MEGYN KELLY AND ROGER AILES, THE GOP'S ABUSIVE PARENTS

With regard to Donald Trump's performance at last night's Fox News debate, Frank Bruni is wrong as usual:

... Donald Trump had to listen obediently, even meekly, as Megyn Kelly -- the one woman on Fox News’s panel of three debate moderators -- recited a squirm-inducing litany of his misogynistic remarks through time....

... the questions that the moderators asked weren’t just discomfiting, humiliating ones. They were the right ones, starting with a brilliant opener: Was there any candidate who was unwilling to pledge support to the eventual Republican nominee and swear off a third-party run?

Trump alone wouldn’t make those promises, even though the moderator who asked that question, Bret Baier, pointed out that such a third-party run would likely hand the presidency to the Democratic nominee.

And thus, in the first minute of the debate, Trump was undressed and unmasked, and he stood there as the unprincipled, naked egomaniac that he is. He never quite recovered.

... I do think that Trump lost: He said nothing, not one syllable, that infused his candidacy with any of the gravitas that it sorely needs, and there was something pouty and petulant about his whole performance.

Well, of course Trump said nothing that showed gravitas. Of course he was pouty and petulant. Pouty and petulant is precisely what's been working for Trump for weeks, as has lack of gravitas.

And apparently it's still working:

Crammed into a hotel ballroom to watch the first GOP presidential debate, hundreds of the most conservative activists in the country cheered Thursday when Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas talked Middle East policy, predictably. They booed when former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush talked education policy, also predictably.

But with Donald Trump, nothing is predictable, and it's there that the "Red State Gathering" crowd offered up a surprise: When Trump defended his reversal on abortion, his donations to Democrats like Hillary Clinton, even his refusal to rule out a third-party run should he not win the Republican nomination, the crowd responded with among the biggest cheers of the night.

If the Red State crowd is any indication, the Summer of Trump is not even close to over.

"He says a lot of politically incorrect things that a lot of people are thinking," said Randy Daniel, a dentist from the Atlanta suburb of Stockbridge.

Indeed, when Trump actually cited "political correctness" as he defended his public insults of women over the years, the 600 in attendance went wild, just as they did when he hit back at Fox News moderator Chris Wallace for his question on Trump's bankruptcies.

Also, see "Fox News & Megyn Kelly Get Blasted By Conservatives After A Horrible Debate Performance," from John Hawkins at Right Wing News, where you can see social media messages like this:

the training of Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace for the GOP debate was brought to you by Candy Crowley AND by the letter "B" for BIAS

— Christine (@BUcrimlaw) August 7, 2015

(The right still blames Mitt Romney's defeat in part on Candy Crowley's moderation of the second Obama-Romney debate, in which Obama insisted that he'd spoken of the Benghazi attack as terrorism shortly after it occurred, and Crowley agreed.)

Also this:



Judson Phillips, of course, was the founder of Tea Party Nation in 2009.

And from Twitter, also see this guy:

Trump winning Fox GOP debate. Slammed dunked Megan Kelly, Chris Wallace @realDonaldTrump @MichaelCohen212

— Jerome Corsi (@jerome_corsi) August 7, 2015

And this guy:

Biggest Debate Loser=> FOX News… Twitter Rips FOX and Megyn Kelly https://t.co/KHv6W1AlZT via @gatewaypundit

— Jim Hoft (@gatewaypundit) August 7, 2015

And please see the online "who won the debate?" poll linked at the Drudge Report -- Trump is first as I type with 50.49%. His nearest challenger is Ted Cruz with 12.62%.

Am I saying that Trump did well last night? Not by objective standards. But I'm saying that he brought the "No, fuck you" edge that's most of what his fans want. They want him to have basic command of right-wing talking points and to express them passionately, they want him to hate Mexicans and Obamacare and the Iran deal passionately, they want him to say that the country is a mess and that it's all the fault of both Democrats and the Republican Establishment. He did that. He's fine.

****

But what was up with all those needling questions to the debaters last night? Bruni's account is fairly accurate -- the debate moderators

took each of the 10 Republicans onstage to task. They held each of them to account. They made each address the most prominent blemishes on his record, the most profound apprehensions that voters feel about him, the greatest vulnerability that he has.

But why? Isn't Fox the GOP propaganda channel? Wasn't Fox's mission to make all these Republicans look good?

But every so often -- an Mitt Romney interview here, a Dick Cheney interview there -- Fox's people do ask tough questions. One purpose of this is so that Ailes can flip the bird to his haters: You think "fair and balanced" is a big joke? Watch this!

But beyond that, you have to remember that Roger Ailes was an abused child, as Gabriel Sherman reminded us in his 2014 Ailes biography:

Sherman’s story begins with Ailes’s childhood in rural Ohio where, it will surprise approximately no one, he was burdened with poor health and a sadistic father. “The cruelest lesson Roger would speak of occurred in the bedroom Roger shared with his brother,” Sherman writes. “Roger was standing on the top bunk. His father opened his arms wide and smiled. ‘Jump, Roger, jump,’ he told him. Roger leapt off the bed into the air toward his arms. But Robert took a step back. His son fell flat onto the floor. As he looked up, [Ailes Sr.] leaned down and picked him up. ‘Don’t ever trust anybody,’ he said.” This bizarre form of sadism was coupled with more traditional varieties -- “If they ignored him, he pulled out his belt, whipping them not until they began to cry, although they did wail, but until they fell silent” -- and a mother who was alternately controlling and cold. “Roger remembered her hugging him only ‘once in a while,’” Sherman reports. “He speculated to a reporter that perhaps she was scared of his hemophilia.”

What Ailes was doing last night was what he has his interviewers do to occasional Fox guests: treat them the way his father treated him, with what I imagine he recalls as "tough love." Smack 'em around! Toughen 'em up! If they can't handle this, they're never going to be able to take on Hitlery!

It's good television -- but it's also meant to identify the ones whose toughness Ailes can vicariously live through in the future. Those are the ones who can supposedly smite the Democrats and liberalism. For Ailes right now, Trump is still one of the top tough guys. He took punches and hit back. That's all that matters to Ailes -- and it's also sufficient for the Trumpistas.

FOX NEWS, READY TO RUMBLE

I don't know if I'll be able to write a debate postmortem tonight, but after a half hour I see how the debate format satisfies both the Roger Ailes wish to aggrandize Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch's desire to find a presentable, electable GOP nominee: the format is jacked up, the crowd is jacked up, the questions are barbed, and the point is to make the entire field seem as sharp-elbowed and exciting as Trump. Trump is being Trump; the other nine candidates are answering in traditional political ways that won't sound terrifying to swing voters in future soundbites (unless they actually listen to the content) -- but they're all being buttressed by lots and lots of crowd noise. Not only is Ailes not putting Trump in a corner, he's trying to turn everyone else into Trump.

Will it work? Can't tell, but it's clever.

JEB "CONFRONTS" TRUMP IN THE MOST COWARDLY, INSIDER-Y WAY POSSIBLE

The lede of this Politico story is getting a lot of attention, but I think everyone's missing the point:

Jeb Bush, the man who would be frontrunner, was as surprised as anybody when Donald Trump jumped into the 2016 presidential race in June. His instinctive first reaction was to hold his tongue....

Like everyone else, Bush soon found Trump impossible to ignore....

“Seriously, what’s this guy’s problem?” he asked one party donor he ran into recently, according to accounts provided by several sources close to Bush -- and he went on to describe the publicity-seeking real estate developer now surging in public polls far ahead of Bush and all the 15 others in the Republican field as “a buffoon,” “clown” and “asshole.”

Seriously, Jeb? That's how you take Trump on?

You could have said something angry and forceful in public, but no -- you leaked your attack, or "several sources close to" you leaked it ... to Politico, the most insider-y of publications. And there's no public record of you saying this, so you were covered if the quote had somehow made you look bad. You could have just denied you said it.

Look, I assume this was a leak timed to get Trump to attack Jeb in tonight's debate, in the misguided belief that Trump hurts himself, and helps his target, when he goes on the attack. But still: this was cowardice. If Jeb wanted to go after Trump, he should have said something publicly. He didn't have the guts.

*****

UPDATE, 10:30 P.M.: In the debate, Jeb just denied the quote. Sneaky and spineless.

HOWARD "BOTH SIDES DO IT" SCHULTZ? NO, THANKS.

Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks, has written a New York Times op-ed in which he specifically denies that he plans to run for president as a Democrat -- which, of course, leads to speculation that that's precisely what he's planning.

Schultz tells us:

Despite the encouragement of others, I have no intention of entering the presidential fray. I’m not done serving at Starbucks. Although we have built an iconic brand while providing even part-time employees with access to health care, free college education and stock options, there is more we can do as a public company to demonstrate responsible leadership.

Which inspires The Atlantic's David Graham to write:

But Schultz’s denial is hardly Shermanesque.... His description of the sort of leader he believes America needs sounds a lot like, well, Howard Schultz.

Now, why are we speculating this way about Schultz? Graham again:

... his name is already being floated for president. The first major mention came, weirdly enough, in the New York Times column in which Maureen Dowd broke the news that Joe Biden was still considering a presidential run. “Potent friends of America’s lord of latte, Howard Schultz, have been pressing him to join the Democratic primary, thinking the time is right for someone who’s not a political lifer. For the passionate 62-year-old -- watching the circus from Seattle -- it may be a tempting proposition,” she wrote, but the morsel was somewhat overlooked beside the Biden tidings.

So what does Schultz think we need in a president? He tells us that what we need is a "servant leader." The phrase, which is not original to Schultz, refers to a leader who puts the needs of others above his or her own -- but in Schultz telling it somehow becomes shorthand for lamentations about how "Both sides do it":

... nothing I’ve read or heard in the past few years has rivaled the power of the image I viewed on my cellphone a few years ago: Pope Francis, shortly after his election, kneeling and washing the feet of a dozen prisoners in Rome, one of them a young Muslim woman, in a pre-Easter ritual.

In recent weeks, I have taken to recalling that humble, inspiring act of servant leadership as I observe the antithesis: a field of presidential aspirants unable to rise above petty politics. I know candidates want to play to the party faithful during the primary season, but the challenges facing us today are too dire for another status-quo election.... Our nation has been profoundly damaged by a lack of civility and courage in Washington, where leaders of both parties have abdicated their responsibility to forge reasonable compromises to expand the economy, rebuild our infrastructure, improve schools, transform entitlement programs and so much more....

Our country is in desperate need of servant leaders, of men and women willing to kneel and embrace those who are not like them. Everyone seeking the presidency professes great love for our nation. But I ask myself, how can you be a genuine public servant if you belittle your fellow citizens and freeze out people who hold differing views?

I don't know what country Howard Schultz was living in for, oh, the past several decades, but in my America, the Democratic Party was the party that (despite some resistance) allowed Ronald Reagan to get the tax cuts he wanted, then a decade later cooperated with Newt Gingrich and company on welfare reform and budgeting, then a decade later allowed George W. Bush to get the tax cuts and wars he wanted, then approached the Obama presidency in a spirit of "Let's work with Republicans on the Obama agenda" -- only to get kicked in the teeth by the GOP at every turn. But to Schultz, both parties are equally to blame. This is the guy Democrats should prefer to Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, or even Joe Biden?

Now, I'm sure Schultz is well-meaning; I'm sure he's not using the concept of servant leadership as biblical bunkum to gull the rubes, like so many conservatives. This is actually a favorite idea of the right, or at least a favorite Christian-y meme. Sarah Palin regularly says, dishonestly, that she might run for president again because she has "a servant's heart," and her fans regularly describe her as a servant leader. Here, at a CNN blog, a religious writer tells us that Walmart "has used Christian servant leadership models in building the world's largest retailer." Oh, and here's Brad Nagel, a corporate COO and former Navy SEAL, giving a lecture in 2012 at the University of Iowa's business school in which, among other topics, "Servant leadership was covered." I bring this up because a couple of days ago we learned that Nagel -- a Donald Trump campaign staffer -- had posted racist messages on social media:



I don't think Schultz is thinking like those clowns. However, if he defines servant leadership as trying to compromise with political opponents, the answer is: We've been there. We've done that. It wasn't allowed.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET TO TRUMP TONIGHT

Look, Donald Trump might be boring tonight at the debate -- I doubt it, because Roger Ailes has probably ordered his moderators to make sure Trump gives Fox some really good television -- but I seriously doubt that anyone's going to trip him up.

Here's why. As a Bloomberg story points out, Trump can be tripped up, but you have to do it right:

Watch this famous David Letterman clip, when the talk show host slyly lures his prey to take the bait and then pounces.



Busted on his own rhetoric, Trump doesn’t know how to respond: He’s, for once, speechless.

Do you see what happens here? Letterman doesn't give the game away. He seems to be doing a calm, polite interview about various subjects, including Trump's line of neckties and Trump's discussions with then-GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. But after Trump starts railing at China, Letterman --yes -- quietly pounces on the fact that Trump's ties are made in China. And Trump just shrugs.

Why doesn't Trump have a nasty comeback? Because Letterman doesn't betray hostility until he nails Trump. He doesn't give Trump a chance to get his testosterone flowing.

I live in New York. I know precisely what skill Trump has honed: When you encounter a direct challenge, you respond with even more aggression than was directed at you, and you accompany that with trash talk. Chances are your antagonist is concerned about maintaining a certain level of decorum. If you don't give a crap about decorum, but you actually seem to have your wits about you as you fire back (that's the trash talk -- this wouldn't work if you threw a punch), then chances are you'll back your opponent down, having shocked him by upping the aggression ante.

That's what Trump does. It works. And he gets to keep doing it because people who attack him generally don't creep up on him and then pounce, the way Letterman does in that clip.

Tonight, the candidates aren't going to try to go after Trump in that Letterman way -- they're afraid of Trump and won't attack him at all. The Fox moderators might go after him, but if so, they're going to go after him head-on. They want Classic Trump. They want an angry, nasty reply. (By "they," of course, I mean "Roger Ailes.")

Maybe they'll try to trip him up by asking a question that should be answered with a presidential level of attention to detail. But that won't work -- Trump will just veer off into chest-thumping generalities and never answer the question. He'll be unfazed.

In any case, no one's likely to get to him. His opponents are afraid to try, and Fox wants to keep The Trump Show on the air. And Trump knows that anyone who might want to try to take him will try to take him down directly, not stealthily, like Letterman. Trump is always ready for a direct attack.

BILL CLINTON CHATS WITH DONALD TRUMP: WILL THAT LEAVE A MARK? (MAYBE.)

If you're Donald Trump, you can get away with a lot of things and retain the support of a large segment of the Republican voter base -- insulting Mexicans, criticizing the war record of a Republican senator who spent five and a half years being tortured in a North Vietnamese prison camp, hiring aides who post racist material on social media or claim forcible marital sex isn't rape -- but you may not be able to survive reports that you recently consorted with the enemy (or maybe you can):

Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.

Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape.

Clinton’s personal office in New York confirmed that the call occurred in late May, but an aide to Clinton said the 2016 race was never specifically discussed and that it was only a casual chat.

The story is in The Washington Post, and the lead author is Robert Costa, who used to write for National Review and whose sources include many prominent Republicans. I assume the party has been saving this up for the eve of the first debate and fed it to Costa.

But will Republican voters get the intended message -- that Trump is a traitor deployed by the evil Clintons to divide the GOP and guarantee Hillary's election? The fact that four "Trump allies" confirmed the story tells me that either Trump isn't worried about that possibility or his "allies" are very, very stupid.

He'll be asked about this -- probably before the debate, not during it. But he's shown a gift for brushing off these apparent threats to his campaign. I think he's going to say something like this: Did I speak to him? Of course I did. He used to be president of the United States. Plus, he's a very bright guy, and a very politically astute guy -- unlike his wife, who's not very bright. I didn't speak to her. Why would I bother? What could she possibly have to say that would be of any use to me?

I think a response like that would mollify his fans -- though some damage still might be done by the report.

Or maybe not. On Twitter, Maggie Haberman of The New York Times has said that the call was recorded. I wonder if we'll hear it. If so, we may hear that it really was a nothingburger, and then the Trumpites will regard this moment as yet another unsuccessful attempt by the Democrats/mainstream media/GOP Establishment to destroy Trump. Thus, a friendly chat with Bill Clinton could help Trump win Republican votes. Really.

SIMPLE ANSWERS TO STUPID QUESTIONS

A Daily Caller article titled "27 Questions for the First GOP Presidential Debate" is the lead link at Fox Nation right now. The 27 questions include two for each of the ten candidates who'll appear in the debate. I'm going to put those aside and concentrate on the other seven questions, which are intended for the entire field, because they're not very good questions, and they're not very difficult to answer.

* Name a figure outside of politics who you would consider nominating to your Cabinet. What would you nominate them for and why?

Correct answer: a right-wing minister (maybe Franklin Graham), a conservative CEO (Scott Walker suck-up watch: would he name one of the Koch brothers?), or a college football coach. Alternately, turn to Ben Carson (or wave to Carly Fiorina off-screen) and offer a Cabinet job. (Ted Cruz suck-up watch: Would he offer a Cabinet job to Trump?) I should note, however, that this question may be in there only because of the hope that Trump would say "Oprah Winfrey" and sink his campaign.

* President Barack Obama is often criticized for playing too much golf. What is appropriate amount of leisure time for an American president?

This question is not meant to be answered. This question is meant to be a jumping-off point for a riff on how unspeakably awful Obama is. Do not fall into the trap of actually trying to respond.

* Who is the smartest liberal writer you read?

If you seriously name anyone, you lose. The correct answer is to snort derisively and suggest that "smart liberal writer" is a contradiction in terms. The one and only possible alternative: Answer "Karl Marx," and say, "Because he warned us what would happen if the liberal policies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were put into effect."

* Libertarian tech billionaire Peter Thiel says he always asks potential hires, “What is one thing you believe to be true that most do not?” How would you respond?

Freedom. Just say you believe in freedom, and too many people don't. You're home free. If somebody beats you to that, mention your Christian faith, and say it's become politically incorrect in America today. Not many other choices here. (This may also be intended as a trap for Trump, who might get caught up in a long, rambling monologue about Omarosa or Gary Busey on The Apprentice and completely forget where he is.)

* What policy does another country get right that we would be well served to adopt in our country?

I don't know what the policy is, but the only country you can safely invoke in this answer is Israel. Make some word salad out of "Neville Chamberlain," "never again," and "Islamic extremism" and you're safe.

* Do you believe President Obama is a bad person, or just politically misguided?

Yes and yes. If your answer can't be summarized as "both," you lose.

* What three books most influenced your political worldview?

Now that Paul Ryan has concluded that invoking the work of Ayn Rand is politically risky, you should know enough to leave her out. Hayek's Road to Serfdom is still an acceptable (and possibly mandatory) answer. Definitely mandatory: the Bible. The third one is a free pick, but you get bonus points if it's by Churchill. (Trump, however, will name three of his own books, and get away with it.)

See how easy being a Republican presidential candidate is?

HOW LITTLE WOULD DONALD TRUMP HAVE TO DO TO BE DEEMED SERIOUS BY THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA?

Like a lot of other people, I've been assuming that Donald Trump will eventually fade or implode, or hit the upper limit of his appeal, at which point Jeb Bush will win the Republican presidential nomination; after that, I assume, Jeb will be the media's choice -- he'll be portrayed as the moderate, genial alternative to that hateful harridan Hillary Clinton.

But I just came across this Politico Magazine piece from a couple of days ago:

... The ease with which Trump has stepped into the passion vacuum in the Republican race points up a bigger problem for Jeb: The only excitement generated by his Bush candidacy so far seems manufactured, much like the exclamation point at the end of his Jeb! logo.

... Recall the infamous moment when Dukakis, the 1988 Democratic nominee, was asked by CNN’s Bernard Shaw at a debate whether he would support the death penalty if his wife, Kitty, were raped and murdered. Dukakis’ passionless reply -- “No, I don't, Bernard, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life” -- solidified his reputation as an out-of-touch wonk.

Bush may be in the process of generating a similar image on the campaign trail....

I've been expecting the press to demonstrate a craving for a Republican Daddy in this election cycle. I assumed journalists were going to content themselves with the shambolic, doughy Daddy Jeb seems to have become. But ... they're calling him Dukakis! Maybe it's not going to work out for Jeb.

Which is not to say that the press is coming around to Donald Trump and his "passion" -- at least not yet. But I wonder if it could happen.

Shortly before I read this Politico piece, I saw that Hunter at Daily Kos was quoting a harrumphy mid-June critique of Trump from Chuck Todd. Here's the discussion, from an episode of Morning Joe:

CHUCK TODD: This is the problem with Trump. He doesn't play by a set of rules. And this is why campaigns complain to folks like me off the record but they don't have the guts to criticize him on the record because they know he's kind of a media bully. You know what I mean? He doesn't -- he plays by his own set of rules. He'll say whatever. He'll go on any platform to say it. And that's why I say, look, we've all --

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Is that a media bully or someone who, you know, doesn't --

TODD: We all have a responsibility here I think to say, you know, has he earned his way on this stage? I mean, again, we're four years removed from the ridiculous spectacle of birtherism.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Chuck Todd. Ben Carson is at the top of the polls. I don't hear you, like, you know --- wearing sack cloth and ashes about Ben Carson.

TODD: The guy is legitimately trying to run for president. I think he's got -- putting out an actual agenda, doing policy speeches. Look, if this is what Trump does and he spends the next three months going after --

SCARBOROUGH: Wait. Wait. Ben Carson keeps comparing America to Nazi Germany, Chuck.

TODD: And I think it's something that --

SCARBOROUGH: I think your outrage is a bit focused on Donald Trump.

TODD: Well, look, I don't want to see the Republican primary race or any presidential race turn into a three-ring circus and us, you know, sitting there going isn't this great? And look at the shiny metal objects. It's not fair to what is the strongest Republican party presidential field in 36 years.

Pause a moment to be disgusted at Todd's cheerleading for "the strongest Republican party presidential field in 36 years," then notice what he says about Trump -- yes, Trump disgusts him, but it would take very little for Trump to pass the Todd test. Joe Scarborough -- and I hate acknowledging that Scarborough is the voice of reason here -- asks Todd why he's not similarly disgusted by Ben Carson, and Todd says that Carson is a legitimate candidate, "putting out an actual agenda, doing policy speeches." All Trump has to do is be as serious as Carson and, as far as Todd is concerned, all will be forgiven!

I've been to Ben Carson's campaign site. I've looked at "Ben on the Issues." Here's Carson's entire tax proposal, as presented on his site:

The American People Deserve a Better Tax Code

The current tax code now exceeds 74,000 pages in length. That is an abomination.

It is too long, too complex, too burdensome, and too riddled with tax shelters and loopholes that benefit only a few at the direct expense of the many.

We need wholesale tax reform.

And, we won’t get that from career politicians in Washington. They’re too deeply vested in the current system to deliver the kind of bold, fresh, new reforms that the American people are demanding.

We need a fairer, simpler, and more equitable tax system. Our tax form should be able to be completed in less than 15 minutes. This will enable us to end the IRS as we know it.

Wow -- "We need a fairer, simpler, and more equitable tax system"! That's ... profound and well thought out! I can see why Chuck Todd is impressed!

Now, let's go Carson on Russia:

Russia and Lessons Learned

Vladimir Putin’s Russia has become dangerously belligerent. It is actively destabilizing Ukraine, endangering Europe in the process and continuing to fuel destabilization in the Middle East. This newfound aggressiveness is a rising threat to the peace and security of the American people.

The United States must be resolute in the face of these Russian transgressions. We must lead our allies, both NATO and non-NATO alike, from a position of strength.

History has painfully taught us that letting dictators run amok and hoping for the best fails.

President Putin must come to learn that there will be grave and serious consequences when Russia engages in naked aggression against other sovereign nations and free peoples. All options should remain on the table when dealing with international bullies such as President Putin.

"Grave and serious consequences when Russia engages in naked aggression"! Thoughtful! Complex! Yes, Chuck, Carson is really a serious political thinker!

See my point? All Trump has to do is fake seriousness by somberly uttering platitudinous nonsense of this sort, and Beltway journalists will instantly start cranking out "Taking Trump Seriously" think pieces and asking aloud, "Have we been underestimating Trump the way we underestimated Ronald Reagan?"

Of course, Trump is highly unlikely to do anything like this -- really, what's the point when he's leading in the polls without making an effort?

Eventually, I suppose, the MSM (and GOP Establishment) might bail on Jeb Dukakis in favor of a Daddy who combines a patina of seriousness with, as the Politico story puts it, "passion." Maybe (now that Chris Christie has clearly passed his sell-by date) it'll be John Kasich -- hey, he did go from nowhere to qualifying for the Fox debate, and he does have both a long political career and, we're told, an anger management problem. Perhaps if he pops off a few times on the trail he'll be called "the serious Trump," and it'll be a compliment.

(Chuck Todd link via Bob Schooley.)

FOX'S STARNES: EXEMPT RACIST STUDENT FROM PUNISHMENT, THE WAY JESUS WOULD!

If you're suspicious when you see the word "criticizing" in the headline to this story by Todd Starnes of Fox News, you're entirely justified:

TCU student punished for criticizing Islam, Baltimore riots

Starnes is coming to the defense of someone who did a bit more than criticize:

All it took was 140 characters for Texas Christian University to suspend a conservative student who posted a series of social networking posts that insulted the Islamic State, the Baltimore rioters and Mexicans.

TCU banned Harry Vincent from most campus activities, ordered him to perform 60 hours of community service and attend a diversity training class....

On April 29 TCU sent Harry a letter accusing him of violating the university’s code of student conduct -- specifically he was accused of “infliction of bodily or emotional arm” and “disorderly conduct.”

The charges stemmed from a half dozen tweets he had posted online referencing radical Islam along with a Facebook message about the Baltimore riots.

“These hoodrat criminals in Baltimore need to be shipped off and exiled to the sahara desert,” he wrote. “Maybe then they’ll realize how much we provide for them (welfare, college tuition, Obama phone’s, medicare, etc.”

In regards to Islam he wrote, “This is clearly not a religion of peace.”

He also used the word “beaner” a derogatory term to describe Mexicans.

Specifically:

Responding to someone who complained about his comments, he responded: “When I said you would be reincarnated as a beaner I was being generous”

Also:

Planning a school getaway, he noted: “Almost as tan as a terrorist. Going to be thoroughly disappointed if I’m not racially profiled on my trip to the gulf shores”

And:

(See captures of the original messages here.)

As a Dallas Morning News story notes, TCU is a private university, and has every right to impose disciplinary standards as it sees fit:

Robert O’Neil, former president of the University of Virginia and the University of Wisconsin system, said public institutions have to tread carefully not to violate students’ First Amendment rights. However, private, religiously affiliated colleges have almost no constraints -- other than public, student or alumni backlash -- on their ability to punish students for speech.

A private university is “free to -- as least as far as the law is concerned -- to do whatever it wants, to expel a student for whatever reason,” O’Neil said. “It’s unlikely that a court would intervene.”

... Part of the debate over Vincent’s social media comments resulted from a clash between two portions of the student handbook. One supports the rights of free speech and another says discrimination and harassment are incompatible with TCU’s mission.

Yes, but if you look at the TCU student handbook, you see that the right of free speech comes with an asterisk:

Because the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly are fundamental to the democratic process, TCU firmly supports the rights of all members of the University community to express their views or to protest against actions and opinions with which they disagree. At the same time, all members of the University community share the responsibility to maintain a campus atmosphere consistent with the University’s mission to preserve the dignity and seriousness of University ceremonies and public exercises and to respect the rights of all individuals.

(And if any students have a problem with a private university having such a free-speech policy, I recommend that they try applying for a job at a corporation.)

Meanwhile, the school prohibits

harassment on the basis of age, race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, gender expression, national origin, ethnic origin, disability, genetic information, covered veteran status, and any other basis protected by law.

And the policy is extended to online communications:

Behavior inconsistent with the University’s mission, community standards, or Code of Student Conduct will not be exempted from disciplinary action simply because it occurred or originated in an online forum.

I would have thought that a conservative like Todd Starnes would deeply the imposition of one-size-fits-all rules from the government on private educational institutions, but I guess not.

Starnes does recognize that TCU has the right to its own disciplinary code, but he says Vincent shouldn't have been punished, because Jesus.

TCU is a private school and as such they are not bound by the First Amendment. However, as a Christian school they ought to be bound by the Good Book.

Starnes neglects to quote whichever Bible passage he's thinking of that says a good Christian should just shrug off the words of a hatemonger.

Starnes twice refers to those on social media who brought Vincent's slurs to TCU's attention as a "lynch mob." (If you hadn't noticed, every Republican outrage-du-jour is required by law to be compared either to Nazism or to the brutal treatment of pre-Civil Rights Era blacks.) Starnes adds:

The irony is that Harry received a stiffer punishment than a lot of the street thugs who terrorized Baltimore.

Let me remind you again of what that punishment was, in Starnes's own words:

TCU banned Harry Vincent from most campus activities, ordered him to perform 60 hours of community service and attend a diversity training class.

Get back to me, Todd when a guy like Vincent is taken for a rough ride.

OF COURSE ALINSKY-OBSESSED RIGHT-WINGERS ARE TARGETING PLANNED PARENTHOOD

The New Republic's Brian Beutler sees misdirection in the right's decision to target Planned Parenthood:

The emotional power of the Planned Parenthood videos lies in the images they evoke, but their political power stems from broad, intense conservative opposition to abortion generally -- not to fetal tissue research per se. If these conservatives were foremost concerned with the ethics of fetal tissue donation, they could propose banning it outright, or at least tissue obtained from legal abortions. Instead, they are proposing to eliminate Planned Parenthood’s federal funding. This non sequitur gives away the plot, and all of the cross-ideological sympathy they might have had at the outset.

If the videos genuinely exposed a criminal organ harvesting operation, eliminating its federal funding would be an on-point response. In reality, the effort to defund Planned Parenthood is completely unresponsive to the full content of the videos.... The most plausible rationale for this is that conservatives, who have a permanent axe to grind with Planned Parenthood, are using deception to threaten its viability, and make it more difficult for women to obtain abortions as a consequence.

Well, they always want to make abortions more difficult to obtain -- but why the obsession with Planned Parenthood? I'd say a lot of it is right-wingers trying to follow the tenet of one of their favorite political philosophers, Saul Alinsky, particularly Rule for Radicals #13:

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

As an explanation of that rule, Alinsky does go on to say, "Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions." Planned Parenthood is an institution. But if you turn to the book Rules for Radicals, you'll see he says this in reference to government and corporate bureaucracies, which can be hard to figure out, and which are complex enough to facilitate buck-passing:

In these times of urbanization, complex metropolitan governments, the complexities of major interlocked corporations, and the interlocking of political life between counties and metropolitan authorities, the problem that threatens to loom more and more is that of identifying the enemy....

If an organization permits responsibility to be diffused and distributed in a number of areas, attack becomes impossible.

That's not a problem with Planned Parenthood, any more than it was with ACORN. These groups aren't like government, in which one agency will blame another, or a corporation, in which top officers can shift blame downward to mid-level staffers. All of Planned Parenthood will defend itself if attacked. So it acts more like a person -- and thus it's an ideal target for right-wing Alinskying.

Alinsky goes on to write:

Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all of the "others" come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...

One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.

The "others" in this case are Democrats, particularly Hillary Clinton and vulnerable Democratic members of Congress up for reelection in 2016, not to mention Democratic governors and state legislators. So, obviously, this is an attack on abortion, and an attack on federal funding of Planned Parenthood by folks who think government should do nothing but conduct wars and police brown people -- but it's also an Alinskyite personalization of abortion, with the next election in mind, and Clinton and other Democrats as additional targets.

I think Beutler is right to say that right-wing activists are overplaying their hand -- in the fall, Republican zealots really might shut down the government over this. The public doesn't agree with them about Planned Parenthood. See this table from the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll -- note the top line:



On the other hand, Republicans weren't punished for their 2013 government shutdown in 2014, because American voters have amnesia about this sort of thing. Voters forgot largely because the mainstream media encouraged them to forget -- the narrative by the fall of 2014 was that Republicans had tamed their crazies.

That, of course, will probably be the narrative in fall 2016 as well: Jeb Bush seems so responsible! What 2015 government shutdown? What Donald Trump campaign? I don't remember those things!

One more point: The only presidential election since 1988 in which Republicans have won the popular vote was in 2004, when they pursued a strategy of turning out the base, particularly religious conservatives, rather than working to win over swing voters. That's clearly a big part of what this attack on Planned Parenthood is all about.

REPUBLICANS HAD A HUGE BENCH -- THEN ALONG CAME TRUMP

There are seventeen Republicans running for president, but because Donald Trump is in the race, only three of them -- Trump himself, Jeb Bush, and Scott Walker -- are in double digits in the latest Monmouth University poll. The latest Fox poll has only two candidates in double digits:

JUST IN: Final Fox News Poll before this week's debate shows Trump & Bush only candidates in double digits. Thoughts? pic.twitter.com/vkeH79RcA2

— Shepard Smith (@ShepNewsTeam) August 3, 2015

The newest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll has four, Trump, Walker, Bush, and (barely in double digits at 10%) Ben Carson. Everyone else is an also-ran.

Today The New York Times told us that Jeb Bush's people see Donald Trump's campaign in a positive light: They assume he'll fade eventually, and meanwhile he's preventing other candidates from getting traction.

... for the moment he is depriving many of the other 16 Republican candidates of the political oxygen they need to win attention from grass-roots supporters in early nominating states and commitments from fence-riding donors.

That mainly helps Mr. Bush, who can quietly continue to build his daunting advantages in money and organization while his would-be challengers struggle to break through.

I bring all this up because a few months ago we were hearing that the Democrats were struggling with a weak bench. Whether it was because Hillary Clinton had frightened off potential challengers or because the 2010 and 2014 midterms had ended the careers of rising Democratic stars, the Democrats seemed to be in trouble. They might eke out a 2016 presidential victory thanks to their one superstar, but the future looked grim. Where were the prospects for the future?

Well, the GOP has a hell of a lot of prospects -- but they're all (or nearly all) getting crushed by Trump.

I actually think the GOP appears to have a deep bench because the right-wing hype machine is well oiled and efficient, and the mainstream media takes that hype machine's claims of stardom-in-the-making very, very seriously. Think of Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio. They're all callow neophytes with no real accomplishments. Yet they were all being declared superstars by the GOP's Mighty Wurlitzer before they'd hung the artwork in their Senate offices, and the MSM believed the BS.

But now they're all screwed -- Trump has stolen their thunder. Next time they try to run for president, they'll be the miserable failures who fell woefully short of expectations back in 2016.

Yes, the GOP had a bench. But it's been Trumped.

CRUZ STEALS INFANTILE STUNT FROM TEXAS SECESSIONIST CHRISTIAN GUN NUT

While the mainstream media is trying to persuade you that, apart from that awful Donald Trump, the field of Republican presidential candidates consists solely of mature, thoughtful citizens who are eminently qualified to be leaders of the Free World, Ted Cruz worked with the right-wing site IJReview to produce a video in which he cooks bacon by wrapping it around the barrel of a machine gun:



Cruz didn't originate this stunt -- I was hoping to be the first to tell you that, but Talking Points Memo beat me to the punch. However, TPM doesn't tell you much about Cruz's (unacknowledged) source:

Although Cruz and IJR didn't mention it, they seem to be borrowing the concept from YouTube user Dustin Ellermann, who uploaded his own gun grill to the Internet in March. Ellermann's video, in which he whispered "so much America right now" while wrapping bacon around a silencer, has been watched more than 920,000 times.

Watch the original video below:

Ellermann is not a mere "YouTube user." He was the winning shooter on Season 3 of the History Channel's Top Shot. He also runs a Christian camp:

Before he was the “Top Shot” champion, he was (and remains) the director of Camp His Way a summer Christian kids camp and year round retreat facility. He and his wife are also foster parents and have 3 children of their own....

“Shooting is fun to me and I thank the Lord for the opportunity to be on “Top Shot” and to now be able to share my passion for shooting through clinics, range days and other appearances. Putting God and family first, I look forward to seeing where this journey leads.” ~ Dustin

At the camp, marksmanship is one of the ways kids glorify God:

Youth Marksmanship Camp pic.twitter.com/cSzeDW3dNw

— Dustin Ellermann (@TopShotDustin) March 4, 2014

To support the camp he sells a lot of gear that links God and shooting:

#prayhardshootstraight and #2A custom engraved @Hexmags available at http://t.co/Mbr9UrgOMG all funds benefit camp! pic.twitter.com/HxYmCzuOR2

— Dustin Ellermann (@TopShotDustin) February 25, 2015

On social media, he posts the usual gunner boilerplate, plus (at least once) some Texas secessionism:

"Blaming guns for crime is like blaming spray paint for graffiti." ~ Rich Grassi #2A

— Dustin Ellermann (@TopShotDustin) July 28, 2015

Free men don't ask permission to keep and bear arms.

— Dustin Ellermann (@TopShotDustin) June 21, 2015

"The Republic of Texas" has a nice ring to it lately. #Texas #2A

— Dustin Ellermann (@TopShotDustin) June 28, 2015

He writes for Texas Fish & Game magazine and, well, his posts what you'd expect. The church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina? Title of his column: "Another 'Gun Free Zone' Mass Murder." A couple of years ago, he posted a video of helicopter hunting of hogs in Texas, done to the tune of Louis Armstrong's "It's a Wonderful World":



Oh, and do you want to see a prairie dog blown to bits? He's got that! (Don't worry, it's pixilated out, but you can "Click for the uncensored version.")

And, of course, he thought that fake Craigslist help-wanted ad for "Attorney General," posted after Eric Holder announced his resignation, was "one of the funniest things ever":



I'm sure his bacon video was Cruz's inspiration -- after all, it was shown on Fox & Friends and linked at Breitbart. And I have to say that he and Cruz seem to be a perfect match. Maybe President Cruz will appoint him to head the ATF.

****

Oh, and of course he's a Bundyite:

I've heard a few rumors of weapon confiscations from those at #BundyRanch. So now we have no #2A and #1A zones? What happened to America?

— Dustin Ellermann (@TopShotDustin) April 12, 2014

(More responses to this at Memeorandum.)

ADMINISTRATION SELLING IRAN DEAL TO PUBLIC ABOUT AS WELL AS IT SOLD OBAMACARE

A lot of people seem to believe right now that President Obama has found his stride after a term and a half in office. They say he's had a string of victories lately and is finishing his presidency with impressive shows of strength. Obamacare has survived two Supreme Court challenges! Gay marriage is the law of the land! There's a nuclear deal with Iran!

There's truth in that. But on that Iran deal, I'm seeing the old Obama -- the one who struggled though his first six years in office, and who found himself continuing to battle even when he thought he'd won a fight. I remember hearing confident assertions that the public would grow to love Obamacare once it was in place -- a belief that led the administration not to promote its benefits in the long period of time between enactment and full implementation, thus giving the right an opportunity to portray it relentlessly as the worst piece of legislation ever passed by Congress. That one-sided battle for the public's hearts and minds still hangs over the health care law; the public is warming to Obamacare, slowly, but the law still isn't popular.

The administration never really sold Obamacare to the public. And now the administration is failing to sell the Iran deal:

American Voters Oppose Iran Deal 2-1, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds...

American voters oppose 57 - 28 percent, with only lukewarm support from Democrats and overwhelming opposition for Republicans and independent voters, the nuclear pact negotiated with Iran, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

Voters say 58 - 30 percent the nuclear pact will make the world less safe....

Opposing the Iran deal are Republicans 86 - 3 percent and independent voters 55 - 29 percent, while Democrats support it 52 - 32 percent. There is little gender gap as men oppose the deal 59 - 30 percent and women oppose it 56 - 27 percent....

Nobody could have foreseen that a $1.4 million ad campaign opposing the deal would have this effect, right? Especially when there's no pro-deal ad campaign whatsoever, from any pro-administration group?

What has the president done to defend the deal? Has he given a prime-time speech? Oh, sorry, I forgot: The administrtion doesn't like prime-time speeches, and all the smart poli-sci types sneer at them, arguing that they're not effective. Oddly, the administration and the smart poli-sci crowd never sneer at presidential press conferences held at 1:30 on weekday afternoons -- the president had one of those shortly after the deal was finalized. The political insiders could watch it, but ordinary people who have jobs didn't get to see it, though they might have caught tiny soundbites from it on the news. Result: It's had zero effect on public opinion.

I'm surprised the president didn't go on a tour of the heartland to promote the deal at (again) midafternoon rallies in Ohio and Michigan and wherever -- the other utterly futile selling tactic that modern presidents inexplicably put faith in. Again, all the average American ever sees of these is brief soundbites on the news, so they're useless.

This deal needed a better selling job. The president doesn't need congressional majorities to uphold the deal, so maybe he he's been betting that he doesn't need to worry all that much about public opinion, but that may turn out to be a bad bet.

And if he does get the deal past Congress, there'll be another right-wing propaganda campaign pointing out every seemingly scary thing Iran is doing, all intended to make the deal is a top issue in the 2016 elections. The White House probably won't see that coming, either -- but, of course, the White House never would have believed that the right would still be fighting Obamacare tooth and nail in 2015. The right rarely thinks any fight is over, and Democrats frequently forget that, and pay the price.

****

Oh, did I mention that the antis are playing the Jackie Mason card?

You are protected from bad tuna but not a bomb. Go figure. #RT STOP #IranDeal http://t.co/YxM1LRVuyE @FredFleitz pic.twitter.com/S6A1h3wDbk

— Frank Gaffney (@frankgaffney) August 3, 2015

You laugh, but this makes it harder for Chuck Schumer to vote yes. Possibly Cory Booker, too.

CHUCK SCHUMER, GUTLESS WONDER

It looks as if Senator Charles Schumer, likely the next Democratic leader of the Senate, is going to sell his president out:

Chuck Schumer is getting an earful from opponents of the Iran nuclear deal.

More than 10,000 phone calls have flooded his office line the past two weeks, organized by a group looking to kill the deal. Another group has dropped seven figures on TV in New York City to pressure Schumer and other lawmakers to vote against the plan. The powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee has put its muscle behind an effort to lobby the New Yorker against it.

And Dov Hikind, a state assemblyman from Brooklyn, was arrested for disorderly conduct while protesting the deal outside Schumer’s office.

People who have spoken with the senior New York senator believe the pressure campaign is having an effect: They say there is a growing sense inside and outside the Capitol that Schumer will vote against the deal when the Senate considers it in September....

Schumer is one of about 15 Democratic senators who will decide the fate of President Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal in Congress. The president can afford to lose no more than a dozen Democrats on the Senate floor, and as the next Democratic leader, Schumer may be the most critical of them all.

This is from Politico, and the way the story is spun is that Schumer will vote no, but not lobby other senators to oppose the deal, so it's not as if he's really, really opposed. (A couple of senators are quoted as saying his vote won't affect theirs, to give him cover.)

There's no reason for him to knuckle under on this. I'm a New Yorker -- yes, I know there are a number of voters who loyally vote Democratic but worry greatly about this deal. (The state assemblyman who got arrested outside Schumer's office is a Democrat.)

But even if a yes vote were to ocst him support, Schumer wouldn't lose his next race, as The Wall Street Journal recently noted:

A prolific fundraiser with nearly $19.8 million in his campaign war chest, Mr. Schumer has won his previous re-election bids with overwhelming margins....

“He ain’t going to lose the Senate race in New York when he’s up next,” [Baruch College political science professor Doug] Muzzio said. “He’s too New York. He’s too established.”

Right. He won his last race 67%-33% -- and that was in 2010, when Democrats had an abysmal midterm election. He's up next in 2016, a presidential election year, when Democratic turnout will be high (especially if, as expected, the ticket is topped by Hillary Clinton, who's still very popular here). The last time Schumer ran in a presidential election year was in 2004 -- and he won 71%-25%.

So he's not going to lose in 2016. He should do the right thing. But he'll do the cowardly thing.

RUN IT THROUGH THE FOXOMETER! HOW A NUANCED STORY BECOMES A RIGHT-WING PARABLE

Did you hear the one about the socialist hippie fool who jacked up every employee's salary at his company and destroyed his business? Well, here's FoxNews.com to tell you that right-wing cautionary tale, accurately or otherwise:

The Seattle CEO who reaped a publicity bonanza when he boosted the salaries of his employees to a minimum of $70,000 a year says he has fallen on hard times.

Dan Price, 31, tells the New York Times that things have gotten so bad he’s been forced to rent out his house.

Only three months ago Price was generating headlines -- and accusations of being a socialist -- when he announced the new salary minimum for all 120 employees at his Gravity Payments credit card processing firm. Price said he was doing it, and slashing his $1 million pay package to pay for it, to address the wealth gap.

“I’m working as hard as I ever worked to make it work,” he told the Times in a video that shows him sitting on a plastic bucket in the garage of his house. “I’m renting out my house right now to try and make ends meet myself.”

The Times article said Price’s decision ended up costing him a few customers and two of his “most valued” employees, who quit after newer employees ended up with bigger salary hikes than older ones.

See? This sort of generosity is a terrible trait for a CEO to have! Nothing but harm comes from it! You do anything as a CEO other than endeavor to maximize profits and terrible things will result!

Except that that's not what the Times story says. The Times story says that some good things have happened to Price's company, but the changes have been ... well, more unsettling than disastrous:

... a few customers, dismayed by what they viewed as a political statement, withdrew their business. Others, anticipating a fee increase -- despite repeated assurances to the contrary -- also left. While dozens of new clients, inspired by Mr. Price’s announcement, were signing up, those accounts will not start paying off for at least another year. To handle the flood, he has already had to hire a dozen additional employees -- now at a significantly higher cost -- and is struggling to figure out whether more are needed without knowing for certain how long the bonanza will last.

Two of Mr. Price’s most valued employees quit, spurred in part by their view that it was unfair to double the pay of some new hires while the longest-serving staff members got small or no raises. Some friends and associates in Seattle’s close-knit entrepreneurial network were also piqued that Mr. Price’s action made them look stingy in front of their own employees.

Then potentially the worst blow of all: Less than two weeks after the announcement, Mr. Price’s older brother and Gravity co-founder, Lucas Price, citing longstanding differences, filed a lawsuit that potentially threatened the company’s very existence. With legal bills quickly mounting and most of his own paycheck and last year’s $2.2 million in profits plowed into the salary increases, Dan Price said, “We don’t have a margin of error to pay those legal fees.”

The Fox story doesn't mention the influx of new business, which the Times calls a "bonanza." And Fox doesn't quote any still-satisfied old customers, like this one quoted by the Times:

Early on, [Price] signed up Pure Food Fish. The shop was a backdrop in the film “Sleepless in Seattle,” but more important, it was run by the 86-year-old Solly Amon, who inherited the pocket store from his father and is lovingly known as the “cod father.” When other merchants heard Mr. Amon trusted Dan, they did too.

“They give us tremendous service,” Mr. Amon said. He remembered an incident years ago when Mr. Price had a new credit card machine up and running within three hours after his old one died.

In addition to providing the devices and software that merchants use when a customer whips out a credit card, Gravity makes sure the money shifts securely and quickly among buyer, bank and business. In an industry dominated by global banking giants and mammoth processors, the company last year processed $6.5 billion in sales for 12,000 clients, most of them small and medium-size businesses.

Was Mr. Amon bothered by Mr. Price’s new payroll policy? “He takes care of his business, and I’ll take care of my business,” he declared.

The Fox story gets the word "socialist" into paragraph 3 (admittedly, the word shows up in the Times story, too), but it never mentions an aspect of Price's upbringing that ought to impress a member of the Fox audience: He was raised as a right-wing Christian.

From the Times story:

If there was a 19th-century thinker Mr. Price drew inspiration from, it would be not Karl Marx, but Russell Conwell, the Baptist minister and Temple University founder, whose famed “Acres of Diamonds” speech fused Christianity and capitalism. “To make money honestly is to preach the Gospel,” Mr. Conwell exhorted his listeners. To get rich “is our Christian and godly duty.”

Growing up in rural southwestern Idaho, Mr. Price frequently listened to a recording of the speech on tape.

Every day he and his four brothers and one sister rose as early as 5 a.m. to recite a proverb, a psalm, a Gospel chapter and an excerpt from the Old and New Testaments. Home-schooled until he was 12 and taught to accept the Bible as the literal truth, Mr. Price also listened to the Rush Limbaugh show for three hours a day -- never imagining he would one day be the subject of a rant by the host.

Also:

He did not actively oppose Seattle’s minimum-wage increase, but a reason he urges other business owners to follow his lead on pay is to avoid more government regulation.

The Fox story quotes the dismayed owner of "a family restaurant":

Brian Canlis, co-owner of a family restaurant, already worried about how to deal with Seattle’s new minimum wage, told Price the pay raise at Gravity “makes it harder for the rest of us.”

“It pains me to hear Brian Canlis say that,” Price said. “The last think I would ever want to do is make a client feel uncomfortable.”

You probably read "family restaurant" and imagined a down-home place serving unpretentious food at reasonable prices. The Times story, by contrast, describes Canlis as "a co-owner of his family-named restaurant." The restaurant isn't what you'd call "a family restaurant" -- there's a $22,500 bottle of wine on the 90-page wine list -- and while dinner isn't expensive by Manhattan standards ($85 for a three-course prix fixe, $100 for four courses), it ain't cheap.

Price really might get through this rough patch, and if he doesn't, as the Times story makes clear, it might be because some customers think he's going to raise fees or scrimp on service, even though he's working hard not to. That's clear from the Times story. You'd never know it from Fox.

NICE JEB VS. NASTY HILLARY: A MEDIA NARRATIVE BEGINS TO TAKE SHAPE

It's being reported that Hillary Clinton attacked Jeb Bush in a speech yesterday to the National Urban League, and that Jeb chose not to respond in kind. But please note how it's being reported, because we're watching a 2016 media narrative in the early stages of formation.

Here's the Politico story:

Appearing Friday at the National Urban League Conference here in the country’s most important swing state, Hillary Clinton didn’t mention Jeb Bush by name, but tore apart the entire premise of his “right to rise” mission statement. Striding onto that same stage less than an hour later, Bush acknowledged Clinton’s presence at the conference in order to thank her for appearing there, then proceeded to ignore her attacks and campaign altogether.

... Clinton and Bush demonstrated the starkly different ways the two candidates are addressing each other on the campaign trail, despite their shared commanding advantages.

“I don’t think you can credibly say that everyone has a right to rise and then say you’re for phasing out Medicare, or repealing Obamacare,” Clinton said, a jab at Bush’s well-known PAC slogan, “Right to Rise.”

“People can’t rise if they can’t afford health care,” she continued. “They can’t rise if the minimum wage is too low to live on. They can’t rise if their governor makes it harder for them to get a college education. And you can’t seriously talk about the right to rise and support laws that deny the right to vote.” The crowd cheered.

When Bush finally took the stage to address issues of race and repairing American cities, he didn’t hit back. “I’m pleased to see other candidates here as well,” Bush said, even acting like a host in his home state and thanking Clinton, as well as the three other candidates who spoke, by name.

We're told that Bush didn't attack Clinton because he probably would have been booed by a pro-Clinton crowd. But there's also a suggestion that we're seeing the nature of the two campaigns, particularly Bush's:

He’d made a point of attending this conference of several thousand African-American leaders to offer a unifying message to a traditionally Democratic audience, one “that laid out how his record of success in Florida, increasing minority income and student achievement -- can be replicated nationally and give people facing unjust barriers to success the opportunity to rise up,” said Bush’s spokesman, Tim Miller, after the speech. “He didn’t see a value in delivering divisive, false cheap shots like...Clinton did.”

... while Clinton often singles out Bush as her No. 1 target to flog on policy issues such as voting rights, women’s rights, entitlements and the economy, Bush’s critiques of Clinton are less pointed....

Comfortably near the top of the GOP field, Bush doesn’t have to ratchet up the rhetorical red meat; moreover, doing so would undercut his effort to distinguish himself from his party’s unrestrained grievance-based politics with his self-described “optimistic” and “joyful” message....

Clinton, however, has been less restrained, eager to draw comparisons with Bush....

But what does the supposedly more restrained Bush say about Clinton?

When he does take swipes, Bush typically raises questions about Clinton’s character and fitness to lead.

In an interview on Fox News the day after he announced in June, Bush raised questions about Clinton’s record. “As secretary of state, in all honesty, the things she’s known for, the reset [with Russia], the pulling back of our commitments, Libya, put aside Benghazi, Libya in general, it turns out was a complete failure,” he said. “I honestly don’t know what her successes are.”

Wait -- calling her Cabinet term "a complete failure" is a sign of his restraint? Of his reluctance to go on the attack?

Last week, he mocked Clinton for keeping her distance from reporters while emphasizing his own openness with the press. “You’re not going to see me rope-lining myself off with people,” Bush said, referencing the rope that was used to hold reporters at bay while Clinton marched in a July 4 parade in New Hampshire.

On Friday, an hour after he left the stage here without criticizing Clinton, Bush’s campaign issued a news release blasting her support for lifting the embargo on Cuba as “politically expedient.”

Oh, and, as we learn from a New York Times story, the campaign of the high-minded, non-attacking, above-the-fray Jeb Bush is not above attacking Clinton for attacking:

Mr. Bush’s aides, however, could barely hide their disgust over Mrs. Clinton’s remarks, which they spoke of, bitterly, as uncivil and uncalled-for.

On Twitter, Tim Miller, Mr. Bush’s communications director, called it a “Clintonesque move to pass over chance to unite in favor of a false cheap shot.”

Allie Brandenburger, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bush, followed up with an email saying, “The Urban League deserved better.”

Assuming that these two are the nominees, this is going to evolve into a key media narrative of the campaign: Jeb is restrained and good-natured, Hillary is harsh and mean-spirited. Never mind the fact that there's nothing ad hominem about anything Clinton said in her speech -- she's attacking his policies and the policies of his party. That's the purpose of a presidential campaign -- to draw out the distinctions betwen the candidates in order to inform the electorate.

But when Clinton does it, she's vicious. When Bush refrains from doing it -- strategically in this one instance, after having gone on the attack in the past -- then compensates for his restraint by sending his people out to be nasty on his behalf (much as his brother routinely did when he was president), he gets to call himself a nice guy. And the media may decide that's the correct characterization of both.

OH, LOOK! TRUMP'S MATURING! (NO, HE REALLY ISN'T.)

Yesterday, Hunter Walker of Business Insider unearthed some racist Facebook posts by a top Donald Trump aide:

Sam Nunberg, one of Trump's political advisers, has a personal Facebook page that features notes he's posted since 2007.

These updates ... contain many racially charged statements including one instance on August 25, 2007, where Nunberg wrote about calling Rev. Al Sharpton's daughter "N---!"

... Nunberg called Obama a "Socialist Marxist Islamo Fascist Nazi Appeaser" and "Farrakahn's Messiah." Some of Nunberg's posts about Obama contained seemingly mocking references to the president's race and background including updates where Nunberg implied Obama is a "Kenyan" and "Muslim."

Three days before Obama was inaugurated in 2009, Nunberg joked that "there still are tickets available for the Hip Hop Inaugral Ball."

Reached for comment, a Trump spokesperson told Walker that Nunberg would be fired -- which led Walker's boss, Business Insider editor and CEO Henry Blodget, to fall for the "maybe Trump can grow and mature!" delusion:

What was surprising, at least to this Trump campaign observer, was the campaign's response to this revelation.

Within an hour after being alerted to Nunberg's Facebook's posts, a Trump campaign spokesman told Business Insider that Nunberg will be "terminated immediately" once the posts' authenticity is verified.

This reaction, of course, is the reaction that might be expected from any serious candidate for the US presidency.

Until now, however, Trump has not behaved like a serious candidate for the US presidency.

Rather, he has behaved like a schoolyard bully who feels entitled to say and do whatever he likes and attack anyone who criticizes him for any reason, no matter how valid such criticisms might seem.

... This move, along with what seems to be other modestly more "presidential" behavior on Trump's part in recent days, suggests that he is now taking his campaign for president more seriously.

... it seems like Trump might be thinking that he could actually make a serious go of this thing. And, thus, that he should begin to behave -- modestly -- more presidential.

Oh, please.

Trump isn't acting in a more responsible manner. He's just throwing a subordinate under the bus because the subordinate got caught embarrassing him, something he's always reserved the right to do. Trump already fired Nunberg once, earlier this year, after Nunberg was instrumental in arranging for a BuzzFeed profile that turned out to be highly unflattering to Trump. And earlier this week Trump distanced himself from lawyer Michael Cohen's attempted bullying of Daily Beast reporter Tim Mak and from Cohen's assertion that marital rape is legal.

But Trump is still reserving the right to be a bigoted blowhard himself. There he was on Thursday In Scotland, demanding an apology from BBC golf correspondent Iain Carter for questions about his Mexican-bashing. Trump continued to defend the remarks (hat tip: Paul Canning):

TRUMP: ... What I said in the United States turned out to be true. It was right. We're talking about illegal immigration.... What I said about, not Mexicans -- 'cause you said it very improperly, because obviously you're not, you don't want to be an accurate reporter, like many others -- but nobody's gonna say what I said about illegal immigration because I happen to be right. And I've been proven right since the statements were originally made, and people have apologized to me. Maybe one day you'll apologize, too.

So Trump's not "maturing." He's still an arrogant racist jerk. Don't be fooled, Henry.

NO, THIS IS NOT THE NICE, NORMAL HUCKABEE TRYING TO SEEM NASTY FOR EFFECT

Mike Huckabee has said a lot of extreme things recently, in what seems like an attempt to change his nice-guy image, but this is really just the old Huckabee:

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee indicated Thursday that if elected, he wouldn’t rule out employing federal troops or the Federal Bureau of Investigation to stop abortion from taking place in the United States....

The comments came at two public speaking stops on a tour of Iowa.

In response to a question from the audience at the Pizza Ranch in Jefferson, Iowa, Huckabee said he would “invoke the 5th and 14th amendments for the protection of every human being.” ...

“Would that be a huge controversy?” the former Arkansas governor asked. “Yes.” ...

At his next stop, in Rockwell City, Huckabee answered follow-up questions from the correspondent, saying: “All American citizens should be protected.”

Asked by another reporter how he would stop abortion, and whether this would mean using the FBI or federal forces to accomplish this, Huckabee replied: “We’ll see if I get to be president.”

Let's not forget that in 1996, early in his tenure as governor of Arkansas, Huckabee defied federal law to block a Medicare payment for a teenage incest victim's abortion:

Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas today refused to authorize a Medicaid payment for an abortion for a 15-year-old girl whose stepfather has been charged with incest, despite a Federal judge's order that such payments were required by Federal law.

Through a spokesman, Mr. Huckabee said his first obligation was to obey the Arkansas State Constitution, rather than Federal law. The State Constitution includes an amendment banning the use of public money for abortion except when a mother's life is endangered; the Federal statute requires that Medicaid pay for abortions that are performed on poor women in cases of rape or incest or a threat to the mother's life.

The girl, by the way, was reported to be mentally retarded.

In 2007, when he was first running for president, Huckabee packed an offensive reference to the Holocaust and a bizarre reference to immigration into a a two-sentence comment on abortion:

Sometimes we talk about why we're importing so many people in our workforce. It might be for the last 35 years, we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our workforce had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortion under a flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1973.

That's the old Huckabee -- the one David Brooks described in 2007 as "the most normal person running for president" and "too neighborly to seem presidential." He's not suddenly becoming nastier -- even though people like Brooks never noticed, he always was this nasty.

THEY ATTACK YOUR RIGHTS JUST FOR SHOW

This story (from the anti-abortion LifeSiteNews) is getting a lot of attention on the right:

Until the eve of his presidential campaign, Jeb Bush was director of a philanthropy that gave tens of millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood and financed its advocacy of "unrestricted access to abortion" around the world. The charity also approved money to global abortion providers while he sat on its board.

In 2010, Jeb was named one of the founding directors of the Bloomberg Family Foundation, established as a tax-exempt foundation to advance the vision of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He resigned from the board at the end of 2014 to prepare his presidential campaign.

While a Bush spokesman has responded to concerns by saying that Bush would not have voted on every initiative of the foundation, a pro-life leader told LifeSiteNews it "stretches credibility" that Bush was unaware of the foundation's pro-abortion work, given the centrality of such work to the foundation's mission, and its scope....

In March of 2014, the Bloomberg Philanthropies announced a $50 million undertaking to expand "reproductive health," including lobbying foreign nations to loosen restrictions on abortion....

Bloomberg clarified how the partnership would work while receiving Planned Parenthood's Global Citizen Award at its annual gala last March 27.

"I am happy to say our major partner in this project will be Planned Parenthood - Global," Bloomberg said. "In some countries, our funding will help advocates work towards better sexual health policies for teens and better access to contraceptives. In others, we'll help push for less restrictive abortion laws and more government funding for high-quality, accessible services." ...

I don't know if this is going to damage Bush's status as a GOP front-runner -- I think he's appealing to the non-zealots in the GOP electorate, who might find this a deviation from their principles but who'll probably take him at his word when he says he'll be fervently anti-abortion if he becomes president.

I take him at his word on that, too, because he's always made that part of his political brand:

... Jeb ... declared in 2003 that he was "probably the most pro-life governor in modern times." As governor, Bush signed a law to create "Choose Life" license plates in Florida, the proceeds from which flow to anti-abortion advocacy organizations. He also aggressively intervened in two high-profile cases to prevent a mentally disabled rape victim and a 13-year-old girl from being able to have abortions.

In the former case, involving a 22-year-old rape victim who was both pregnant and developmentally disabled, Bush asked a court to appoint a guardian to represent the woman's fetus. The woman had been raped while living in state-supervised facilities, but did not have the mental capacity to identify her attacker....

In 2005, Bush fought to prevent a pregnant 13-year-old girl, who was a ward of the state, from having an abortion. He was overruled by a judge, and CNN later reported that Bush's "abortion activism shocked some state officials who believed he was reaching beyond the powers of his office."

... The former governor recently embraced a federal ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy....

He'll undoubtedly pursue similar policies if he's president. He'll pick a fervently anti-abortion running mate. He'll make opposition to abortion a Supreme Court litmus test.

And yet he signed on to be part of a Bloomberg initiative that he knew was pursuing reproductive rights. Why? Because, really, he doesn't particularly care about abortion. Being anti-abortion is just obvious positioning if you're an ambitious Republican. Never mind the fact that this positioning has real-life consequences for real people -- he did it because that's what he assumed his voters wanted, and what the voters he's hoping to attract want.

Apart from (perhaps) Rick Santorum, I don't know if any of the eight thousand Republican presidential candidates really care about abortion deep down. And yet I think every one of them would, if elected, pack the Supreme Court with the judges who'll overturn Roe v. Wade.

Hey, it's just politics, right?