Bozell & Graham Column: Still Defending ‘Christian’ Obama

The Obama years may be winding down, but our Obama-loving media never stops being hypersensitive about the man. CNN’s latest poll asked respondents “Do you happen to know what religion Barack Obama is?”and “Where was Barack Obama born, as far as you know?”

A major American media outlet asking these basic biographical questions after Obama’s been president for six and a half years seems to be asking “How inadequate are we?” But what they’re actually fishing for is a “crazy conservative fringe” argument now that Donald Trump is on top of the GOP presidential race.

Seventy-five percent correctly identified Obama’s American birth, and 12 percent expressed “no opinion.” The religion question is much more divided: 39 percent picked “Protestant,” 29 percent picked “Muslim,” and 11 percent correctly surveyed his upbringing and his policies and said “No religion.”

The primary subject of CNN’s poll was the Iran deal, where they found that the American people were deeply skeptical, with 60 percent saying Iranian cheating was very likely. Obama drew a 59 percent disapproval rating on handling Iran. CNN buried that result.

But CNN’s John King ran out with the birther/Muslim results on the Sunday show “Inside Politics” on September 13, comparing the Republican breakdowns on those questions and then the Trump-supporter results. Seventy percent of Republicans accept Obama’s American birth, and 61 percent of Trump fans.

On religion, King said “43 percent of all Republicans — don’t ask me why — 43 percent of all Republicans say they think the President is a Muslim; 54 percent of Trump supporters say that. Again, so they are — to use polite language — let’s just say more anti-Obama than even most Republicans.”   

Fifteen percent of Democrats said Obama was Muslim, but King didn’t mention it.

This Obama-coddling tendency grew dramatically on September 17 when liberals objected to a town-hall questioner in New Hampshire insisting Obama was a Muslim, and Trump failed to correct him.

Ask yourself this question: Have the media ever objected to a questioner at a Democratic campaign event smearing a Republican candidate? Has there never been a 9-11 truther embarrassing a liberal politician? The media couldn’t and wouldn’t locate such a person. They’re a missing person on an ideological milk carton.

Journalists should be fact-checkers on any president’s biography. But with Obama, the ardent advocacy spills over everywhere. On Reliable Sources on September 20, CNN host Brian Stelter challenged Newsmax host Steve Malzberg, “Doesn’t every responsible journalist and every responsible opinion analyst type have a responsibility to say, loudly and clearly, every time they talk about this, ‘The president was born in the U.S., the president is a Christian’?”

Stelter lectured “I think it does damage to our country, damage to the viewers at home when Trump sows doubt in this way, doesn’t just explicitly answer the question.” When Malzberg shot back that Obama called his opponents “crazies” and compared them to Iranian Muslim “hardliners,” Stelter complained “I don’t think it’s the same as delegitimizing the president of the United States.”

These media liberals didn’t screech when Hillary Clinton said Republican views on women were like Muslim terrorist groups. They actually hailed it as “coming out swinging” with “tough talk.” These journalistic “professionals” didn’t blink in 2012 when Sen. Harry Reid maintained with no evidence Romney didn’t pay taxes.

Most importantly, none of these “fact checkers” could be bothered in 2012 when liberal Washington Post assistant editor David Maraniss blew up Obama’s fairy-tale memoir on his birth story, that his father stayed with him until he was two. In real life, his mother left Hawaii within a month. But who cares about that kind of inconvenient truth?

Source Article from http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2015/09/22/bozell-graham-column-still-defending-christian-obama

Coulter is creating opportunities, but is the wrong spokesperson

By Dr. Patrick Slattery

Ann Coulter has been making her presence felt over the past few months. First of all, her book “Adios America,” which apparently was read by Donald Trump, transformed the presidential election campaign by elevating the immigration issue to a centrality it would not otherwise have had. And her recent “f___ing Jews” tweets have at shone a sliver of light on the pandering of Republican candidates to Israel-first Jewish donors.

Getting attention to these issues is well and good, but now that people are looking at them we have to ask how good of a spokesperson Ann Coulter is. I would say a very poor one indeed.

In her book on immigration, she blames “the left” for the immigration problem and calls the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 “Teddy Kennedy’s immigration bill.” In 1965 Teddy Kennedy was a 33-year-old freshmen senator with no leadership role. The bill was actually introduced by Emanuel Celler of New York, a Jew who first made his mark as a Congressman opposing the restrictive 1924 immigration bill, nine years before Kennedy was even born.

And the main force behind the bill in the Senate was Republican Senator Jacob Javitz, also a Jew. In 1951, when Kennedy was still a teen-ager, Javits wrote an op-ed for the New York Times called “Let Us Open Again the Gates,” which the Times subtitled “A congressman says that we need, and can absorb, ten million immigrants within the next twenty years.”

Yes, Kennedy allowed himself to be used as the poster child for the bill, but this was Jewish initiative and was backed by 85% of Congressional Republicans.

She argues that Democrats favor immigration because once immigrants get citizenship and start to vote, they will vote Democratic. Consequentially, her opposition to immigration is largely motivated by her fear that Republicans will lose the ability to win national elections.

That argument may be persuasive in rallying Republican partisans against immigration, but it is not factually accurate and not necessarily a winning strategy.

Jews favor immigration in order to solidify and perpetuate their domination of society. The main threat to Jewish domination would be a cohesive European-American majority asserting their ethnic interests. In order to transform European Americans into a minority group resented for “privilege” that is actually exercised by Jews, Zio tribalists demand open borders, whether they are Hollywood leftists or Neocons like Sheldon Adelson. It is not a partisan issue among Jews.

Moreover, if immigration is framed as a partisan issue, you force Democrats into a pro-immigration position that is no more in their interests than it is for Republicans. Coulter says you can blame everything from gay marriage to Obamacare on immigration, because these Democratic priorities were possible due to the immigrant vote putting Democrats in power. Of course, by the same logic, we have to thank immigrant voters for keeping us out of a war with Iran (and very likely Russia), which is an obvious priority for pandering Republican candidates from John McCain to Carly Fiorina.

And that brings us to Coulter’s tweets about pandering to pro-Israel donors. If we are to take Coulter’s post-tweet comments at face value (and there is nothing in her past to lead us to conclude otherwise), then her problem is not with the candidates’ Zio-centric foreign policies and blind support for Israel (which she claims to be a “huge fan” of), but their ad nausim references to it, along the lines of their constant clap-trapping by mentioning “abortion” and “Reagan.”

In other words, she wasn’t saying that the Emperor is naked, she was saying “we know the Emperor’s clothes are beautiful, enough already!” And that is very different, and very incorrect.

So before you send her book to a friend to enlighten them about the immigration issue, stop and think. Is it really enough to stop immigration while leaving the country under the yoke of Jewish domination? More to the point, is it really even possible to do anything about immigration as long as the Jews who brought us open borders retain effective control of all the important institutions of our society, including the Republican Party?

So if you want to enlighten your friend, sent Dr. Duke’s “Jewish Supremacism” instead.

 

 

Source Article from http://davidduke.com/coulter-is-creating-opportunities-but-is-the-wrong-spokesperson/

Magical Kingdom of Unemployment: Disney replaces American workers with cheap foreign workers on H1B visas



(NaturalNews) As noted in a recent column by Ben Domenech, founding editor of The Federalist and senior fellow in health care at the Heartland Institute, Republicans on Capitol Hill and their staffers seem genuinely baffled by the rise of 2016 GOP presidential frontrunner and billionaire businessman Donald Trump. Many of them have privately opined that Trump actually does not represent the Republican Party at all (although he recently signed a pro-GOP pledge) and that he would destroy it if elected.

In reality, Trump supporters counter, the Republican leadership has done more damage to the party’s brand over the past decade than anything the billionaire real estate mogul could possibly do, mostly by promising to pursue what used to be cornerstone conservative principles and policies and then once in the majority, bowing to every liberal/progressive initiative pushed by President Obama.

One case in point, say Trump supporters, is the GOP leadership’s outright refusal to seriously challenge Obama’s flagrant abuse of authority in granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and deportation deferrals. Another, they say, is the GOP’s willingness to look the other way on massive legal immigration that is hurting American workers.

Trump’s message on immigration – legal and otherwise – has been fairly consistent since he launched his campaign: he aims to put Americans first when it comes to immigration policy, which means he will end policies that hurt American workers and adopt measures that better protect them since he won’t have to placate big donors who want more immigrants.

There is no doubt that Trump has been influenced in large part by stories like one told by a former employee of the Walt Disney Co. who was recently replaced by a lower-wage worker from another country.

Immigrants displacing American workers

Writing anonymously at Breitbart News, the former employee says cheap foreigners here on H1B visas are replacing thousands of Americans, many with families and/or years of experience with their former firms.

“I used to have a dream career at one of Americas most iconic and admired companies. Twenty years of hard work, technical skill building, the fostering of relationships and a bachelor’s degree in Information Technology guided me to a coveted position as an Information Technology Engineer for Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida,” the former employee wrote.

In mid-2014, the ex-Disney Cast Member wrote, the company made an important change: it hired a new Chief Information Officer (CIO), Tilak Mandadi, to run the Parks and Resorts Division of Disney. Huge changes would soon follow for the ex-employee and hundreds of this person’s co-workers.

The ex-employee recounted what happened while navigating traffic en route to work one day a few months later in October. “I was able to glance at my company issued iPhone[.] I noticed an early morning meeting invite from a prominent Disney Executive. This really sparked my interest since it is not very often that I have heard from him and even rarer when I would actually see him in person.”

Republicans, like their Democrat counterparts, want even more cheap immigrant labor

When the employee got to that early morning meeting, he or she noticed that the conference room where the meeting was to take place was filled with other Disney employees who, like the ex-employee, were exemplary at their positions. Many of them had even been recognized as exemplary by the company. As the meeting started, a “grim-faced Disney executive” delivered shocking news: everyone in the room would be losing their jobs to a foreign worker. They had 90 days to train their replacement and if they complained or spoke about the meeting, they would lose their severance pay. If the company felt as though the fired employees had not completely trained their replacements, the employees would be held until the company was certain.

“My coworkers and I felt extremely betrayed by Walt Disney World, a company for which we had worked so hard,” the ex-employee wrote.

What’s worse is that there are several Republicans – including a GOP presidential contender, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida – who support legislation aimed at increasing H1B visas so that even more cheap foreign labor can be imported by U.S. corporations to displace American workers.

Read the full story here, and you’ll understand why the GOP leadership just doesn’t get it and why Trump is doing so well in the polls.

Sources include:

TheDailyBeast.com

Breitbart.com

Heartland.org

Election2016.news





























Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
comments powered by Disqus



Source Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/051233_cheap_labor_Disney_H1B_visas.html

Real USA Today Article: ‘Where Would You Flee If Trump Wins?’

In the pre-social media days, we endured “threats” from various people, mostly celebrities with far-left political views, that they would leave the country if a Republican presidential candidate won election or reelection. Late Director Robert Altman, actor Alec Baldwin, actress Kim Basinger, singer Barbra Streisand, and others threatened to leave the U.S. in 2000 if George W. Bush won that year’s presidential contest against Al Gore. Though Altman left us permanently in 2006, none of the luminaries just named carried through on their threats to move elsewhere when Bush won.

Now it’s apparently a bit of a sport on social media to threaten to leave the country if Donald Trump wins the presidency. On Tuesday, clearly otherwise out of story ideas, Paul Singer at USA Today treated a “content analysis” firm’s compilation of such desires expressed on Twitter as news. It’s also comedy gold (HT Gateway Pundit; bolds are mine):

If Donald Trump wins, what country would you flee to?

This might be one solution to the nation’s immigration problem: Donald Trump haters on Twitter say they will flee the country if he becomes president.

In our favorite social media analysis so far this year, the digital analytics firm Luminoso scoured 4.5 million Trump-related tweets from Aug. 7 through Sept. 9 and found about 4% of them were people promising to leave the country if Trump wins the White House.

Here are the top destinations in those 200,000 “intent to move” tweets:

Mexico: 75,000
General: 69,000 (“I’m moving if Trump is elected” but no location specified)
Canada: 25,000
United Kingdom: 11,000
Australia: 6,000
Alaska: 5,800
France: 2,000
Hawaii: 1,500
Jamaica: 1,200
Ireland: 1,100
Sweden: 1,000
Brazil: 1,000

Certainly the folks moving to Hawaii and Alaska may be surprised to arrive and discover that Trump is still their president because those places are actually part of the United States.

Luminoso’s Denise Christie said the firm was not looking for this result in the Trump tweets — it was just a pattern that emerged from their content analysis.

Luminoso may not have been looking for the result, but their exaggerated interpretation is startling. Their related blog post’s graphic is titled, “Where Twitter is moving if Trump becomes president.” Even if we were to believe these surely mostly empty promises, the firm already admitted that only 4 percent of Tweeters expressed a desire to leave — and one-third of them couldn’t even name where they’d go. Additionally, over 7,000 of them were too dense to know that Alaska and Hawaii are in the U.S.

If those who indicated they would move to Mexico if Trump wins are predominantly here illegally and really would carry through on their “threat,” many would characterize that result as a form of progress.

Instead of lazily serving up political pablum, USA Today’s Singer should do some meaningful work tying the effects of public policy to mobility, specifically looking for answers to the following questions: 1) How many individuals and families, particularly those with one or more jobholders, have left blue states like California and New York for more business- and job-friendly red states like Texas, Florida and Arizona? 2) Why are these significant net movements to red states taking place?

Here’s a bonus question: How many Americans have renounced their citizenship in recent years (the answer is “many more than in previous years”), and why?

Those moving are people who really are voting their feet. There is available hard data about their numbers, as opposed to a collection of crybabies striking boisterous poses on social media.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Source Article from http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2015/09/18/real-usa-today-article-where-would-you-flee-if-trump-wins

Washington Post complains Trump’s pledge isn’t legally binding, but NONE of Obama’s campaign promises were binding… or kept!



(NaturalNews) You have to hand it to the Washington Post. The Jeff Bezos-owned legacy media outlet is consistent in its hypocrisy, casting doubts and aspersions on all who are not reliably in the corner of the Democratic Party as well as those who are not reliably in the corner of more and bigger government, which all too often today includes the leaders of the Republican Party.

You might have heard in recent days that billionaire real estate mogul and leading 2016 GOP presidential contender Donald Trump signed a “loyalty pledge” to the Republican Party, a non-legally binding document that ostensibly prevents Trump from making a third-party bid for the White House should he lose the Republican presidential nomination as the GOP leadership hopes.

It was bad enough having to crawl to Trump – he was visited in Trump Towers by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus – to get him to sign; the fact that he signed it was another signal that he is simply too smart for the current crop of GOP “strategists,” major candidates and party operatives.

Trump outfoxes everyone

In the weeks before this “historic” signing, the Republicans’ preferred candidate, Jeb Bush, complained that The Donald has been a Democrat longer than he’s been a Republican.

Trump’s signing of the document pledging that he’s a Republican and that he’ll support the eventual Republican nominee if it is not him makes him a bona fide Republican, and that destroys the claim by Bush and others that Trump is “not really a Republican.”

Check and mate for Trump.

It appears that someone at the Washington Post is upset that this pledge wasn’t some sort of court affidavit or other “legal” document. They claim the Trumpster can back out of it at any time.

The Post‘s Chris Cillizza, who writes “The Fix” blog, laments:

GOP front-runner Donald Trump signed a formal pledge crafted by the Republican National Committee that he will not run for president as an independent if he doesn’t win the party’s nomination….

But there is absolutely no reason to think that simply by the act of signing this pledge, Trump will somehow be legally bound to not run as anything but a Republican in 2016. He won’t be.

This pledge is not…a legally binding document. It’s like the sort of pledge you get your kids to sign that they will do their homework, make their beds and eat their vegetables before they can play with your iPhone. It’s a statement of intention, but not a binding one.

Faux outrage

Were Cillizza and Co. at the Post equally concerned about Barack Obama violating about 700 promises regarding Obamacare? Did they lose sleep over his broken pledge regarding executive amnesty for illegal aliens? Did they call out his reversal on the traditional definition of marriage?

Obama promised that his Affordable Care Act would lower monthly insurance rates, but that hasn’t happened for most Americans.

He promised that if we liked our health insurance, we could keep it, knowing full well that Obamacare’s mandated coverage minimums meant that Americans could not keep the plans they had.

He repeatedly said – 22 times – that he did not have the authority to issue the executive amnesty that he ultimately issued after the 2014 elections.

When running for the presidency the first time, Obama was adamant he believed in traditional “Christian marriage” before changing his position after the 2012 election and ordering his Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionally passed Defense of Marriage Act.

The Washington Post and its incessant defense of Obama and fellow Democrats is par for the course, as is its faux outrage over a promise that Trump hasn’t even broken yet – and might never break.

Sources include:

Breitbart.com

TruthWiki.org

HotAir.com





























Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
comments powered by Disqus



Source Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/051229_Donald_Trump_Obama_campaign_pledges.html

Washington Post complains Trump’s pledge isn’t legally binding, but NONE of Obama’s campaign promises were binding… or kept!



(NaturalNews) You have to hand it to the Washington Post. The Jeff Bezos-owned legacy media outlet is consistent in its hypocrisy, casting doubts and aspersions on all who are not reliably in the corner of the Democratic Party as well as those who are not reliably in the corner of more and bigger government, which all too often today includes the leaders of the Republican Party.

You might have heard in recent days that billionaire real estate mogul and leading 2016 GOP presidential contender Donald Trump signed a “loyalty pledge” to the Republican Party, a non-legally binding document that ostensibly prevents Trump from making a third-party bid for the White House should he lose the Republican presidential nomination as the GOP leadership hopes.

It was bad enough having to crawl to Trump – he was visited in Trump Towers by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus – to get him to sign; the fact that he signed it was another signal that he is simply too smart for the current crop of GOP “strategists,” major candidates and party operatives.

Trump outfoxes everyone

In the weeks before this “historic” signing, the Republicans’ preferred candidate, Jeb Bush, complained that The Donald has been a Democrat longer than he’s been a Republican.

Trump’s signing of the document pledging that he’s a Republican and that he’ll support the eventual Republican nominee if it is not him makes him a bona fide Republican, and that destroys the claim by Bush and others that Trump is “not really a Republican.”

Check and mate for Trump.

It appears that someone at the Washington Post is upset that this pledge wasn’t some sort of court affidavit or other “legal” document. They claim the Trumpster can back out of it at any time.

The Post‘s Chris Cillizza, who writes “The Fix” blog, laments:

GOP front-runner Donald Trump signed a formal pledge crafted by the Republican National Committee that he will not run for president as an independent if he doesn’t win the party’s nomination….

But there is absolutely no reason to think that simply by the act of signing this pledge, Trump will somehow be legally bound to not run as anything but a Republican in 2016. He won’t be.

This pledge is not…a legally binding document. It’s like the sort of pledge you get your kids to sign that they will do their homework, make their beds and eat their vegetables before they can play with your iPhone. It’s a statement of intention, but not a binding one.

Faux outrage

Were Cillizza and Co. at the Post equally concerned about Barack Obama violating about 700 promises regarding Obamacare? Did they lose sleep over his broken pledge regarding executive amnesty for illegal aliens? Did they call out his reversal on the traditional definition of marriage?

Obama promised that his Affordable Care Act would lower monthly insurance rates, but that hasn’t happened for most Americans.

He promised that if we liked our health insurance, we could keep it, knowing full well that Obamacare’s mandated coverage minimums meant that Americans could not keep the plans they had.

He repeatedly said – 22 times – that he did not have the authority to issue the executive amnesty that he ultimately issued after the 2014 elections.

When running for the presidency the first time, Obama was adamant he believed in traditional “Christian marriage” before changing his position after the 2012 election and ordering his Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionally passed Defense of Marriage Act.

The Washington Post and its incessant defense of Obama and fellow Democrats is par for the course, as is its faux outrage over a promise that Trump hasn’t even broken yet – and might never break.

Sources include:

Breitbart.com

TruthWiki.org

HotAir.com





























Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
comments powered by Disqus



Source Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/051229_Donald_Trump_Obama_campaign_pledges.html

The debate on rewind

Memo to Donald Trump: Carly Fiorina is more than a pretty face.

Looking ahead, MSNBC should preserve CNN’s candidate sparring format for its October 28 debate in Boulder, but there should be more of an effort to provide each candidate with comparable time, overall. And it’s time to drop back from eleven candidates to ten or perhaps even eight. And possibly skip the earlier debate for candidates polling two percent or less.

The SuperPacs can distort the process by keeping distant candidates in the race. Greedy consultants may encourage a candidate to stay beyond viability, because the money is there. Former three-term Texas Governor Rick Perry showed great integrity by dropping out last week, even before the debate, and despite more than $13 million left in his SuperPac. His mega-donors understandably now want the money refunded, thus disappointing the vendors who wanted to find another way to waste the commissionable dollars.

Let’s rewind to summarize the eleven major candidates.

Jeb Bush: He remains a class act. But he has been out of office for eight years. He has failed to expand beyond country club Republicans and the donor class. Even as he again proclaims, “I’m my own man,” he admits his foreign policy advisers are drawn from “41” and “43” – jargon for his father and brother. If he grasped the dynasty issue, he would have developed his own team of younger advisers without Bush baggage. But he doesn’t get it. Bush loves his father, defends his brother, and wants Trump to apologize to his wife…too much drama. For his $100 million ads to take effect, he needs Trump to decline but still remain a factor, otherwise Trump’s voters will be distributed to others. Bush wins the “most improved” award, but it may not matter.

Ben Carson: He needed to relate his temperament to the calm deliberation and prudence required for presidential decision-making and thus implicitly take down Trump. Instead, h showed little growth from the first debate and remained ponderous and sometimes reached for words, as when he spoke of a foreign policy “to be aggressive …where aggression is needed.” At times he seems unsure of himself. With his high intelligence, Carson simply needed a strategy and an approach, rhetoric and one-liners, and he could have won this debate, instead Fiorina did.

Chris Christie: Suddenly a born again conservative, this heavyweight said he had vetoed 400 bills. All I could think of was 400 pounds, although Christie has indeed shaped up. Indeed, the debate format favors this feisty and combative former prosecutor. He tried to be above the fray by urging candidates to stop fighting and attack Hillary instead. Christie had a presence and remains in the race.

Ted Cruz: He does better on radio and best when you read what he says. Generally, Cruz does not easily adapt to a national debate audience but meanders into the arcane and esoteric, such as the nuances of Supreme Court nominations. Like others, Cruz spoke of repudiating the “Iran deal” on Day One of his presidency. Cruz, who is quite Intelligent and a legal scholar praised for his intellect even by liberal Harvard Law School professor Dershowitz, never explained adequately that if this is not a treaty, then it could end with President Obama’s tenure. Republicans should have criticized Obama for evading the constitutional requirement for two-thirds treaty ratification in the U.S. Senate. The well-funded Cruz campaign remains odd: a post-debate email fundraiser from Cruz complains of the hardships of campaigning — lack of personal and sleep time, and the harmful effects on his health of fast food.

Carly Fiorina: As I predicted, Trump would attack Fiorina’s tenure at Lucent and Hewlett-Packard. Her reaction to the question on Trump’s “persona” was perfectly calibrated. Trump erred: he needed to remind the audience that he called for Fiorina’s inclusion in the debate. There is a double standard applied toward women candidates, and she could smile and show more optimism. But her emotional and eloquent attack on Planned Parenthood showed passion and will draw some evangelicals, and her heartfelt discussion of how drugs took the life of her daughter humanized former CEO Fiorina When she said no need to talk with Putin, just show him power, she scored points, but others could have noted that Bibi Netanyahu is meeting with Putin. Fiorina then could have noted that Bibi, though prime minister of a tiny nation, is a risk-taking warrior, while Obama, president of the most powerful nation on earth, is a risk-averse community organizer.

Mike Huckabee: Huckabee was unable to break out. If the social conservatives were not split, Huckabee might have hit a home run on same sex marriage. Instead, he again seemed to demonstrate a narrow base. In fairness to Huckbee, he was only given three questions by CNN.

John Kasich: Others do not perceive Kasich as a threat, so no one challenged his naïve assertion about re-imposing (“snap-back”) sanctions on Iran. He did better in the first debate as the “normal” candidate. But how many times can you say you’re the son of a mailman? Perhaps as many times as Marco Rubio says he’s the son of a bartender. Kasich did not connect, for example, when he said, “If I were at home, I would turn off the debate.” Polls in primary states are more important than national polls, and Kasich is targeting New Hampshire, but voters there also watch debates. Kasich must be more than a “play it safe” candidate for the Republican establishment if Bush fails. Kasich needs to acquire contemporary populist issues. Kasich needs to reinvent himself before people tell him to reinvent himself.

Rand Paul: He started the campaign season as the most interesting candidate with novel ideas and outreach to new constituencies. On foreign policy, he had graduated from isolationist to deliberative. But he generally has been defensive and argumentative the last few months. He attacks Trump for being juvenile, but this soap opera, it if hurts Trump, helps others, not Rand Paul. In the debate he raised the issue of too many young people incarcerated for drug usage; other candidates did not agree with Paul on this important outreach issue, so Paul fell flat. He is unlikely to do well in either Iowa or New Hampshire. Before the next debate, will Rand Paul self-deport, along with Lindsay Graham, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki and Rick Santorum?

Marco Rubio: Next to Fiorina, Rubio had the best performance. He seemed positive and optimistic, substantive and detailed. Trump faulted senators for not voting for military intervention in Syria, and Rubio scored by explaining why he could not support the Obama-Kerry “pin-prick” strategy. Rubio came alive and seemed less scripted. He needs a Q&A to be at his best. Once seen as Jeb’s protégé, Rubio now seems the most logical generational contrast to Hillary.

Donald Trump: My 14-year-old son watching the debate asked: “Why does Trump look like he doesn’t give a crap?” But Trump’s body language in the last debate did not hurt him. Much of Trump’s support is solid, but this was the opportunity for him to solidify some fellow travelers and to raise his ceiling to gather new support. He needed to demonstrate even rudimentary knowledge of the major issues. Trump squandered the opportunity and showed no growth. He gets somuch coverage that everyone has hurt all his one-liners. He doesn’t need specifics, but he does need at least to give the impression of knowledge.

Scott Walker: Iowa can be more important than national polling numbers, because a win there could affect national polls and provide momentum for wins in other primary states. That was and perhaps is Scott Walker’s strategy. But his lackluster performance in two debates will erode his fundraising. He improved from the first debate, but possibly too little, too late. Walker’s people say CNN was biased and only gave him two questions. He still talks in sound bites (“big and bold”) rather than seizing the moment. He has that wide-eyed look and raised eyebrows, as if to say, “Why am I here?” He lacks intimacy and talks into space. Even if he somehow wins Iowa, it’s unlikely the momentum would give him New Hampshire.

Source Article from http://feeds.huffingtonpost.com/c/35496/f/677045/s/49f505a0/sc/7/l/0L0Shuffingtonpost0N0Carnold0Esteinberg0Cthe0Edebate0Eon0Erewind0Ib0I815660A20Bhtml/story01.htm

Donald Trump Responds To Question From A Birther By Demonstrating That He Is Still A Birther

Trump in 2011 notably called into question Obama’s citizenship and demanded that the president release his birth certificate to prove that he was born in the United States. Obama later did, yet Trump continued to dispute the facts, including the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate.

Other GOP presidential candidates have handled such questions very differently. In 2008, then-GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) calmly corrected a woman who went on an anti-Muslim rant at a town hall. When the women alleged that she could not trust Obama because he “is an Arab,” McCain stopped her.

“No, ma’am, he’s a decent family man [and] citizen who I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues. And that’s what this campaign is all about,” McCain said.

Later on Thursday, Trump’s campaign attempted to clarify his remarks, claiming that he was discussing “religious liberties” for Christians.

Source Article from http://feeds.huffingtonpost.com/c/35496/f/677045/s/49f3d49a/sc/21/l/0L0Shuffingtonpost0N0C20A150C0A90C170Cdonald0Etrump0Ebirther0In0I8156130A0Bhtml/story01.htm

Mika Wild About Carly: ‘My God, Never Seen Anyone Like Her. Ever’

SCARBOROUGH: Let me talk about an elephant in the room. Compare Carly Fiorina’s performance last night–no notes, no nothing–with Hillary Clinton stammering and stumbling through a basic attack on Donald Trump. There’s no comparison! 

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: That’s exactly what I was talking about. She was disciplined. She had a measured tone. She used, she always uses a vocal range that projects strength, warmth and confidence. Without being too this or too that, she is pitch perfect. And on top of it she knows her material, she has very strong opinions, she knows how to fight but never fights so hard it can be criticized as whatever–what words people would use when it goes too shrill. She actually was as you said pitch perfect, a star. Like a breakout star. 

. . . 

STEVE SCHMIDT: If you’re a smart Democrat, you’re watching the totality of this field, all of them, against the prospective Hillary Clinton campaign. 

MIKA: You don’t want Carly. You don’t want Carly.

SCHMIDT: And for sure, the performance of these candidates against the performance of their candidate has to be terrifying for a lot of Democrats. And of course we saw rumblings, this debate taking place in California, rumblings yesterday from Jerry Brown that he could get into the race and he would be a very formidable candidate for the nomination.  

MIKA: She’s terrifying to the Democrats. I can tell you right now, first of all, it counts out the historic nature of the Hillary Clinton presidence–right there. The one thing that people might be holding on to, it goes away. And on top of it, she’s terrifying. She’s really good. She’s really good.

. . . 

MIKE BARNICLE: I think because of her substance and her presentation, Carly Fiorina really cleared the field last night. Because of the length of the debate, I think all of the people up on that stage had a tendency to sort of fade into the background as the hours endured and went on. But off of Mark’s [Halperin] grading of Ben Carson, Joe. I agree with you about Ben Carson.  I think Carly Fiorina’s presentation last night put Ben Carson’s candidacy in the down escalator.  I would not be surprised —

MIKA: Yup.

BARNICLE: — to see him slide quite precipitously and Carly Fiorina take over that number two position. 

MIKA: Absolutely. 

JOE: That’s what I was thinking last night.

MIKA: I was talking about that measured tone, that discipline and vocal range, because these are the things that women struggle with. And actually they get counted out because actually these physical presentation issues. My God, I have never seen anyone like her. Ever. 

. . . 

BILL KRISTOL: I had a question for Mika. If I had been working for Carly Fiorina I would have thought she had done great and I think she’s been great for the last few months and is really in a position to be a finalist in this race. The one piece of advice I might give her is a little humor. You know, she’s pretty stern-looking and stern in demeanor. Maybe you have to do that, maybe frankly a woman has to do that a little more than a male candidate. Do you think she could have maybe made once in the debate sort of a little bit of a joke or no? 

MIKA: You know what, I actually have been studying this about women and how they communicate. 

KRISTOL Yeah, that’s why I’m asking you. 

MIKA: She’s like the perfect ‘know your value’ woman. She knows her value and she communicates it effectively. Respect first and then all the friendship and fun stuff later. She’s doing what she needs to do right now. She’s got humor.  I’ve talked to her.  She —

KRISTOL: I know that. That’s what I’m saying. That’s why asked you.  She can show that later. 

JOE: That’s literally what Mika says at every Know Your Value conference and every speech. 

MIKA: She’s getting it.

JOE: She said don’t worry about them liking you. Force them to respect you first and they’ll like you later. 

MIKA: And she’s done it.  I’ve never seen anything like it. 

Source Article from http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mark-finkelstein/2015/09/17/mika-wild-about-carly-my-god-never-seen-anyone-her-ever

ABC Hypes Hillary Clinton’s Impersonation of ‘Infamous’ Trump

7:08

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: The race for President now. Your voice, your vote. And that huge Texas rally for Donald Trump, thousands at an arena in Dallas last night, sparking a tense clash outside over Trump’s controversial immigration policy. All a warm-up for the next big debate tomorrow night. ABC’s Tom Llamas on the scene in Dallas. Good morning, Tom.  

TOM LLAMAS: Good morning to you. Just behind me, this is where the Mavericks play, 20,000 people and all the cheers last night were for Donald Trump last night of the tickets were sold out. Not every seat was filled. There were some empty pockets, but still a massive crowd and for the first time something we haven’t seen this cycle yet an anti-Trump movement showing its teeth after the event. 

WOMAN TO COP: What is your badge number, sir? 

LLAMAS: Overnight an ugly scene outside Donald Trump’s rally in Texas. 

MAN: Build that wall! You’re going to pay for it! 

LLAMAS: Trump supporters clashing with protesters. 

[Bleeped out profanities.] 

WOMAN: And all his voters here, they’re disrespecting us, calling us illegal. “Go back home.”  

LLAMAS: Mounted police moving in to disperse the crowd. 

DONALD TRUMP: Thank you, man. How are you? 

LLAMAS: The tension started earlier as Trump took the stage in front of a massive crowd inside. Outside, up to a thousand protesters to the Trump rally. But the Republican front-runner, unfazed. 

TRUMP: I have tremendous energy, tremendous to a point where it’s almost ridiculous. 

LLAMAS: His Dallas event, his first stop in a big city where Hispanics make up nearly half the population. Trump’s tough stance on immigration making him popular and infamous at the same time here. 

TRUMP: You have to build a wall. And a wall works. I want them to come in. I want to have a big beautiful door. But they have to be legal. 

LLAMAS: His words providing ammunition and even entertainment value to Hillary Clinton. 

HILLARY CLINTON: You know, I kind of wish I had that same sort of mentality like, “Oh, listen, I don’t need to tell you anything. When I get there, peace will be breaking out everywhere. Prosperity will be raining down upon you. We will have the new age!” 

LLAMAS: Not a bad impersonation. Maybe Secretary Clinton has been working on that. I got a chance to speak with Donald Trump yesterday, briefly, as he was shaking hands. I asked, are you preparing? He said, “this is preparing.” George. 

Source Article from http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2015/09/15/abc-hypes-hillary-clintons-impersonation-infamous-trump