I learned a long time ago not take any bait Ann Coulter is offering because that’s how she makes herself rich. But it’s kind of fun to see Josh Marshall having so much fun at her expense. The way Trump “softened” his immigration stance at the same moment that Coulter’s new book was launching was kind of exquisite, considering that the book praises Trump above all for his hardline anti-immigrant stance. Even so, I’d let this whole episode pass without noting if it didn’t tie into something else that was in the news yesterday.
Here’s how Marshall characterizes Coulter’s discomfort:
Just today her new book In Trump We Trust was released, a genuflecting, tour de force of leader principle obsequiousness. As many have noted, in the book itself she writes that Trump can do anything, change his position on anything – none of it matters. She and they are that devoted. Everything except shift on immigration.
So today, the very day her book comes out he shambles his way to embracing the Rubio/Bush ‘Amnesty’ agenda he spent the last year railing against and using as a cudgel to destroy the Republican establishment’s favored ones. She even had an opening book party hosted by Breitbart.
Already at the book party, photos snapped by Twitters journos showed a sad visage and perhaps a growing thunder …
That thunder is something Glenn Beck is warning about in his typical apocalyptic tones. He invited Trump voters to call into his show yesterday and explain their support for him, and he seems to have been badly rattled by the experience. He even agreed to go on Lawrence O’Donnell’s MSNBC show last night to talk about it. I guess Beck has a variety of concerns about Trump and his fans, but what’s really got him going is the realization that there are hordes of people out there who took Trump seriously about his mass deportation promises, and they’re going to be irate if Trump doesn’t follow through. To demonstrate the point, let’s look at a caller named “Nate from Virginia.”
“As long as he does the basic things, the foundational things, which is build a wall, he’s not going to have people like me coming after him,” Nate responded.
“So if he doesn’t build a wall like China, then he’s in trouble?” Beck said.
“Oh, he’s in so much trouble,” the caller quickly shot back. “You don’t even understand the backlash of us, the ones who are so frustrated and angry and tired of all the political stuff. We’re going to come after him personally. You know what I mean? We’re going to get him.”
The caller later seemed to soften his stance a little, somewhat going along with Beck’s suggestion that impeachment might be a sufficient punishment. Still, Beck pressed him to clarify that he wasn’t recommending violence, and the response was “Well, I mean, hey, you yourself said he’s condoned violence in the past, hasn’t he?”
And then the caller further explained his position:
“I’m just saying, he’s appealing to people who are very frustrated and angry. Their frustration and anger can only be subsided if he makes his promises true,” Nate said. “And he has a lot on his shoulders. Maybe he himself doesn’t even know how much. But if he doesn’t come through for us, he’s going to have bigger problems, bigger problems than what you know.”
Yeah, I know that this is just one caller to the radio show of an unhinged shock jock, but I don’t bring it up to cherrypick.
As a political matter, Trump may win more votes than he loses by adopting a more status quo/mainline stance on immigration and undocumented workers, but there are a lot of people who didn’t care about any other issue in his whole campaign. There’s a reason why a slew of white supremacists have praised Trump not only for his positions but for making white supremacy respectable again.
They probably can live with Trump losing, but having Trump betray the cause before the first ballot has been cast?
That might be more problematic. For Trump.
Either way, though, Trump opened a can of worms and perhaps even Pandora’s Box. He can pivot away from the issue that got him to this point, but he can’t undo the damage he’s already done.
tee hee hee
hilarious
My same reaction! Hearing the Woody Woodpecker laugh in my mind. Couldn’t have happened to a better parasite.
More wishful leftiness thinking, I’m afraid.
Trump’s gaining on Clinton again. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings…I really am…but it ain’t over ’til it’s over.
The incessant unison anti-Trump pounding of both supposed sides of the mainstream media is doing more to open people’s eyes about the whole PermaGov election fix thing than anything else that has happened in the past 50 years. The media is going to be the big loser in this election no matter who wins. Watch.
Obama’s insouciant stance on the Louisiana floods…gotta finish his Martha’s Vineyard vacation, after all…and HRC’s lame “I’d only be a distraction” excuse on the same topic coupled wth Trump’s perfect pitch response has hurt her more than I think many people believe.
There are still more Hillary email chickens looking to roost, and her obviously rocky health issues are going to get much worse once people see…and hear…her opposite Trump in the debates. (Oy!!! The voice!!!) He looks like a retired linebacker and she looks like a glorified, upper middle class grandmother. In a popularity/beauty contest like the U.S. presidential debates, who do you think will win King or Queen of the prom? Really!!! She has a firm grasp of the issues and an almost wonky recollection for statistics and other memorabilia, but bringing a spreadsheet to a street fight is not generally considered the way to go.
He’s going to close on her.
Hard.
If she wins…and it’s nearly a tossup as far as I am concerned no matter what the polls may say…but whether she wins or not it will most likely be about the Electoral College and perhaps some fancy vote counting.
Counterpunch
It’s going to be all about the debates.
The improvisor vs. the plodder.
Bet on it.
Watch.
AG
I’m sorry, Arthur, but this is idiotic. Anyone who says “The problem for Hillary is that she has gotten a relatively free ride from journalists and pundits” has been living on another planet for the last 25 years. Travelgate, Filegate, the Rose Law firm, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Benghazi, the AP story on the Clinton Foundation, the front page article in the NYT saying the FBI would recommend a criminal indictment — it was all bullshit. All of it.
Likewise, anyone who says “it’s all about the debates” knows nothing about this election. It’s all about the electoral college, which means that GOTV is absolutely crucial. Hillary has a massive advantage in both.
It’s also telling that the guy who wrote this suggests that Lloyd Bentsen’s debate performance somehow won the election for Michael Dukakis.
This guy is a dope.
Yeah.
Like I was idiotic over a year ago when I said Trump would win the RatPublican nomination going away.
You might want to open up your boundaries, DiTourno. There’s more to this than meets the mass media-blinded eye.
Bet on it.
AG
I enjoy your posts, but ‘forget the polls, look a the lawn signs’ is … scraping.
You talk a lot about betting. What odds do you give a Trump victory? Do you actually bet on it?
What odds do I give a Trump victory?
Right now? Today? About 46% to 54% against. Remember, at this time in the election cycle eventual winners are often losing. Bush II was seriously losing to Gore in late August. Bush II was an idiot puppet with no talent past looking good in photographs and Gore was a sitting Vice President. Bush won.
Trump makes Bush II look like most of the people who ran against Trump in the primaries as far as sheer personal power is concerned, and Hillary Clinton is as bad a candidate as was Gore if not worse. She has no charisma whatsoever past her wealth and power, more baggage than Gore ever dreamed of having and a voice that sounds like a power saw with issues.
Anything can happen.
And will.
I call it the way I see it.
Me? Bet?
We are all betting our lives, Steggies. My take on a Trump presidency is not sanguine. If he doesn’t end up as some sort of virtual dictator it will be because the controllers got rid of him and set up their own “dictator.” HRC? Business as usual. A continuing slow decline.
Scylla and Charybdis.
You choose.
AG
I am choosing. Business as usual over Scylla plus Charybdis plus Shingles, the Unity Tour.
Your odds are waaaaaaay off. Bush II was an idiot puppet ex-Governor son of an ex-President/ex-CIA Director and brother of a governor. That’s highest quality puppet. Trump’s got three broken strings and talks about his cock during debates.
Clinton will crush him.
Bet on it.
We’d best figure how to make business better’n usual, because that’s all that’s on the menu.
We shall see.
Won’t we.
AG
Yeah, so what happened to Rand Paul, Nostradamus?
Too weak. Not enough soul. So it goes. The brain was right. One out of three ain’t enough.
AG
Arthur, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with anything I actually wrote.
By the way, does “open up your boundaries” really mean “ignore facts and evidence?”
That depends on what you call “facts,” DiTourno. Anything whatsoever that the mass media present as “facts” regarding an attempt to fix an election…whether their chosen fixee is better, worse or equally bad but in different ways that their chosen tomato can… can safely be ignored as propaganda.
The media lies all of the time. You must know this, if only from the runup to the Bush II Iraq War and plentiful subsequent evidence that the whole thing was a a tissue of lies from the get-go.
Here’s my take on that general idea:
Once a propensity for lying is established one must hunt around for other viewpoints and other information, because nothing that the liars say can be trusted to be true.
I’ve done my hunting.
You?
AG
This has pointed out to you before, and I studied Ancient Greek, but your Latin is fucked.
The word creditor is not a real form of credo.
You might mean “non creditur” which would mean “Do not trust…a liar even when they speak the truth.
But what you’re quoting says “Not lying when he speaks the truth” and then has a butchered version of the word for believe or belief.
This quote is usually translated as “We do not believe a liar even when he speaks the truth,” which is not an imperative statement but an observation.
And it’s a warning that we can be deceived if we assume a liar is always lying, which is the opposite of the way you constantly use this phrase.
In proper context, it would be like saying that you shouldn’t assume CNN is wrong when they say it will rain just because they just put someone on the air saying that Clinton murdered forty people in Arkansas.
This is a fairly subtle ad hominem fallacy, Booman. I don’t know what I’m talking about because I don’t speak Latin. I am so sorry to have disturbed your Latiness!! I only speak latin music, myself. And Igpay Atinlay, of course. I am justly humbled.
Does this meet with your approval?
How about this?
Or this:
DUH!!! (That is apparently “Duh!!!” in Latin, too. I know. I tried it on Google Translate. Duh.)
AG
P.S. Just in case you didn’t get it yet:
yeah, you speak Latin music very well, but you keep repeating a piece of wisdom in the opposite way from which it is intended.
It’s kind of worse than lying because it’s aggressively stupid.
Impressive. Pointing out that Arthur’s quote means the opposite of what he thinks it does is “nitpicking.”
There’s also the fact that Arthur’s bogus quote makes no fucking sense at all. It’s literally telling us not to believe the truth.
Of course, that seems to be Arthur’s general approach to politics.
While I’m at it…in (not so) plain English from one of the true masters of the language:
Like dat.
AG
Can’t you even get your sources right? Why are you linking to ‘A Proposal for Correcting, Improving
and Ascertaining the English Tongue” when you’re quoting form Gulliver’s Travels?
Did you go to the link?
<https:/andromeda.rutgers.edu~jlynch/Texts/proposal.html>
No.
Both wriftten by the same genius.
Idiot.
AG
You couldn’t see it, of course, but I just rolled my eyes. Not other response is needed.
Oh boy! A 0 from Arthur! That’s as good as a 12 from someone with a brain!
I don’t believe I have ever given a 0 to anyone.
You earned it.
AG
Next time you are tempted to snark…read the fucking link.
AG
Well, one other comment. If I were to quote Humpty Dumpty, and if I were to include a link, the link would be to Through the Looking-Glass, not The Hunting of the Snark.
I will leave it to you to figure out why you made me think of that passage. Good luck!
Not worth the effort.
Go away, child.
Y’bother me.
AG
I’m enjoying this portion of the thread quite a bit.
“Mendaci, neque quum vera dicit, creditur.”
Literally, “A liar is not believed even when he speaks the truth.”
As you say, Boo, not an imperative (“is not to be believed”), but an observation (“is not believed”).
As AG wrote it, with “creditor”, it would mean: “One who does not believe a liar, even when he speaks truth” (Not a full sentence).
As far as the semantics, the most straightforward sense (using your example) would be something like, “It’s too bad CNN so often tells lies, because as a result, even when they tell the truth no one believes them.”
Your explanation is correct, Boo, but it reverses the emphasis.
yes, you’re right, the emphasis would be a lament more than an objective observation.
Quick reality check:
If Clinton wins Ohio, she wins the election. The 538.com weighted polling average has her up 4.6 points.
If Clinton wins Florida, she wins the election. She’s up 4.9 points.
If Clinton wins Pennsylvania, she wins the election. She’s up 6.4 points.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?_r=1#explore-paths
She’s also leading in North Carolina by 2.8 points, which Romney won in 2012.
C’mon Arthur, admit it. You’d LOVE to be the bearer of this bad news. If you could be.
But at present you can’t. Clinton is up 10 points in today’s Quinnipac – and Quinnipac has had a distinct bias for Trump in this cycle (they seem to be using 2014 voter weightings).
No curt, I wouldn’t. I call it like I see it. I fell for Obama’s spiel for a while. I was delighted when he won. Didn’t work out. so it goes.
There is really nobody for whom to root in this contest. Well…maybe Hillary because her disaster would be slower than would be that of Trump. But the alternative view is that with Trump at least the disaster would be immediately visible and maybe some real, creative opposition would arise.
Other than that?
Pick ’em.
AG
Quite a feat, but you managed to pull it off!
First, let’s dispense with Rall (whom you approvingly quote, all bold even!):
Well, except that’s false!
That incident occurred during the third 2000 debate:
(If you bought that BB claim, then there’s a bridge over a certain river in NYC — which I just happen to have obtained title to — that I’d like to discuss with you!)
There is only one valid indicator of who “won” that debate: immediate post-debate “reaction” polling of voters who actually watched the debate, i.e., before the Useless Corporate Media (who unquestionably had it in for Gore) could spin it and put Gore’s “intimidation” [and also too, “sighs” in one debate] on continuous loop for days. Gallup did such polling for each 2000 debate. In fact, Gore (narrowly) “won” that debate 46%-44%. (That’s within m.o.e., so statistically a “tie”, i.e., no sig’t diff. between their respective percentages. But plenty adequate as refutation of Rall’s clearly false claim.)
Facts: stubborn things.
Then there’s your trifecta of counter-factual idiocy:
“Bet on it”? Please! How much, and what bookie holds our wagers?
“frustrated and angry”
Beck’s caller conveniently fails to specify exactly what Der Trumper’s supporters are so angry about, but I guess the focus on “the wall” gives the game away.
The conservative movement sowed the whirlwind and now the nation will reap the results. We have an enormous population of (heavily armed) irreconcilables, who seem not to have the slightest grasp on how the federal gub’mint actually operates and exactly what a prez (however “Strong!”) can actually accomplish on his own.
There’s also no logical reason to think that these “conservative” white male thoughts of future violence are limited to Trump, of all people. They seem to know that this is their Pickett’s Charge, and they aren’t just gonna turn the TV off on election night and forget about it. Thanks, “conservatives”!
Yes, I wish Beck had asked his callers exactly what they are so “angry” and “frustrated” about. WHAT?
There’s a lot posturing and postulating by the rightwing media about how these working class white men have been “left behind” and now they’re justifiably “mad.”
So? A lot of people have been screwed over by the PTB. Voting for the GOP is certainly not going to solve anyone’s financial or economic problems, and that’s for damn sure.
Trump has told us that he economic plan is basically Trickle Down 3.0, wherebey he and his wealthy cohort will yet again get to hoover up all the cash, while all these Altright drongos will be screwed over again.
They don’t pay attention to the fine details, do they?
Seems like they just want to f*ck over women and minorities. While that might provide them some temporarly feelings of power (not that I advocate for anything like this), it’s hardly going to solve their real economic issues.
Well we all knew Trump opened a big old can of worms. And many of us have been saying: win or lose, it’s not going to be pretty Trump’s AltRight fans realize that Trump was conning them for their votes.
Actually there’s stuff out there on the Internet where Trump even admits. In particular, he struck a devil’s bargin with the Zombie-Eyed Granny Starver that he was only “talking” about preserving Soc Sec and Medicare to chum for votes… when in fact, Don the Con is totally down with Ryan’s desire to cut and gut both programs.
But the AltRight fans don’t truck much in facts from the “liberal” media.
There’s going to be show down of some sort, I fear. And this is the heavily armed portion of our populace, who’ve been encouraged all along by Trump to use their weapons for various purposes.
Good luck to us all.
I am truly loathe to post anything whatsoever from the NY Post rag, but when you’re right…even if you are far right… you’re right.
Read on.
Hmmmm…
I have seen the exact same things in my travels through rural PA, NY, CT and NJ over the past year. Again and again. I was out there several times the past few weeks and as far as I am concerned, this situation is growing.
Polls be damned.
Is this true across many other parts of the country?
HMMMmmmm…
We shall see.
Soon enough.
What is it, about 11 more weeks until (
S)election day?4 more weeks until the initial debate?
UH oh!!!!
WTFU!!!
No matter how loudly the PermaGov’s Mighty Wurlitzer trumpets the good news of HRC’s impending landslide?
It ain’t over ’til it’s over.
The Mighty Wurlitzer’s cry???!!!
It may actually turn out to be that rare thing, a self-defeating prophecy.
Watch.
AG
It’s not even true in Pennsylvania.
I have to travel deep into Berks County on a regular basis, which is where the outer suburbs turn into the foothills of Pennsyltucky. Where I go isn’t quite Appalachia, yet, but it borders it and is beyond exurban. It’s rural.
These are Republicans, and they’re downwardly mobile white gun-toting bible-thumping Fox-watching conservatives.
I have yet to see a single Trump sign anywhere in Berks County. I’ve seen only a handful of Trump bumperstickers. There’s more faded Ron Paul signage from eight years ago than anything related to more recent politics.
A little further in, in Chester County, I have seen more Ben Carson and Ted Cruz signage than Trump, and nothing remotely on the level of what Romney and McCain enjoyed by this point.
Now, if you quiz people, you will of course find Trump supporters, but not the enthusiastic types portrayed in that article. To find places like that (if he’s even being honest), you have to go far to the west or into the northern mountains.
On his larger point about Trump supporters being more affluent and less rural than people suspect, and that they’re highly motivated by the plight of their children, well, I just wrote about exactly that a few days ago. It’s true.
That’s different from them being fired up and ready to go, though. They’re more demoralized than anything else.
I hope you’re right. It’s probably going to work out somewhere in the middle, disregarding the ultimate results of the debates.
They will be the closer, one way or the other.
AG
The same holds true here in my little portion of Flyover country, central Missouri.
I know Pennsyltucky well, having done a lot of motorcycling and camping there 20-25 years ago. Where I live now, the reddest county in the state, is not unlike back there albeit with fewer stars and bars.
As I said, I live in the reddest county in the state based on percentage of presidential voting and no, I’m not in the batshit, insane Talibangical southwest corner of the state that gets all the press. I’m rural and there’s damn little public evidence of Trump support. I’ve lived here long enough (and nobody local ever leaves) to know who’s the type to have bumper stickers and yard signs and none of The Usual Suspects show anything this cycle.
But yunno who does? White professional suburbanites in St Louis. The same ones that fled to the burbs to get away from all those scary coloreds. Where I am, nobody’s scared of anybody non-white because they don’t have to be: we’re lily white and there’s nothing here to attract anybody who wasn’t born here.
That isn’t to say the locals will ever vote for Clinton, they’d die first. But they are depressed which hopefully will have some down ballot effect cuz we’ll sure need it here.
If he’s ‘martyred,’ we’re in for a rocky ride.
Would Pence just replace him at the top of the ticket?
Probably not. We are already past some ballot deadlines and with 50 different states involved it’s probably too complicated to get all the ballots changed. In late September ballots actually go out to overseas voters and the military so there’s absolutely no changing after that. What would happen is that the election would go through for Trump-Pence and then in January Pence would succeed to the Presidency when Trump couldn’t take his oath of office.
Still reading your post, but my dad -avid tribune reader, hi dad!- saw the O’Donnell/Beck interview and texted me to say that Beck is terrified.
Good stuff!
speaking of being on ballots: THIS!!!!
I haven’t the vaguest idea what’s going on, but sounds par for the course so far.
popcorn anyone?
Good post as usual, but there’s just one thing I don’t understand. You write,
“Yeah, I know that this is just one caller to the radio show of an unhinged shock jock, but I don’t bring it up to cherrypick.”
What does this mean? You’re still cherrypicking. Suppose I found a poll that showed Trump winning (for example) and said, Yeah, I’m placing undue emphasis on one statistically insignificant poll, but “I’m not bringing it up for that purpose” so it’s okay?
I’m not disputing that the Beck show is important and this trend in Trump supporters’ sentiments is significant — I think it is and they are. I’m just nitpicking your demurral of saying that you’re allowed to cherry-pick as long as you say, not that you’re not cherry-picking, but that your goal isn’t to cherry-pick. (Whose is?) This makes no sense to me.
fair point.
It’s confirmation of other inputs, is basically what I’m saying (poorly).
Click to embiggen.
Love it.
Read this again. The whole paragraph sounds like a parody of the way Trump talks. “He’s going to have bigger problems, bigger problems than what you know.” YUUGE PROBLEMS! Maybe the caller is serious and has just absorbed Trump’s way of talking.