Patterico's Pontifications


Photoshop: Rubio Looking Parched on New Book Cover

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:31 pm

Idea by Patterico, execution by @nycconservative on Twitter.

Screen Shot 2016-02-06 at 12.25.36 PM
Above: a very thirsty Marco Rubio

Let’s Be Clear About Hillary Clinton And Those Goldman Sach Speaking Fees

Filed under: General — Dana @ 11:53 am

[guest post by Dana]

At a town hall this week, Hillary Clinton, who lives and breathes the rarefied air of the One Percent, thanks in great part to having profited handsomely from Wall Street, laughably claimed that the “Wall Street guys are trying so hard to stop me”. This in conjunction with her continuous railings against corporate greed, revealed yet more of the candidate’s brazen and undeniable hypocrisy. When confronted at the town hall by Anderson Cooper about being paid $675,000 by Goldman Sach for one year of speech appearances, voters yet again saw a candidate who simply is unable to credibly deny or disentangle herself from her very close and profitable relationship with Wall Street, no matter how much she embarrassingly tries:

“Was that a mistake?” Cooper asked. “I mean, was that a bad error in judgment?”

“Look,” she told Cooper, “I made speeches to lots of groups. I told them what I thought. I answered questions.”

“But did you have to be paid $675,000?” Cooper asked.

To which Clinton said: “Well, I don’t know. That’s what they offered, so . . .”

No wonder the doddering feminist is losing the support of young women everywhere: Wait. What?? I’m confused. Why are you attacking me?? Wall Street?? Who lives there?? Where is my applesauce??!!

Considering that Clinton maintained a price list for those wanting to book her for a speaking engagement, it seems highly unlikely that when it came to Wall Street, she would simply take “what they offered”. After all, this is Wall Street we’re talking about and she is Hillary Clinton, exclusive speaker. Anyway, the speech fees for Clinton were set by her representatives, not by Goldman Sach:

During the period of the Goldman Sach and many other top dollar speeches, she was represented by the Harry Walker Agency, which calls itself “the world’s leading speaker’s bureau.”

When groups pick from their list of speakers, which also include Bill Clinton, the price is discreetly provided. For Hillary Clinton, the price appeared to regularly be shy of $300,000 each.

For kicks, let’s just say it was what Goldman Sach *offered*, wouldn’t a presidential candidate whose platform includes railing against Wall Street greed, corporate recklessness, and disregard for the little people, actually jump at the opportunity to demonstrate that their actions back up their words by turning down such a speaking engagement? That way, the canidate would be seen as an *honest broker rather than a shady grifter with a penchant for big money and big lies.

It’s also interesting to note that as recently as two days ago, Hillary Clinton appeared on the Harry Walker Agency’s website as an “exclusive speaker”:


But today, strangely, she is nowhere to be found:


Anyway, while the MSM tries to soft-pedal Clinton’s Wall Street money-making relationship as unwise, and not unlike her use of a private server, I prefer to call it what is: putrefying hypocrisy.

(*honest: Of course given that it is Hillary Clinton we’re talking about, there really aren’t enough grains of salt with which this should be taken, but I trust you understand my point.)



Friday Night Music

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:52 pm

This is what I am listening to right now.

How Hillary Clinton Popularized the Name “Hillary” for Babies . . . Or Not

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:18 pm

This story is too good to check.

Screen Shot 2016-02-05 at 10.15.10 PM

The chart above plots the popularity of the baby name “Hillary” between 1970 and 2014. What you’ll notice right away is that the frequency of the name falls of a cliff starting in 1993, the year Hillary Clinton became first lady.

One moment while I wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes.

Like I say, it’s so good it seems like it can’t really be true. But it actually seems to check out. It’s in the Washington Post and it purports to be based on data from the Social Security Administration.

Here is the conclusion I draw from this: people really, really don’t like Hillary Clinton.

The Election in Iowa Was Suspicious . . . The Democrat One, That Is

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:55 pm

Des Moines Register:

Iowa Democratic Party officials are reviewing results from the Iowa caucuses and making updates where discrepancies have been found.

Party Chairwoman Andy McGuire the day after Monday’s caucuses said no review would be conducted, and that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s narrow victory over Bernie Sanders was final.

But as errors are being discovered, the final tally is being changed, party officials confirmed to the Des Moines Register on Friday.

Party Chairwoman Andy McGuire didn’t want to conduct a review, you say? Well, I’m sure there’s nothing sinister about that.

Wait . . .

Prediction: Rubio Will Be the Nominee

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:00 pm

My natural pessimism is coming out in this post. Basically, if we were a nation that cared about limited government and Constitutional principles, Ted Cruz would run away with it. But we’re a nation that knows Snooki is on Jersey Shore but not the year that we gained our independence. And so we’re probably going to have to settle for someone like Rubio.

It’s early to be certain, of course, and I hope I’m wrong (unless the alternative is Trump, in which case I hope I’m right). But Bobby Jindal just endorsed Rubio, Romney will certainly endorse Rubio, and every nasty Establishment senator who has trashed Ted Cruz is going to endorse Rubio. Santorum endorsed Rubio (even though he clearly can’t justify why), and once Jeb and Christie are out, they’ll endorse Rubio. Basically, the whole establishment is going to line up behind Rubio. He’s gotten as much of a bump in the polls by coming in third in Iowa as Ted Cruz got from coming in first. And he’s bound to outperform Cruz in New Hampshire.

He’s the pretty boy with the vapid rehearsed lines. He’s the guy who won the student government positions. He doesn’t have a long pointy nose or other unattractive features like Cruz.

He’s not very smart, of course. He’s far, far too bellicose. He has supported every moronic Obama intervention under the sun. He is in the pocket of Big Sugar, which is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things but speaks to his character. I doubt he’ll repeal ObamaCare — and if he does, he’ll replace with something that retains 95% of its bad anti-market features.

And we all know that in his first four years — should he beat Hillary or Bernie or whatever other 115-year-old the Democrats put up — he is going to pass legislation to legalize millions of illegals and cement the permanent Democrat majority in our lifetime.

We know this.

But at least our President won’t have a large nose! Large ears, perhaps, but not a large nose!!

There are silver linings. He has an even chance of putting good Justices on the Supreme Court — and the next President could easily replace three of them. The Democrat fossil will have a zero chance of doing the same, and an even chance is a lot better. He has a pretty conservative voting record in the Senate, as a general rule.

And he’s not Donald Trump. In a normal election cycle, constitutional conservatives like myself would be appalled at a Rubio. But we have seen a possible future in which an Emperor Donald Trump runs amok, and Rubio will seem like a welcome exit ramp from that Highway to Nightmaresville.

Other than that, meh. Government will continue to grow. The debt will continue to grow. People like me will get angrier and angrier.

I’ll continue to support Ted Cruz and to hope beyond hope that the American people will overcome their usual ignorance and choose someone who can start to fix this mess.

I’m just not going to hold my breath.

Trump: I Won’t Rule Out Ted Cruz as VP

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:25 am

Ted Cruz committing fraud and at least a “misdemeanor” in Iowa to steal the election? “I don’t care about that anymore.”

Also, Trump supposedly won’t rule out Cruz as a potential VP pick:

In a striking reversal of rhetoric, Donald Trump would not rule out Ted Cruz as his hypothetical vice-presidential pick.

“Well, I don’t know. Look, I have nothing against him. It was sort of a sad thing that happened, but I’ve always liked him,” Trump told Hugh Hewitt on his radio show Thursday, after weeks of trashing his primary rival as nasty, hypocritical and disliked.

Trump added that he has “always gotten along well” with Cruz, but that “I’m so much now focused on New Hampshire.”

Advisers have obviously pulled Trump aside and told him that he’s killing the polls in New Hampshire, but that he might blow that if he keeps up the whiny baby act. Trump figures the voters will forget that he said Cruz is a nasty guy who nobody likes who stole the election in Iowa and anyway is a Canadian who shouldn’t be running for president or vice president until a court says it’s OK.

In other words, he thinks voters are totally ignorant about everything except the stuff they like on TV.

He may be right.


Thursday Night Music: Aladdin Sane

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:23 pm

I am not generally a fan of avant-garde jazz music, but the piano solo on this piece is one of the best piano performances I have ever heard. Pianist Mike Garson described it in this interview from 2008:

How did the world-famous piano solo on ‘Aladdin Sane’ come about?

Well, I did tell Bowie about the avant-garde thing. When I was recording the famous ‘Aladdin Sane’ track for Bowie, it was just two chords, an A and a G chord, and the band was playing very simple English rock and roll. And Bowie said: “play a solo on this.” I had just met him, so I played a blues solo, and then he said: “No, that’s not what I want.” And then I played a latin solo. Again, Bowie said: “No no, that’s not what I want.” He then continued: “You told me you play that avant-garde music. Play that!”

And I said: “Are you sure? ‘Cause you might not be working anymore!” (laughter). So I did the solo that everybody knows today, in one take. And to this day, I still receive emails about it. Every day. I always tell people that Bowie is the best producer I ever met, because he lets me do my thing.

Campaign Notes: February 4, 2016

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:44 pm


Remember how awful Steve King was for saying it looked like Ben Carson was out . . . when CNN reported that Carson was virtually skipping New Hampshire for a “change of clothes” that he could have arranged for in many ways that did not involve jetting home to Florida?

Well, at the risk of being accused of fraudulent behavior on behalf of Ted Cruz . . . it looks like Ben Carson is out, pretty much. He slashed half his staff today.


Jimmy Carter says that, if he were forced to choose between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, he would choose Trump because Trump is “completely malleable” and has no fixed opinions that he would go to the White House and fight for. Meanwhile, Cruz would actually pursue those awful right-wing policies he says he believes in. I’m Ted Cruz and I approved this message!


Pathetic, but kind of endearing. But mostly pathetic.


I didn’t get to this yesterday, but The Donald was quoted yesterday morning saying, basically, what’s a ground game?

“I think we could’ve used a better ground game, a term I wasn’t even familiar with. You know, when you hear ‘ground game,’ you say, ‘What the hell is that?’ Now I’m familiar with it,” Trump said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” when asked if his campaign needed better organization to win in Iowa.

Let me interject here to say that I have heard of a “ground game” and I am more than 20 years the junior of Mr. Trump. But I follow politics and have a basic level of curiosity about the subject (and about life in general). Also I am not a giant liar. Digression over. Moving on:

“I think in retrospect we should’ve had a better ground game, I would’ve funded a better ground game,” he continued. “But people told me my ground game was fine. And I think by most standards it was.”

Well. On December 19, 2015, Trump seemed to know what a ground game was, and his was totally wicked!

Christmas carols played, lights twinkled and Donald Trump touted his Iowa ground game in Cedar Rapids on Saturday.

As Christmas and caucus day inch closer, reports in The Des Moines Register and The New York Times have questioned whether Trump’s campaign has been effective in lining up precinct captains and laying the groundwork to ensure his supporters turn up on caucus day.

Trump forcefully refuted that notion Saturday in front of a crowd of more than 1,000, saying everyone would see the fruits of the campaign’s labor come Feb. 1.

“We’ve got such an incredible ground game,” he said.

Some chumps bought the line. As late as the day of the caucuses in Iowa, Steve Berman at The Resurgent told his readers: “Let’s not underestimate Trump’s ground game.” And Jazz Shaw at Hot Air told his readers on January 6, 2016 that “Trump has been quietly building a serious digital data team to turn out his voters” and that “If everyone is underestimating Trump yet again it will probably be familiar territory to him. The man seems to have made his living off that.” How does that sucking up look now?

I think I have adequately shown that Trump (like some of the chumps who bought his line of B.S.) is full of it.

Please clap.

P.S. Trump isn’t changing a thing about his ground game in New Hampshire. Which brings me to my final topic of the day:


Feel free to leave yours in the comments.

Obama at the Mosque

Filed under: General — JVW @ 12:31 pm

[guest post by JVW]

Traditionally, Presidents in their final year of their final term should have wide latitude to address controversial topics, especially those that might cause some discomfort within his own base of supporters. One thinks immediately of President Eisenhower pointing out the influential “military-industrial complex,” a surprising warning from a career military man who had led the Allies to victory in the Second World War. Not all Presidents take this opportunity — Bill Clinton spent his final year trying to rehabilitate his legacy after his impeachment and George W. Bush was busy dealing with the financial collapse that closed out his Presidency on such a sad note — but in theory the President’s final year in office ought to be an opportune time to address issues of importance even at the risk of alienating some of his supporters.

So I was pleasantly surprised when along with the predictable pleas for gun control legislation and feeble defense of his miserable Mideast policy in his December address in the wake of the San Bernardino shootings, President Obama had this to say about Muslims in America:

. . . If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.

That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda promote; to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.

Though it may be relatively weak sauce, for this President to acknowledge even in a vague way that far too many Muslims are far too sanguine about the violence done in the name of Allah seemed to me to be a breakthrough of some sort, and I was hopeful that President Obama might challenge more Muslims here and abroad to become more directly engaged in the fight against extremism.

Naturally, it looks like my hopes were way premature. Yesterday, the President visited a Mosque in Baltimore to give a speech intended for the greater Muslim community. That his choice of a location raised some eyebrows even among the “moderate Muslims” the White House so fervently courts was typical of the tone-deaf arrogant ideologues that comprise this administration. But the real missed opportunity was unsurprisingly in what the President had to say to the American adherents of Islam who gathered to hear him speak. Naturally there were the typical platitudes: “Thank you for lifting up the lives of your neighbors, and for helping keep us strong and united as one American family.” There were the usual sob-stories: “I’ve had mothers write and say, ‘my heart cries every night,’ thinking about how her daughter might be treated at school.” There was a banal pean to multiculturalism: “This is a moment when, as Americans, we have to truly listen to each other and learn from each other.” And, Obama being Obama, there was every effort to insert himself personally into the debate as well as the tired recitations of one of his shop-worn clichés: “These are children just like mine. And the notion that they would be filled with doubt and questioning their places in this great country of ours [. . . ] that’s not who we are.”

To be sure, the President did mix in a pretty mild call for Muslims to drop their religious chauvinism and to be vigilant against extremist voices who would seek to recruit within their communities (though, notably, not one word was mentioned about the potential for newly arrived “refugees” from “Syria” to promote the siren song of radicalism). He also issued a very pro forma challenge for them to speak out against persecution of Christians and Jews in Muslim-dominated societies (though Obama appears to willfully ignore the fact that the strident secularism in countries like France is proving to be as inhospitable to Jews as the rise of Islamism, probably because his favored policies here promote the strident secularism fashionable in Europe). He even made a somewhat oblique reference to the notion that Muslims should be interested in military service, again ignoring mostly avoiding the uncomfortable truth that Muslims in some Western countries have shown more willingness to join ISIS than to join their new nation’s armed forces.

But worst of all in the President’s address to the Muslim community of Baltimore was one quick clause in a sentence that seemed to tip the hand of the Professor of Constitutional Law as to what he really thinks of the First Amendment. In bloviating on the need for us to watch what we say about Islam, he uncorked the following:

So the best way for us to fight terrorism is to deny these organizations legitimacy and to show that here in the United States of America, we do not suppress Islam; we celebrate and lift up the success of Muslim Americans. That’s how we show the lie that they’re trying to propagate. We shouldn’t play into terrorist propaganda. And we can’t suggest that Islam itself is at the root of the problem. That betrays our values. [Emphasis added]

Think about that for a moment. The phrase “we can’t suggest that Islam itself is at the root of the problem” appears in both the President’s spoken remarks and in the official published version on the White House Press Secretary website, meaning that phrase was drafted and approved by the Administration. Note that telling the American people what they “can’t” say appears immediately after the President makes the more palatable suggestion that we “shouldn’t” help terrorists by bullying Muslims. Wouldn’t a more facile thinker with a sincere respect for the First Amendment have switched the placement of the verbs in the two sentences? We can’t play into the terrorist propaganda. And we shouldn’t suggest that Islam itself is at the root of the problem. Or, if the oratorical geniuses in the speechwriting team didn’t think that soared enough for Obama’s tastes, they could have switched the order of the two sentences: “We shouldn’t suggest that Islam itself is at the root of the problem. We can’t play into the terrorist propaganda.” Instead, Obama comes off sounding like most modern Western progressives, suggesting that he is willing to sacrifice free speech on the altar of mollifying a fashionable victim group.

It’s going to be a long, long year ahead of us.

[Note: post-publication edit made to choose more accurate word; noted above with the crossed-out original.]


Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1856 secs.