Crunching the Post-Election Numbers

My understanding is that there are hundreds of thousands of absentee/mail-in ballots that have yet to be counted in states like California, Washington and Utah. It'll be weeks before we have the full, final election count, but here's where we stand right now.

128,620,303 votes have been counted. That's over 400,000 fewer votes than in 2012. Again, it's still possible that 2016 will exceed 2012's vote total, but compared the number of eligible voters, it still means turnout was down. Not the lowest in 20 years as some reported. But it is down. It looks like Trump will get Michigan so the final electoral college count is 306-232.

The popular vote count in 2016:
Clinton - 61,350,758 (47.7%)
Trump - 60,583,838 (47.1%)
Others - 6,685,707 (5.2%)

The popular vote count in 2012:
Obama - 65,915,795 (51.1%)
Romney - 60,933,504 (47.2%)
Others - 2,236,107 (1.7%)

Obama won 26 states, plus DC. This time Clinton won 20 plus DC. Six-state swing. Those states were Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. Plus she lost the 1 Nebraska electoral vote Obama had won. 100 electoral votes.

If she gets 69,000 more votes in Pennsylvania, 14,000 more votes in Michigan, and 28,000 more votes in Wisconsin, she's the next president.

Why Utahns Should and Should Not Vote for Donald Trump

WHY UTAHNS SHOULD VOTE FOR TRUMP
1. He would bring change.
2. His list of Supreme Court nominees is pretty good.
3. He's the Republican nominee, and as such, the GOP-led House and Senate might be able to get more legislation passed.
4. He's not Hillary Clinton.

WHY UTAHNS SHOULD NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP
1. In many ways, he's worse than Hillary Clinton, and she's going to win the election anyway.
2. He's a textbook narcissist and arguably the worst candidate for president in history.
3. It would send a message that Utah puts principle above party.
4. He's not really a Republican. He's a populist nationalist that encourages violence, prejudice, and paranoia.
5. He craves power so he can use and abuse it, and that's not a good attribute in a vindictive man who can be baited with a tweet.
6. He's wildly, flamboyantly dishonest.
a. He said Bush knew about the 9/11 attack beforehand.
b. He said he was always against the war in Iraq when everyone's heard him tell Howard Stern in 2002 otherwise.
c. He tried pushing stories like Ted Cruz's father was behind the JFK assassination and that Cruz is a serial adulterer.
7. He surrounds himself with thugs and bullies.
8. His man-crush on Putin.
9. David Duke and the Alt-Right Nazi fanboys love him.
10. The Access Hollywood tape reveals his mindset when he thinks he's having a private, unrecorded conversation.
11. He advocated for war crimes, like bringing back torture and ordering troops to kill the families of suspected terrorists.
12. The bigger the landslide loss for Trump, the easier it will be for normal Republicans to shoo the Alt-Reich out.
13. The bigger the landslide loss for Trump, the easier it will be to diminish the influence of the conservative entertainment wing (Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.) on the party.
14. If Clinton's as bad a president as some people think she will be, it should be easy for a normal Republican to beat her in 2020. A normal Republican that the party can be proud of.

Politically Speaking - 10/12/16

1. "LOCKER-ROOM TALK" - I believe I have heard similar braggadocious talk in the locker-room along the lines of what Donald Trump and Billy Bush were saying, but everyone in that locker-room were teenagers in the 1980's. (I'm not saying I remember specifics, but it is plausible to me that it happened.)

Trump was 59 and Bush was 33 when that conversation took place.

All of the grown men who are still justifying the 2005 Access Hollywood tape as locker-room talk are saying a lot about themselves. I've never heard that kind of talk as an adult in a locker-room. Many men haven't. Why? Because another guy would only talk like that if that's the type of guy he is, and he feels comfortable sharing it with his audience. So yeah, millions of men don't hear this talk in locker-rooms or elsewhere because they don't associate with men who talk like that, or they carry themselves in a way that guys that talk like that don't feel like they're sharing that they feel entitled to grab women's sexual parts. ("Diagram that sentence, Abbott!")

2. A VOTE FOR 3RD PARTY IS A VOTE FOR (WHICHEVER OF THE BIG TWO I DON'T LIKE) - No it isn't. A vote for who you vote for is a vote for who you vote for. Wouldn't it be nice to not have George Wallace not be the most recent third-party candidate in presidential election history to win a state? Now unlike any year before, this year I live in a state where my vote will matter. I knew as soon as Donald Trump clinched the GOP nomination that the next president would be Hillary Clinton. I can dream about how much hay Marco Rubio would be making with all of the FOIA and WikiLeaks revelations coming out, but since Clinton's opponent is Trump, it all doesn't matter. Trump is that much worse.

So my current stance is that whichever third-party candidate is polling higher in Utah on election day, I will vote for that person. If Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin are statistically tied, I'd still go with Gary Johnson. Then once the election is over, I'll walk back into the Republican den and engage in the unavoidable civil war and hopefully the Alt-Reich will be purged.

3. #NEVERTRUMP - Feels great to have been Never Trump, but it would have felt better to have a candidate I could believe in. Donald Trump signed up a few years ago as a Republican, and he's behaved like every caricature a New York liberal might have of a Republican. Normal Republicans can say "No, we're not racists" and then some Alt-Reichers pop up right behind them to say "Sure we are, cucks!"

(SideNote: Not looking forward to the next four years of every criticism of Pres. Clinton being labelled as "sexist." It is what it is.)

4. REPUBLICANS IN 2020 - South Carolina governor Nikki Haley is looking pretty good to me right now. Marco Rubio, Susana Martinez, people I'm not thinking of... The ones who should not run in 2020?

Mike Pence - I know he's the VP but he is way too stained from the justifications he's had to make and the lies he's had to tell to stay on Trump's ticket.

Ted Cruz - There's a reason Ted was one of the Pied Piper dreams candidates of the DNC in 2015. They knew they could beat him. He's exposed as a calculating self-server that nobody in Washington likes.

Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson - Anyone who's already run and embraced Trump when there was a chance someone else could win.

5. 2017: THE DE-THUGGING - Hopefully next year, media outlets will be a little more discretionary with who they let on the airwaves. No more Corey Lewandowski, no more Roger Stone, no more of the "Says who?" guy, and it'd be nice if Fox News released Alt-Right entertainers like Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham to go join their own, more extreme, less relevant channel. And I imagine guys like Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich will crawl away, and ratings for Rush Limbaugh will shrink. (It's a dream; don't take this from me!)

6. 2017: THE DE-SMUGGING - I know. I just basically got smug being a NeverTrumper from the beginning, but here's a real pipe-dream for this post-election America. Amplified by social media, people are less "We disagree" and aren't more "I'm right, you're wrong" so much as "I'm right, you're wrong and stupid and evil." Let's all just try to be less smug.

Politically Speaking - 3/29/16

Just wanted to hit some political thoughts this week.

1. Random Donald Trump Quotes I Found After 10 Minutes of Googling

"Nobody has more respect for women than me."
"Nobody reads the Bible more than me."
"Nobody knows the system better than me."
"Nobody's done more for equality than me."
"On trade, there's nobody more conservative than me."
On ISIS: "Nobody would be tougher than me."
"There's nobody better to beat Hillary Clinton than me."
"Nobody builds walls better than me."
"There's no one more pro-Israel than me."
"Nobody knows more about trade than me."
"When I am elected, no one will be tougher or smarter than me."
"There is nobody more against ObamaCare than me."
"There's nobody more militaristic than me."
"Nobody's ever been more successful than me."
"Nobody's bigger than me, nobody's better than me."
"Who knows Howard [Stern] better than me?"
"Nobody can be stronger than me on the border."
"Nobody's stronger on the Second Amendment than me."
"You look at those empty factories all over the place, and nobody hits that message better than me."
"Virtually no one has spent more money in helping the American people with disabilities than me."
"Latinos love me."
"The Hispanics love me."
"I love the poorly educated!"
"Who gets worse publicity than me?"

Words can't express, better than his own, what a dishonest narcissist he is. This is what happens when you surround yourself with shameless sycophants and unscrupulous henchmen your entire adult life.

And here's one former Trump worker who's seen the light.

"Trump never intended to be the candidate. But his pride is too out of control to stop him now. You can give Trump the biggest gift possible if you are a Trump supporter: stop supporting him. 

"He doesn't want the White House. He just wants to be able to say that he could have run the White House. He’s achieved that already and then some. If there is any question, take it from someone who was recruited to help the candidate succeed, and initially very much wanted him to do so. The hard truth is: Trump only cares about Trump."

But hey, now Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski has surrendered to police for misdemeanor battery after initially lying about it. The charge stems from an incident where he grabbed Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields while she tried to ask Trump a question on illegal immigration. It left finger-sized bruises on her arm; she tweeted out the picture. Lewandowski insisted he never touched her, but video footage has surfaced proving 100% that he did.

Breitbart did not stand by their reporter, leading to a slew of resignations from that site, including her own. Whatever you thought of Breitbart before, it is now just a pro-Trump propaganda site, inflaming white nationalist sentiments.

The initial grab doesn't look that bad, but it's always the cover-up. Not only did Lewandowski insist it didn't happen, but Trump himself said he thought Fields made it all up. Then the Trumpsters started a smear campaign on Fields.

2. RIP GOP

For me, Marco Rubio lost the race when at the last debate, he said he would still support Donald Trump as the Republican nominee because Hillary Clinton was worse. While I admire the attempts of #NeverTrump to try and stop him, I don't see how Trump doesn't get the nomination.

If he goes into Cleveland with 1100 delegates, I am sure the vast majority of the non-Trump delegates will go in with the mentality of making sure it's not Trump. I know I would if I was a delegate. (I missed the filing deadline to run to become one.) There are only two outcomes from this. Either Trump becomes the nominee, or he doesn't.

If he does, he goes into the general election as the least popular candidate in modern history. No one is luckier than Hillary Clinton in this regard. She was poised to be the least trusted, most disliked candidate until Trump showed up. If the Dems had picked someone more like Jim Webb, they'd probably be looking at winning all 50 states.

The GOP has a challenge before them. You have so much baggage there, with the Clinton Foundation working as a slush-fund, with her compromise of national security over her private email server, her constant dishonesty, her stunts like refusing more debates until Bernie Sanders changes his "tone," etc. She could be indicted before the Democratic convention.

And yet somehow, in the easiest slam-dunk election in a generation, Trump shows up. Trump is a golem, an Ozymandias laying waste to all before him. Trump exposed the weaknesses in the Republican party - in their platform, in their lack of results, in the echo chamber of conservative media. The white working class is getting left behind. Some tea party activists are more concerned with obstructing and demonizing their own side.

You had GOP donors throw their money at Jeb Bush, who was never going to win this election. It was a vanity campaign defying all logic. You had clowns like Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum crowding the debate stage.

I found the Buckley Club the best compilation site of those who aided Trump's rise, and those who fought it.

But let's say somehow Ted Cruz (the man who said right before Iowa that "Donald Trump is terrific") becomes the nominee at convention. Ted Cruz will be that ideologically pure constitutional conservative that preaches to the choir and no one else. I was really hoping when I saw him in person, I'd see a candidate who could expand his appeal. I didn't. I saw a man give the same stump speech he gives everywhere. The same lines I've heard in interviews and debates. The same televangelist tone, the same red-meat one-liners.

But if it's Cruz or John Kasich or anyone else, Trump will file lawsuits left and right and then runs as an independent. I don't know how he could get on enough ballots - he'd probably co-opt another party to do it. But he would trash the GOP worse than the Democrats, and still, we'd wind up with Hillary Clinton in the White House. Show me a realistic path that doesn't end with Hillary winning the election.

So, really, the best thing the Republican party can do is focus on 2020. Nikki Haley, Brian Sandoval, Susana Martinez, Marco Rubio... The future could be bright once we get this nightmare election season out of the way.

Where I Stand on the Current Candidates - March 2016

1. MARCO RUBIO - Rubio's been the one I've supported because I agree with him on the issues the most of the four remaining men. I think he would be a transformative president. I love the thought of a Rubio/Haley ticket. Poll after poll shows he would beat Hillary Clinton in a general election, better than Cruz or Trump would fare.

I like most of his tax plan, I like that he supports Congressional term limits and balancing the budget. I don't like that's he's taken a much more hawkish tone since the Paris attacks and wants to beef up the Patriot Act.

He's won Minnesota and Puerto Rico, but the other 18 contests so far have gone to Trump or Cruz. At least Rubio can claim he's the only won to get more than 50% of the vote in any one contest.

Rubio really threw himself on the Trump grenade. It's diminished him, but it also did slow down the momentum of Trump. Unfortunately for Rubio, Cruz is the main beneficiary from it. I saw someone mention that Rubio lost the prisoner's dilemma. Rubio and Cruz seemed poised to go after Trump after their last debate, but Cruz stabbed Rubio first. Cruz is campaigning hard in Florida, not because he think he can win, but because he believes he can do enough damage there to stop Rubio from winning.  If Rubio loses Florida, a winner-take-all state, it's over.

2. JOHN KASICH - If Rubio loses Florida, but Kasich wins Ohio, it's a new day. Kasich may be playing a longer game than anyone. He doesn't have the money of Cruz or the free air-time of Trump so he keeps pinpointing certain states to focus on, and lets the vast majority of chips fall elsewhere.

Kasich actually has a pretty good track record. He was a Congressman for a while and was part of the 1990's Congress that actually balanced a budget. He went back to work in the private sector for a while, also would guest on Fox News sometimes. I remember him guest-hosting the O'Reilly Factor more than once. Then he ran for governor of Ohio and he's shown reform there, making him one of the more popular GOP governors in the nation.

Kasich's the last governor standing, and generally it's a governorship that provides the best training for becoming a president. I like that he's trying to keep things optimistic. I like that he's for limiting the scope of the Patriot Act. He strikes me as the best of the four who could actually get Congress to work together. But if he loses Ohio, it's over.

3. TED CRUZ - I feel like my life as a Republican would be easier if I liked Cruz, but when almost everyone who has ever worked with him despises him, that's a warning sign. He comes across to me as opportunistic and phony. I don't get inspired from listening to him speak, I get annoyed. I don't want my president to sound like a nasally Jimmy Swaggart and smile like an alien trying not to blow his cover.

Once Cruz was elected, he has done a lot in the Senate to obstruct and undermine, but not win. It may win with his brand, but he hurts everyone else and doesn't seem to care. The real character signal for me is the way he blasted Mike Lee. Lee is the closest thing he has to a friend in the Senate, and his willingness to throw Lee under the bus shows he has no loyalty to anyone but himself. And then he turns around and says anyone who doesn't support him is "the establishment" or "the elites." Strawmen.

Cruz says reporters are telling him they have exposes on Trump that they're not going to run until June or July. But Ted won't say who. Does anyone really believe reporters would confide in Cruz that way? Cruz makes my skin crawl.

But ... according to ISideWith, I actually agree with Cruz more than Kasich. And he's better than Trump.

4. DONALD TRUMP - Trump's reaching working-class voters in a way that the other three aren't. After fifteen years of war, too big to fail, and stagnant wages - on top of conservative media types more concerned with enriching themselves than actually solving anything - a lot of people feel left behind too. They'd like a Republican who's as anti-mainstream as possible to blow things up. A lot of working-class voters on the left feel the same way, where they see the embodiment of crony capitalism / DC corruption in Hillary Clinton as a front-runner, and so the rise of Bernie Sanders.

One thing that drove me nuts about Romney's 2012 campaign was his disproportionate emphasis on helping small business owners over regular workers.

So Trump comes along. He's a strongman. He shows toughness. He gets a lot of support from people who like that he "tells it like it is" even though he lies more than anyone else running on both sides.  He talks circles around questions without answering them. He's a narcissistic vulgarian who hasn't shown much of a moral code in his life. When he gives speeches, you don't hear much about love of country. You hear about polls and how people love him. The slogan "Make America Great Again" has the implied "I Will" in front of it.

More than once in the most recent debate, he said he'd order the military to kill family members of suspected terrorists, even though it was illegal. Sure he walked it back the next day, but that evening, he felt really good about planning to commit future war crimes. He's the American Benito Mussolini.

Now what does that mean, really? He appeals to the authoritarian, nationalist side of a lot of people. He's about the cult of his personality. His high-tariff trade-war plan would kill the economy. He's demonstrated he doesn't really understand the details of the federal budget. If people think Obama made America lose some stature and/or credibility around the world, that's nothing compared to what Trump will do.

Even now, as he says he's funding his own campaign, it's a shell game. He's funding loans to his campaign, but as donors come in, he's going to reimburse himself.

Back to the conservative media types. At least Trump's exposed a lot of hypocrites, the craven attention-seekers who care more about spotlight than principle. I'm no purity-test guy, but good grief. When Trump says he will order the military to do illegal things and they don't bat an eye, what is going on?

So here's to his enablers and suck-ups: Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Joe Scarborough, most of Fox News, and most of Breitbart. Shoutout to Fox Business Channel, soon to be renamed Trump Business Channel. Mazeltov to Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Matt Drudge, and everyone at Right2Rise. Applause to the decisions boards of CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC for his wall-to-wall coverage. Kudos to Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Jeff Sessions, and Paul LePage for bowing to the Strongman.

As for the Democratic race...

1. BERNIE SANDERS - At least he's honest. His wild aspirations for a socialist America would get stopped by a Republican Congress.

2. HILLARY CLINTON - Probably the most vulnerable Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter ran for re-election, and yet the GOP can't get its act together.

Politically Speaking - 11/2/15

Some random thoughts on the current state of politics.

- It's been pretty amazing and yet completely predictable how Hillary Clinton has played the "sexism" card against Bernie Sanders. Bernie's been saying people shout for years, but Hillary somehow spun that into a craven dog-whistle for sexism. It was pathetic, but it worked. Now anything Bernie or his campaign says about Hillary that isn't fawning is somehow considered a sexist attack. RNC take note: learn how to handle crap like this, because it's nothing compared to what the Clinton Machine will throw at your eventual candidate.

- RNC chair Reince Preibus has decided "enough is enough" with the way the GOP debates have been going, compared to the substantive one Anderson Cooper moderated for the Democrats. He has removed NBC from their planned February debate, and this actually serves as a warning to the other networks. The candidates have since held their own meeting to figure out how they want to proceed. Reince has thus far been incompetent in how these debates have gone.

- Jeb Bush's claim that he hadn't seen the PowerPoint on attacking Marco Rubio until it was leaked was weak sauce. And he reboots his campaign with the instantly mockable #JebCanFixIt. He should drop out. Of course, so should Jim Gilmore, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, Bobby Jindal and Lindsey Graham.

Hillary Lied About Benghazi; So What?

We've known for years that the Obama Administration misled the American people about the motivations of the attack on Benghazi. They blamed a YouTube video for sparking outrage across Libya when they knew it was a terrorist attack. We can't let a terrorist attack seven weeks before the 2012 election muddy up the narrative, can we?

After 11 hours of Hillary Clinton testifying before the House Benghazi Committee, we have confirmation of what we've known. And when I say 11 hours, I really mean about 3 hours. The other 8 hours was taken up by Congressfolk pontificating, monologuing, whining, theorizing, making mini-speechs, crafting soundbites, and wasting time by complaining about all the time being wasted.

So was the hearing worth it?

"Thanks to Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony on Thursday, we now understand why the former secretary of state never wanted anyone to see her emails and why the State Department sat on documents. Turns out those emails and papers show that the Obama administration deliberately misled the nation about the deadly events in Libya on Sept. 11, 2012. 

Don’t forget how we came to this point. Mrs. Clinton complained in her testimony on Capitol Hill that past Congresses had never made the overseas deaths of U.S. officials a “partisan” issue. That’s because those past deaths had never inspired an administration to concoct a wild excuse for their occurrence, in an apparent attempt to avoid blame for a terror attack in a presidential re-election year." - Kimberly Strassel, The Wall Street Journal

And also:

"Even by today's standards of rabid partisanship, the breast-beating threat display from Democrats and members of the press alike to which voters were privy yesterday was something to behold.  The message has been clearly received: Republicans, back off from the nest in which Barack Obama’s anointed Democratic successor is incubating... 

Even if you were inclined to be extraordinarily charitable toward former Secretary Clinton and the administration in which she served, one must at least concede that new questions about what the administration knew and when it knew it have been opened up by this committee. It seems, however, that those with a passing attachment to intellectual honesty are in short supply inside the Beltway. 

The Benghazi Committee is owed a public debt if only because it has exposed the decay in Washington’s culture of wagon-circling. Pundits who forever lament America’s sense of alienation from the political class and their growing cynicism towards elected elites appear not to notice when they are exacerbating that condition. While news media and Democrats are praising Clinton’s performance, Americans are waking up to the notion that they might have been deliberately misled about the deaths of their fellow citizens in a terror attack and likely for petty political gain. There is something rotten here." - Noah Rothman, Commentary

On the Republican side, I thought Troy Gowdy and Martha Roby acquitted themselves best. Linda Sanchez and Adam Smith were probably the worst partisans on the Democratic side. When Adam Smith complained about not learning anything, Gowdy shot back with this: "I'll be happy to get a copy of my opening statement for the gentleman from Washington so he can refresh his recollection on all the things our committee found that your previous committee missed."

As for the Republicans in Congress as a whole, they are re-learning the lesson that the GOP from the 1990's learned: you cannot bring a Clinton down with a scandal.  Most of the media reports are praising her performance. And that's what politics is: performance. Democratic donors are thrilled to jump aboard the H-Train now.

Benghazi as an issue in 2016 is dead. Her email server is not. But really, for a year where the majority of Americans want an outsider, when they view DC as corrupt, is Hillary Clinton not the ultimate corrupt insider?  Between her and Trump, this is so far the most bizarro election ever.

"47 Traitors"? Give Me A Break

When 47 Senators sent a letter to Iran to remind them that they wouldn't have to honor any agreement that Pres. Obama signed off on until they had their own chance to review it and vote on it, the hashtag #47Traitors was born. It's another one of those cynical, divisive, gigantically hypocritical bumper-stick hate slogans that sticks in people's heads no matter how little substance there is. Look at how #WarOnWomen has stuck around.

Did the letter undermine the president? It could have. It was stupid and ill-advised. But is anyone on the Left actually advocating for the senators' imprisonment and execution? Let me rephrase. Is anyone rational on the Left advocating for this? No.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good dose of outrage.

Lest we forget, the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes provides some examples when the Democrats have undermined Republican presidents with foreign leaders:

* In 1979, Senator Robert Byrd traveled to the Soviet Union during the SALT II arms talks to “personally explain the requirements of our Constitution” to Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev. Byrd later wrote: “In Leningrad, I explained that I had come to the Soviet Union neither to praise nor condemn the treaty but to create a better understanding of the treaty in the Senate and to explain to the Soviets the Senate’s constitutional role in treatymaking.”  

* In the early 1980s, Senator Ted Kennedy secretly approached leaders of the Soviet Union with a proposal: I’ll help you with Ronald Reagan’s defense build up if you help me defeat him in the 1984 presidential election. Former senator John Tunney conveyed the offer on Kennedy’s behalf. 

* In April 1985, as the Reagan administration sought to limit Soviet influence in Central America, Senator John Kerry traveled to Nicaragua, met with Communist strongman Daniel Ortega, and accused the Reagan administration of supporting “terrorism” against the government there. “Senator Harkin and I are going to Nicaragua as Vietnam-era veterans who are alarmed that the Reagan administration is repeating the mistakes we made in Vietnam.” Kerry’s trip followed a letter from a group of House Democrats led by majority leader Jim Wright to Nicaraguan strongman Daniel Ortega. The “Dear Comandante” letter declared: “We regret the fact that better relations do not exist between the United States and your country. We have been, and remain, opposed to U.S. support for military action directed against the people or government of Nicaragua. We want to commend you and your government for taking steps to open up the political process in your country.”

* In 1990, former President Jimmy Carter secretly wrote to the leaders of the U.N. Security Council nations urging them to oppose a resolution offered by his own country. The existence of the letter was revealed when one of its recipients shared a copy with the White House. Presi-dent George H. W. Bush was “furious” at the “deliberate attempt to undermine” his foreign policy, according to his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft. 

* In 2002, in the heat of the congressional debate over the authorization of the Iraq war, the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, David Bonior, traveled to Baghdad with two fellow Democrats to oppose the imminent invasion. Democratic congressman Jim McDermott appeared on ABC’s This Week from Baghdad to denounce President George W. Bush and propagandize for Saddam Hussein. Shakir al Khafaji, a well-known fixer for the Iraqi regime and a longtime supporter of Bonior, arranged the visit. The Democrats vigorously denied that they had accepted Iraqi regime funding for the trip. Documents uncovered in postwar Iraq demonstrated that their claim was untrue. 

* In 2007, newly elected House speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria to meet with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. At the time of the trip, the Bush administration was seeking to isolate Assad, whose regime was supporting insurgents in Iraq who were targeting U.S. troops. Pelosi disregarded the administration’s request to cancel her trip. Instead, she appeared in Damascus and reassured the world that Assad was eager to be a constructive player in the region and wanted peace with Israel.

Back in the real world, in the political cycle, this stuff doesn't matter. Why? Cuz we got #47Traitors trending, man! Woohoo. Champagne for everyone at MSNBC and Media Matters. Just another way to use the ignorance and short-term memory of the electorate against them. If this is our threshold for calling "treason," then all of our leaders have been traitors for a long time. And hey, Republicans did it to Bill Clinton too. As the Washington Post puts it:

The folly here is not in Cotton’s decision to write the mullahs, but in Obama’s petulant response that Cotton and his colleagues were “making common cause with the hard-liners in Iran.” Please. The deal Obama is negotiating is opposed not only by Republicans in Congress, but also by leading Democrats, the government of Israel and most Arab leaders. Are they all “making common cause with the hard-liners in Iran” too? 

Rather than having a temper tantrum, Obama should emulate Clinton and use congressional and international opposition as leverage at the negotiating table to get a better deal with Iran. And rather than rail against those who are speaking out against his deal, Obama should ask himself why so many are going to such great lengths to stop it. The problem is not their criticism, but Obama running roughshod over the concerns of Congress and U.S. allies. The fact is that any deal Obama reaches that does not have broad bipartisan backing in Congress and the support of governments in the region is in fact “dead on arrival” — even if Cotton and company are too polite to put it that bluntly.

And to be fair, if any of the 47 called "treason" on one or more of those actions before this letter, they shouldn't be surprised. Soemthing something "chickens home to roost" something.

In other news:

- Hillary Clinton's press conference on her secret email server was a disaster. It's the same old Clinton, where obfuscation and technicalities should satiate everyone. Does anyone really want her to be President, or is it just a matter of Democrats resigned to the fact she'll win the nomination, and she's better than any Republican? Is that what it is? Even the White House doesn't know how to defend her on this.

- Gov. Martin O'Malley took a baby step forward in perhaps declaring his own run for the Presidency, willing to go on the record with a gentle disagreement on how Hillary's handled the email controversy.

The Inevitable President Hillary, and Other 2016 Speculations

I can't say I learned anything new from Hillary Clinton's interview with Diane Sawyer. Hillary said she hasn't made up her mind if she's running for President in 2016. This, of course, is a lie, but it's a lie we dance around every mid-term. 2006, 2010, 2014 are the years for midterm swings in Congress, but they are also the years for people who have every intention of running for President to issue denials that they've made up their mind.

The remark that's received the most publicity is the one about her and Bill being "dead broke" when she left the White House. Yeah, right. Somehow they managed to make millions back. Even Chelsea made $600,000 from NBC for filing three reports. This is actually one good reason why a Republican needs to win in 2016. Do you value the press? Do you want the media to hold truth to power? They tend to be at their best when a Republican's in office. I predict Years 9-12 of a Democratic Oval Office will further erode the credibility of the Fourth Estate.

Now I actually think Hillary would have been a better President than Obama. She's better at building relationships. We needed him for the history, to help us get over the hump and actually have an African-American as President 150 years after Lincoln. We also needed to not have a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton daisy chain. Now that Obama's been in for two terms, Americans seem to be a little more ready to stomach another President Clinton. It's her election to lose. Of course, so was 2008's.

So maybe Brian Schweitzer and Elizabeth Warren will make it interesting on the Democratic side. As for the Republicans, they need their own Obama, that transformative figure that can inspire. Mitt Romney did not inspire. Never mind he was right about Russia and Iraq and several other things. You have to win first.

So who are the 2016 possibilities? Well, let's see.

NO WAY THEY RUN AGAIN

Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul. Yes, Mitt won't run again. But I have no doubt he wants to help pick the next nominee.

THEY MIGHT RUN AGAIN

Rick Perry - The Texas governor is wearing glasses now to make himself appear smarter and more stately. Of the ones who ran in 2012, I see him as the most likely to give it another shot. I think this would be a big mistake, but never underestimate Texas.

Rick Santorum - Still a decent chance the social conservative gives it another try. It'd be a huge waste of money if he did.

Mike Huckabee - The host of his own weekly radio and weekend Fox News show will send out feelers to see if he would have a chance. His folksy approach is palatable, but I see 2016 as a year where Republicans do not want an also-ran.

THE "ESTABLISHMENT" NAMES

Jeb Bush - If Americans can stomach the thought of a second Clinton presidency, can they stomach the thought of a third Bush? Jeb's always been seen as the smarter brother, the one that should have run in 2000 had Florida played along. There's also no doubt in my mind he would have been a better president than W.  But Jeb's time has passed.

Chris Christie - The press loved the big guy for a while. But without Mitt Romney to kick around, MSNBC decided to become the Anti-Chris Christie channel. Plus many conservatives don't trust him.

THE LIKELY CANDIDATES

Ted Cruz - The divisive Tea Party hero would certainly be able to draw up passion from his base. He'd face opposition in places like New Hampshire and Michigan who view him as too extreme to win a general election.

Rand Paul - Rand will be an interesting one to watch. He can get some of the Libertarian cred thanks to his dad, some Tea Party cred, and he's shown the ability to breathe fire one day, then play nice with others the next. He'll be vulnerable in some primaries for not being as hawkish as other candidates, but in other primaries, that'll be one of his biggest strengths.

Marco Rubio - The Florida senator would greatly benefit if his friend Jeb would decide not to run and just support him instead. Like Cruz, he'd make history as the first Latino president. He's facing early opposition from the anti-amnesty crowd.

Scott Walker - The Wisconsin governor could be a real factor in 2016. He won a recall challenge handily in 2012 after slashing the state budget, and that emboldened his GOP supporters. He's shrunk the deficit there, so fiscal conservatives love him.

Bobby Jindal - Since his disastrous response to the State of the Union, he's kept his head down in Louisiana, just strengthening his resume. His handling of Hurrican Gustav was far better than how his predecessor had handled Hurricane Katrina. His approval ratings dipped after 2012 but have been coming up this year.

Paul Ryan - He's a national name now thanks to his Vice-Presidential candidacy, though I think many voters will remember he did nothing to move the needle in 2012 and how he let Joe Biden steal his lunch money during the debate.

John Kasich - I'll throw his name out there, because he seems to have built a very solid resume as governor. Kasich served in the US House from 1983-2001. He ran for President in 2000 but did badly and dropped out early to support Bush. He had his own Fox News Channel show for a while, and he worked at Lehman Brothers when the stock market crashed. His political rehabilitation as Ohio governor saw that state become one of the first to show true growth post-crash.

WHAT ABOUT THE WOMEN?

There are a few women who could get into this election cycle.

Susanna Martinez - Hey, a twofer! A Latina woman. The New Mexico governor enjoys popularity in her state and has strengthened her bonafides in border security. She could get hit in primaries for New Mexico's low job growth, but between now and 2016 she has time to get that improved.

Nikki Haley - She's South Carolina's first female governor, and she'd be the first Indian American president, should she win. She's young; she's turn 44 in 2016. She attends Methodist and Sikh services, so she has quite a multicultural thing going on.

Mary Fallin - The Oklahoma governor could be tempted to throw her hat into the ring. She's popular at home, she (like Martinez and Haley) should be enjoying her second term as governor when decision-time comes around. She has some personal issues that some could make an issue of, but after Newt ran, that just dwarfs anything any other candidate will ever have to cop to.

Sarah Palin - She won't run, but she'll flirt with the idea through 2016 as she tries to sell a book or score another reality show.