- the only silver lining for those who care about the image the Republican Party is portraying to America. But even so, it was all the commentators could talk about for the rest of the hour. We got a "son and daughter" little movie moment with Ivanka and Eric Trump, but none of the networks carried it, because they were still picking up their collective jaw off the floor.
The entire primetime hour's speeches was a complete afterthought, although to be fair it shouldn't have been. The schedulers had finally gotten things right, and we got a speech from Eric Trump, followed by a short introduction of her husband by Callista Gingrich. Newt's speech was capped off by vice-presidential nominee Mike Pence introducing himself to America. None of which will be noticed much in tomorrow's press reports, that's for sure.
Eric Trump did his best, but he's obviously not as polished as his bigger brother Donald Junior (who sat stony-faced through his brother's speech, hardly clapping at all). He tried his own "My father is running for you" refrain, but the crowd was still in a stirred-up mood and barely noticed.
Newt's third wife gave a speech just about as plastic as her skin, but to her credit she was one of the first speakers to notice that tonight was supposed to be Mike Pence's big night. She (thankfully) only spoke for a couple of minutes, as an introduction to Newt himself.
The only really notable thing about Newt's speech (he did the usual terrorists/Hillary-bashing/Obama-bashing/war-war-war thing many other speakers did for the rest of his time) happened at the beginning, when he ad-libbed a bit of spin, because he knew how badly the images of Cruz's speech were going to be in the media. He "mansplained" (or maybe "Newtsplained"?) how Ted Cruz had really actually endorsed Donald Trump after all! Hey, who are you going to believe, Newt or your lyin' ears? It was a smart, timely, and incredibly savvy attempt at media manipulation, but my guess is it isn't going to do a bit of good. The damage had already been done.
But I really did feel sorry for Mike Pence. His biggest political moment in the sun -- his big introduction to the national spotlight -- and it's going to be an afterthought, at best. Nobody's going to be saying much about his speech tomorrow. Which is a shame, in a way, because he really did kind of knock it out of the park. Pence was seen by many (myself included) as being a rather tame and boring pick for Trump. "Ho-hum" was the most common reaction, in fact. But tonight, he proved he can be an attack dog (if necessary), he can be a dynamic speaker, and he can hold an audience rapt with attention -- through dialing up the emotional levels and dialing it back down again, masterfully. I mean, he does kind of remind me (physically) of Ted Knight, but he is a competent politician, even I have to admit that after watching him speak. He actually did unify the crowd, drawing them back together, and got them stomping their feet and wildly cheering by the end of his speech. I have to say I have underestimated Pence, after watching this performance.
Pence stayed away from his trademark social issues, which all vice presidents are expected to do when their views disagree with the presidential candidates'. He got one or two good lines off of his own (speaking of the Trump family, he shared a down-home saying: "You can't fake good kids," which I thought was pretty effective). His "Secretary of the Status Quo" title for Hillary was also a crowd-pleaser. But by the end of the speech (which went on too long -- its only minor flaw), the crowd started spontaneously chanting "We like Mike!" which is rather evocative of Eisenhower's famous political slogan. He built to a very strong and rousing finish, and I sure won't be underestimating his political skills from now on.
But, like I say, I do feel kind of sorry for him. On the biggest night of his life -- the biggest speech he's ever given -- he's going to be a mere footnote or afterthought. Because tonight will go down in political history for Ted Cruz, his speech, his refusal to endorse Trump, and the crowd's reaction. People are already comparing it to the 1980 Democratic convention (Ted Kennedy vs. Jimmy Carter) and the 1976 Republican convention (Ronald Reagan vs. Gerald Ford). That's some pretty dysfunctional company to be included in (you'll note that both parties lost in November, in those particular years).
I'm not immune myself. Even though I thought Pence had a great night, I'm still left thinking only about Ted Cruz's future in the Republican Party. Will he be the automatic frontrunner in 2020 if Trump loses? Before tonight, I would have easily believed that. Now, I'm not so sure. If Trump loses, can Ted say "I was right" -- or will he be seen as a traitor to party unity forever by the rank and file? Insults like this usually cut pretty deep -- people remember these things, in other words -- and the only question is who will be insulted. If it's just "Johnny-come-lately" Trump supporters who are annoyed with the Republican establishment, that's one thing; but if it is "rank and file Republicans," the political career of Ted Cruz might be all but over. Time will tell.
Tonight's Republican National Convention trainwreck wasn't the result of incompetent scheduling, unlike the first two days. Instead, it was due to insufficient vetting. Why was Cruz given a prominent speaking slot without being forced to publicly endorse Donald Trump? Why wasn't he told "Once you endorse Trump, we'll give you a juicy time slot," leaving the choice entirely up to him? By assuring him the slot without having to give a solid (and public) commitment, the Trump team set themselves up for this fiasco. But it's my bet that nobody's going to get fired for this disastrous decision, because that's not what the Trump team does.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris, it is so nice to read your take on each evening and avoid having to watch this travesty. Just to let you know I'm still alive and a fan.
Hi, Elizabeth.
Kevin!!! Good ta see ya!!! :D
Michale
As I mentioned in the previous commentary, ya'all just HAVE to admire what Trump has done... Well, ya would if ya'all's PIFs weren't firmly in control..
Trump doesn't have to sell himself to the American people... Joe and Jane Sixpack LOVE Trump...
This convention was about one thing and one thing only..
Uniting the Party...
And Trump has done that... In spades... :D
Michale
And now for a Darwin Award nominee...
Cleveland Police: Protester Lights Himself On Fire While Trying To Burn American Flag
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/07/20/cleveland-police-protests-flag/
The best line of the entire convention, the one line that epitomizes the issues and what's what was not done inside the convention.. It was said at one of the protests..
“You’re on fire! You’re on fire, stupid!”
-Cleveland Police Officer
THAT says it all..
hehehehehehehehehehe
Michale
"Tonight, the scheduling finally approached professionalism, I have to say"
Yeah, scheduling Cruz to speak was a great idea.
Yeah, scheduling Cruz to speak was a great idea.
Yep, it actually was... It was a masterful stroke. And those who don't have Partisan Ideological Filters in control can easily see that...
Not that I expect such intelligence be indicated in your incoherent rants... :D
Michale
"Don't cross brains with Spock. He'll cut you to pieces every time."
-Ensign Sulu, STAR TREK
:D
Michale
Freedom is just another word for nothing left but Cruz.
Hi, Kevin.
Going into day 4, I'm tempted to compare the Republican Convention to the voyage of the Titanic, but with more icebergs. That said, Trump is still afloat. So, maybe the voyage is more like a Carnival Cruise with a particularly virulent outbreak of Novovirus.
In the end, modern conventions are mostly about polling bounces, and which bounce is bigger, and in the right direction. Team Trump cannot be happy with their convention. One photo shows it all.
http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/5790390f88e4a778008b994a-1024/gettyimages-578133654.jpg
Oooh Fuuuc.....!!!!
Clinton has been handed a pretty sweet opportunity. Let's see what she makes of it.
n the end, modern conventions are mostly about polling bounces, and which bounce is bigger, and in the right direction. Team Trump cannot be happy with their convention. One photo shows it all.
Of course, that photo was taken while the mother of the American that Crooked Bimbo Hillary killed was talking.. Or it might have been when the parent of an American killed by Odumbo's open border policies was speaking..
I know, I know.. Democrats would have been laughing and cheering at those times...
:^/
Clinton has been handed a pretty sweet opportunity. Let's see what she makes of it.
Clinton has been handed a pretty sweet opportunity to kill even MORE Americans.. Let's see what she makes of it.
There.. Fixed it for you...
Michale
"Hey, I've been sitting through three solid days of this, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm getting a bit loopy."
I simply don't know how you can do it...and take notes while you are doing it....and I guess you'll have to do it again for the Democrats.
Liz (8) Very good!
Freedom is just another word for nothing left but Cruz.
Oh great.. Now that song is going to be stuck in my head all day.. :D
"Skidda Ma Rink A Rink Dink Skidda Ma Rink A Do"
:D heh
Michale
Thank-you and yes it will be! :)
All the airwaves and blogospheres...
All awash with Republicans uniting behind Trump and against Cruz...
That joke of a plagiarism "scandal" forgotten..
Yep.... It was a masterful stroke by Team Trump...
Trump is da man!!! :D
Michale
Chris sort of mentioned it, but it is sadly telling that "Vote your conscience" translates for Republicans to "Don't vote for Trump"
Trump played Cruz like a bad-tuned fiddle... :D
Trump used Cruz's greed and selfish-ness against him... :D
Trump is the true 12-dimensional chess master.. :D
Michale
Yep.... It was a masterful stroke by Team Trump...
if it was donald's intention all along to have a cruz speech turn the convention hall angry and derisive, wouldn't it have been scheduled early on monday to get all the "vote your conscience" folks out of the way early, and also not to upstage pence on his day?
i'm with CW on this - i think cruz was poorly managed, and it takes no small amount of mental gymnastics to frame it any other way. i'm open to the possibility that the result will be favorable for donald in spite of this, but to say he'd planned it all along? that assertion strains credulity.
JL
if it was donald's intention all along to have a cruz speech turn the convention hall angry and derisive, wouldn't it have been scheduled early on monday to get all the "vote your conscience" folks out of the way early, and also not to upstage pence on his day?
Trump had no way of knowing that Pence would be so effective.. Maybe Donald scheduled the Cruz gambit precisely to make up for anything lacking from Pence...
i think cruz was poorly managed
I know ya'all do..
I am simply giving you a possible alternative that I knew ya'all would be unable to acknowledge.. :D
Michale
I am simply giving you a possible alternative
here's a different (and more factually supported) alternative explanation:
July 19 - GOP convention planners get stomach flu
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/19/gop-convention-planners-get-stomach-flu.html
and more factually supported
and
http://www.foxnews.com
Shurley you jest?? :D
I'll remind you of this sometime in the (likely) near future.. :D
Michale
Trump is the consummate deal maker who literally WROTE the book on the art of the deal..
What's more logical??
That Trump got suckered by a rank amateur such as Cruz???
or
That Trump played Cruz like an outta tune bass...??
Turn off your PIF....
Michale
Turn off your PIF....
:D
Michale
as to fox news being factually supported, there are plenty of legitimate news organizations that ran with the same story, so i'm confident it's true.
as to the cruz speech being orchestrated on purpose, i heard it was negotiated as part of cruz's concession, so that's another strike against the "mastermind" hypothesis.
JL
and the complete disorder that occurred the first two days of the convention, i believe constitutes strike three. the much more likely winner: eleven convention planners got the stomach flu and didn't properly organize the thing.
And it's PURE coincidence that THAT explanation is the ideologically more palatable conclusion.... Right?? :D
Michale
"Fascinating"
-Spock
:D
as to fox news being factually supported, there are plenty of legitimate news organizations that ran with the same story,
And yet, it's foxnews that you quote... :D
"fascinating"
-Spock
:D
Michale
@michale,
folks might take your hypothesis more seriously if you provided factual evidence to back it up. so far all you have provided factually is that donald co-wrote a book. incidentally, here is some commentary from the other co-author:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jul/19/trump-co-writer-says-candidate-could-end-civilisation-the-art-of-the-deal-tony-schwartz
Trump is the consummate deal maker who literally WROTE the book on the art of the deal..
What's more logical??
That Trump got suckered by a rank amateur such as Cruz???
or
That Trump played Cruz like an outta tune bass...??
Turn off your PIF.... :D
Michale
folks might take your hypothesis more seriously if you provided factual evidence to back it up.
Bullshit.... :D
No one would take that hypothesis more seriously, even if I had all the facts in the world to back it up..
Ya'all simply are INCAPABLE of allowing that yer wrong on Trump...
Your Partisan Ideological Filters simply won't permit it...
Michale
Michale
No one would take that hypothesis more seriously, even if I had all the facts in the world to back it up..
You know it.. I know it. Everyone here knows it..
Michale
So, YOUR evidence is from someone who says that Trump is going to end civilization!??
THAT is your evidence???
Please take a step back and see how far off the reservation you have gone.... :^/
Michale
And it's PURE coincidence that THAT explanation is the ideologically more palatable conclusion.... Right?? :D
Michale
Trump did not write "The Art of the Deal". It was written by Tony Schwartz who was hired to be a ghostwriter to prevent the book from being a monosyllabic mess. His interviews with The Atlantic and The New Yorker were very interesting reads.
And Crooked Bimbo Hillary Clinton didn't write her book HARD CHOICES..
Yet her name is still on the cover..
Once again, the PIFs show that they are firmly in control.. :D
Michale
I still think the best line of the entire convention to date comes from a Cleveland cop speaking to a moron protester and, by extension the entirety of the Left Wingery
“You’re on fire! You’re on fire, stupid!”
That just cracks me up! :D
Michale
Michale,
Once again, the PIFs show that they are firmly in control.. :D
Says the man whose face must look like a giant Dorito by now!
I THINK MY DOG'S A DEMOCRAT
https://www.facebook.com/politijim.rants/videos/1707986312808569/
Too funny!!!!
"It's funny cuz it's true!!"
-Homer Simpson
Michale
Says the man whose face must look like a giant Dorito by now!
OK, now YOU've been hanging around JFC too long.. :D
Michale
From a NYTimes article today:
When asked what he hoped people would take away from the convention, Mr. Trump said, “The fact that I’m very well liked.”
The level of narcissism that this man demonstrates is mind-boggling! It's not that he wants people to believe that he can lead the country, nor does it have anything to do with the rest of the Republican Party. Trump just wants to win the popularity contest that the rest of us call "the Presidency"! If Trump were to ever get dementia, we'd never be able to recognize it!
His interviews with The Atlantic and The New Yorker were very interesting reads.
Yea.. He says that Donald Trump is going to "end civilization"...
And, OF COURSE, ya'all would find that interesting.
And WHY would ya'all find such ignorant hyperbolic fear-mongering "interesting"???
Because ya'all's Partisan Ideological Filters are firmly in control...
"Simple logic"...
-Admiral James T Kirk
Michale
The level of narcissism that this man demonstrates is mind-boggling!
And, just like with Cruz being the most "calculating" politician ever, we see the PIFs firmly in control..
Hussein Odumbo can't go with a 2min speech without mentioning himself DOZENS of times...
Michale
On a completely and unequivocally un-political related subject..
"Can I talk to you about something that is not work related!?"
"You NEVER want to talk about work!!"
-GROUNDHOG DAY
:D
Where I do IT work, one of the secretaries needed our NET IP address.. I, of course, told her to quit bothering me because I am BUSY on chrisweigant.com and told her to hit one of the WHATISMYIPADDRESS websites.. :D
Turns out that those websites are now displaying IPv6 IP addresses...
Have we switched over to the IPv6 standard and I just missed the memo???
Or do I have something misconfigured on my subnets???
Michale
Hussein Odumbo can't go with a 2min speech without mentioning himself DOZENS of times...
Sorry.. Forget myself amid all the Trump bashing..
Barack Obama can't go with a 2min speech without mentioning himself DOZENS of times...
My bust.. Won't happen again...
Michale
I know it has gotten lost in all the political convention coverage, but does anyone have any comment on the incident that happened in Miami?
For a brief recap, a counselor, who happens to be a black man, was in the street trying to talk a patient into going back into a nearby facility. The police were called. Neither man had any kind of weapon whatsoever. The black man was in fact, laying down on the road with both his hands raised in the air the entire time. And the police still shot the black man. When the black man asked the police why the officer shot him, the officer who did the shootings response was, and I quote: "I don't know why I shot you."
Would you still call this a "good" shoot???
If you give me a link, I'll be happy to check it out..
Michale
But.. Based SOLELY on what you told me, no... I wouldn't think it's a good shoot...
Michale
Here is at least one link:
wsvn.com/news/local/video-shows-moments-before-north-miami-police-shot-unarmed-man/
I am sure you can find plenty of others too.
Wasn't it the white guy who had what the police thought was a gun but was actually a toy truck??
Maybe it was just a bad shot? :)
Here is at least one link:
wsvn.com/news/local/video-shows-moments-before-north-miami-police-shot-unarmed-man/
I am sure you can find plenty of others too.
OK, but do we REALLY want to go there???
Michale
Yes, it looks like the officer royally frak'ed up...
Definitely NOT a good shoot...
Do you think he should be charged with attempted murder??
Michale
No one would take that hypothesis more seriously, even if I had all the facts in the world to back it up..
i would if you did, but you don't, so i can't.
Because ya'all's Partisan Ideological Filters are firmly in control...
"Simple logic"...
one for two there - simple, but not logic. just for kicks, let's employ a little REAL logic:
Propositions:
1. cruz's speech was masterminded by the donald.
2. donald correctly anticipated the speech.
3. donald used the speech to successfully discredit cruz.
4. donald used the speech to unify the republican party.
5. my partisan-ideological filter (TM) has rendered me unable to accept this hypothesis
Facts presented in favor:
1. Donald is credited as a co-author of the book, "Art of the Deal."
Facts presented in opposition:
1. The speech was scheduled an hour before the VP candidate's address.
2. the cruz campaign claimed they demanded the spot in exchange for their concession.
3. 11 of the convention planners reported having a stomach flu the preceding thursday, continuing through the second day of the convention
4. the first two days of the convention were described by both liberal and conservative media as chaotic, poorly run and sparsely attended relative to other recent GOP conventions.
rebuttal of facts in favor:
1. The other author of "Art of the Deal," Tony Schwartz, says he did all (or nearly all) of the writing, and claims that he intentionally represented Donald as far more competent than he actually is.
rebuttal of facts opposed:
1. Donald did not know if Pence would be effective.
2. Cruz is a "rank amateur" and therefore could not have negotiated the spot for himself.
3. Fox News is not a reliable news source
4. My partisan-ideological filter has skewed the selection of some facts and rejection of other facts.
There is only one fact in favor, which is only tangentially related to any of the propositions, even by the kindest standard. Even that fact has been called invalid by the only other person who could know for certain whether or not it's true.
There are four facts opposed, and the arguments used to rebut them are non-factual (1 is speculation, 2 is an ad hominem fallacy, 3 can be discounted based on verification from other sources, 4 is a circular reasoning fallacy).
with inadequate factual evidence in favor and extensive factual evidence opposed, logic dictates that the propositions must therefore be rejected.
thanks for playing! parting contestants will receive complimentary copies of the Chrisweigant dot com home game.
;)
JL
1. The other author of "Art of the Deal," Tony Schwartz, says he did all (or nearly all) of the writing, and claims that he intentionally represented Donald as far more competent than he actually is.
So, your star witness is a PROVEN liar as well as a hysterical fear-mongerer...
But he says what you want to hear, so....
:D
Like I said.. PIF is fully engaged..
Michale
I would guess that the officer was possibly shooting at the autistic man who was reported to have had a gun and who was not cooperating. We know now that he did not have a gun, what he had in his hands was actually a toy truck. If the officer believed he had a gun and was aiming it at anyone, he would be justified in discharging his firearm. Again, this is just my opinion based on what little was disclosed thus far, but I do not think the man who was shot was the person the officer was aiming at and it was his close proximity that resulted in his being struck by the bullets.
Bottom line: the officer who fired the shots must articulate what he witnessed that caused him to reasonably believe that the use of deadly force was warranted. If he cannot, then it was definitely a bad shoot!
Quite a week for the RWNJs:
1. Chaos over rules breaks out
2. Melania is a secret Michelle supporter
3. Trump's "organization" messes up the plagarism fall out hilariously badly
4. Nobody talks about what Trump is going to do (except mention the wall once or twice a day), but instead trashes Hillary
5. Prime time TV slots are wasted with weak speakers
6. Potentially strong speakers (e.g. Ernst) speak to an empty hall
7. Cruz disses Trump and we get a fantastic picture of the Trump family sans Melenia standing with looks of "oh shit" all over their faces
8. Astronaut doesn't bother to endorse Trump - which is basically the whole point of a podium slot
9. The icing on the cake:
Ailes is told "You're Fired"
The Democrats typically can't organize a piss up in a brewery, but even they should be able to do better than this.
Michale,
So, your star witness is a PROVEN liar as well as a hysterical fear-mongerer...
So you are admitting that Trump is a PROVEN LIAR as well, seeing how he had the final say on the content of the book! If Schwartz is a PROVEN liar, and his lies were all of those positive things said about Trump, then Trump is not as good of a business man as the book claims!
And it's PURE coincidence that the explanation you are advocating is the explanation that fits EXACTLY your ideology......
Right?? :D
:D
Michale
So you are admitting that Trump is a PROVEN LIAR as well, seeing how he had the final say on the content of the book!
Trump didn't say "and claims that he intentionally represented Donald as far more competent than he actually is.
Yer star witness fear-mongerer did. :D
Michale
Ailes is told "You're Fired"
Do you EVER get tired of being wrong??
AILES STEPS DOWN FROM FOXNEWS
STAYS ON AS CONSULTANT AT 21ST CENTURY
EXCLUSIVE: LETTER TO RUPERT
:D
You lose. :D
Michale
Bottom line: the officer who fired the shots must articulate what he witnessed that caused him to reasonably believe that the use of deadly force was warranted. If he cannot, then it was definitely a bad shoot!
Can ya imagine the HYSTERICAL UPROAR if I had said that!?? :D hehehehe
But very well reasoned, Listen..
Michale
Michale,
I can't help it if you are the one making these statements that prove my point for me. YOU are the one calling Schwartz a liar, not me. He was Trump's ghost writer, his job was to make Donald look good. He never thought it might be a catalyst that results in Trump's running for President, which causes him to now regret taking the job in the first place. YOU accuse him of being a PROVEN liar, but for that to be true based on what little details we've discussed, his lying had to be what all he wrote about Trump. You are the one who first claimed it was proof, not me.
YOU are the one calling Schwartz a liar, not me.
That's because Joshua quoted Schwartz ADMITTING he was a liar...
his lying had to be what all he wrote about Trump.
He said he lied... So, he can't be trusted....
Ergo, we don't know whether he wrote the truth about Trump or not..
Because he is a proven liar..
Michale
Clinton spends MILLIONS in Ohio...
And the race is TIED!! :D
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288685-poll-trump-clinton-tied-in-ohio
:D
Michale
And (O)BLM racists are actually giving good advice.. :D
DON'T VOTE
http://www.globalpost.com/article/6783836/2016/07/20/some-black-lives-matter-activists-plan-not-vote-november
:D
Michale
We're PANICKED, Friends:
Nate Silver just confirmed that Donald Trump could be our next president – and polls show him within single digits in key swing states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida). Meanwhile, 92,038 people still haven't activated their DGA memberships to help increase Democratic turnout across the country.
This is NOT good. If we lose these swing states, Donald Trump becomes president and Republicans will defund Planned Parenthood, slash Social Security and deport millions of families. We can only win if we know NOW that top Dems like you are committed to fighting.
-Democrat Governors Association Letter
Looks like Dems are in panic mode.. :D
And with good reason.. :D
Lovin' it!! :D
Michale
Ooooooohhhh JM???
Bernie Sanders may have ended his battle for the White House with his endorsement of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, but that’s not stopping thousands of his backers from planning to flock to Philadelphia next week to protest the Democratic National Convention and send a message to party leaders.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/07/21/bernie-bust-backers-flock-philly-protest/87385076/
Good thing ya didn't do the T-SHIRT bet. I would have had a DOOZY for you to wear.. :D
Michale
I'm with Josh Marshall: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-invents-the-anti-convention
Concludes: "Tonight he will most likely dismember himself, undo the core story he tells everyone endlessly but most especially himself. And all that because at heart he is weak and insecure. Cruz hurt him more than he'll ever be able to admit."
: "Tonight he will most likely dismember himself, undo the core story he tells everyone endlessly but most especially himself. And all that because at heart he is weak and insecure. Cruz hurt him more than he'll ever be able to admit."
And ANOTHER TRUMP IS TOAST prediction.. 26th?? 27th?? :D
Ya'all think ya would learn.. :D
Michale
What is the proper punishment for a bad shoot that results in the wrong guy getting shot or the subject being killed?
I am going to laugh my ass off if Bernie does the same thing to Crooked Hillary that Cruz did to Trump.. :D
Michale
What is the proper punishment for a bad shoot that results in the wrong guy getting shot or the subject being killed?
Shot and killed are two completely different issues..
And it also depends on if the Hysterical Politically Correct Left Wingery gets their way...
In a normal world where no political considerations come into play, this cop would likely be fired.. If he was a veteran with an impeccable service record, he would likely be allowed to retire..
But, in this hysterical politically correct environment, the Hysterical Left Wingery will probably call for this cop's execution...
Michale
Shot and killed are two completely different issues..
Oh, yes ... I realize that. Although, I can also see where, depending on the circumstances, it may not matter whether the subject was shot or killed or even if the subject was the right subject!
But, you seem to suggest that the punishment would be the same, regardless?
Shouldn't the circumstances involved in the bad shoot have some impact on what the punishment should be?
Shouldn't the circumstances involved in the bad shoot have some impact on what the punishment should be?
Absolutely.. In this case it *sounds* like the wound is a superficial one and there will be no lasting issues with the victim...
Compare and contrast that to a victim that loses a leg or an arm or suffers brain damage..
Now, just so we're clear... The degree of injury should only come into play if an officer is grossly negligent or shows great intent/indifference..
If it was a truly honest mistake, then the circumstances are considerably different than gross negligence or intent..
I am sure you would agree with that...
Michale
Liz,
Thank you for staying outside the realm of Left vs Right...
I will endeavor to do the same, but in all fairness, what SHOULD happen and what DOES happen *IS* solely dependent on RvL issues..
But I'll do my best to stay above that carp...
Michale
how to stay above the carp:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/06/article-2288937-024228E9000004B0-268_634x385.jpg
I understand that OISs are complicated matters and, too often, many of us draw conclusions based on less than all of the circumstances involved.
One issue I continue to have in all of this deals with the question of what, if anything, police can do to de-escalate the situation before making the decision to shoot. I know that that there isn't always time to make that decision and that split-second decisions can mean the difference between the life and death of the officer or officers.
But, many of the cases that seem to be widely reported lead me to believe that there was time to try and de-escalate before having to resort to lethal deadly force.
Maybe civilians need to be better educated, along with improved training for police, along with better outreach into the communities would go a long way toward a whole other kind of de-escalation.
Thank you for staying outside the realm of Left vs Right...I will endeavor to do the same, but in all fairness, what SHOULD happen and what DOES happen *IS* solely dependent on RvL issues..But I'll do my best to stay above that carp...
No, THANK-YOU!! You have no idea how much I appreciate that ...
I am sure you would agree with that...
That sounds reasonable, Michale.
Joshua[76]
There you go, Michale! :)
I think this was a perfect situation for a teaching/learning opportunity. Fortunately the shooting wasn't fatal. The officer says he doesn't know why he shot. That bears investigating in a spirit "how does something like this happen? Why?". I don't believe he should be treated punitively -- but it seems he probably shouldn't be a cop, or at least, not one in the field who is armed. The victim should be compensated.
Michale wrote:
"Good thing ya didn't do the T-SHIRT bet. I would have had a DOOZY for you to wear.. :D"
Well, for one thing, we will see if any protesters actually show up and just how many. Remember, there were supposed to be thousands outside the Republican convention, and that has not happened.
Also, I believe our bet was about protesters and walkouts on the actual floor of the convention itself, correct? and not about protesters outside on the the public streets....
So ends a grim and nasty spectacle. Major missed opportunity for Trump. Four days under his control to create an impression. Not fun. Not entertaining. Screw-ups. D-list speakers. A half-empty arena much of the time. Poor speech scheduling for prime-time. His golden children trying gamely to counter the impressions everything else has been creating of him to people outside his bubble, not helped by other speakers. Spittle-flying Guliani and Inquisitor Chris Christie. Ted Cruz giving him the finger. Mike Pence -- a icky guy but competent speaker, overshadowed.
And the overriding messages: be afraid. America sucks. I'll fix this, but can't give a single prescription of how. Just more fear! fear! fear! Hate! Blame!
The convention was incompetent. Not well-managed, staged, messaged. I just can't see it convincing anyone who wasn't already convinced to vote for him.
Devon and I were discussing the Miami shooting, and one thing he thought might help folks get a better grasp on how the police do their job is to read your states' laws defining the progression of events that make up each level of an officer's responsibilities that they must meet to justify the use of force that they administer. The laws are very specific on what elements MUST be present for the officer to take their interaction to the next level of physical force. The media tries to make it sound as if the reason that so few police officers are prosecuted in officer involved shootings is because of corruption within the justice system. They fail to even consider that our law enforcement are extremely well trained in the laws regarding use of force. They fail to consider that our police officers take these laws regarding the use of deadly force extremely seriously, because that knowledge can make the difference in whether they live or die. It is absurd to think that any officer wants to be involved in a shooting. They are well aware of all that could possibly happen to them, their career, their families' safety, and all the other life altering events that a shooting can cause them to face the moment they pull that trigger.
As for officers striking someone other than the suspect they were aiming at, the law recognizes that police officers might injure or kill an innocent bystander in the line of duty. If the shooting is deemed justified and the officer's actions are considered reasonable given the circumstances, the officer will not face charges. If their actions are deemed unreasonable or even reckless, they can face discipline and/or possible criminal charges.
New column is up! Done with GOP convention finally! Woo hoo!
-CW
If the shooting is deemed justified and the officer's actions are considered reasonable given the circumstances, the officer will not face charges. If their actions are deemed unreasonable or even reckless, they can face discipline and/or possible criminal charges.
Which do you suspect will apply to the Miami shooting?
Because, if it isn't the latter, then I may never understand any of this ... :(
Joshua,
Heh
Liz,
I understand that OISs are complicated matters and, too often, many of us draw conclusions based on less than all of the circumstances involved.
At the risk of going RvL, it's painfully obvious that conclusions are drawn based on the ideology...
And THAT is what has got to change...
One issue I continue to have in all of this deals with the question of what, if anything, police can do to de-escalate the situation before making the decision to shoot. I know that that there isn't always time to make that decision and that split-second decisions can mean the difference between the life and death of the officer or officers.
Officers go thru intense training in the academy to do exactly that.. And their training doesn't stop. Many departments have a 5-yr OJT program where officers ride with training officers so their training continues..
That is why one can safely assume that an officer reached the right decision in an OIS, even if it doesn't LOOK like they did... Are mistakes made?? Of course... Are some officers idiots or scumbags?? Of course..
But they are the very VERY small exception and not no where near the norm..
Basically, the rule of thumb *I* follow is to give the officer the benefit of the doubt until/unless incontrovertible facts say otherwise..
Every officer that puts on the badge and the uniform DESERVE that...
Maybe civilians need to be better educated, along with improved training for police, along with better outreach into the communities would go a long way toward a whole other kind of de-escalation.
Of the three things you mention, one of those is already covered...
Better educated civilians???
Better outreach from the communities??
Hmmmm... We haven't tried those yet.. Let's do and see what happens. :D
Michale
I think this was a perfect situation for a teaching/learning opportunity. Fortunately the shooting wasn't fatal. The officer says he doesn't know why he shot.
You really can't put too much stock into that..
1. That was the victims statement that the officer said..
2. Even if the officer DID say that, it was in the immediate aftermath of a shooting...
That bears investigating in a spirit "how does something like this happen?
As I have mentioned before, I don't have a problem with investigating how something like this happens..
My only beef is that, more often than not, these "investigations" turn into how we can best execute the officer...
I don't believe he should be treated punitively -- but it seems he probably shouldn't be a cop, or at least, not one in the field who is armed. The victim should be compensated.
Complete, utter, unequivocal without reservation agreement... :D
Michale
And the overriding messages: be afraid. America sucks. I'll fix this, but can't give a single prescription of how. Just more fear! fear! fear! Hate! Blame!
Aaaawwwww And we were doing so well. :D
heh
Seriously... I am betting you are going to see the exact same messages coming out of the Dem Convention..
Fear-Mongering...
Hate...
Blame....
It's ALL going to be front and center at the Dem Convention just like it was at the GOP convention..
I just can't see it convincing anyone who wasn't already convinced to vote for him.
As I said, this wasn't a convention for the American people..
This was a convention to unite the GOP..
And THAT mission was accomplished.... In Spades...
Michale
Because, if it isn't the latter, then I may never understand any of this ... :(
It might help to try and look at it thru the officer's eyes..
He has a call of a Man With A Gun... He has a man with what could be a gun and a civilian in the way..
The man with the "gun" was uncooperative.. The officer might have reasoned that the civilian was in greater danger from the man with the gun and the risk to the civilian of firing at the subject was not as great as the risk the civilian faced by the man with the gun..
The fact that the subject really didn't have a gun is not relevant to the question of whether or not the officer's actions were justified or not..
Michale
JM,
Also, I believe our bet was about protesters and walkouts on the actual floor of the convention itself, correct? and not about protesters outside on the the public streets....
Yes it was....
Michale
I have to admit to some surprise that the (O)BLM groups haven't tried to make any hay with this Miami shooting..
My guess is that, after the officer shootings in Dallas and Baton Rouge, (O)BLM is keeping a VERY low profile..
Michale
Better outreach from the communities??
"But there ain't no point in talkin'....
if there's nobody listening...
so we just ran away...."
-Rod Stewart, YOUNG TURKS
Michale
Cruz Exposes the Brilliance of Trump
Refusal to endorse galvanized everyone against Ted, hands Trump another win
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/cruz-hands-trump-another-win/
"We can't dismiss the possibility, just because we don't happen to like it."
-Martin Sheen, THE FINAL COUNTDOWN
:D
Trump knew ALL about Cruz's speech long before Cruz stepped on stage...
Trump planned the whole thing.
And it worked perfectly...
The GOP is united....
Michale
Joshua,
Trump knew ALL about Cruz's speech long before Cruz stepped on stage...
That one fact blows your entire argument out of the water.. :D
Michale