Friday Open Thread [11.20.15]
NATIONAL—Bloomberg: Clinton 55, Sanders 30, O’Malley 3
NATIONAL—Reuters/Ipsos: Clinton 52, Sanders 31, O’Malley 4
NATIONAL—NBC News/Survey Monkey: Clinton 49, Sanders 33, O’Malley 1
OKLAHOMA—Sooner Poll/News9/News on 6: Clinton 47, Sanders 12, O’Malley 2
NATIONAL—NBC News/Survey Monkey: Trump 28, Cruz 18, Carson 18, Rubio 11, Bush 4, Christie 3, Fiorina 3
NATIONAL—Reuters/Ipsos: Trump 37, Carson 14, Rubio 11, Cruz 8, Bush 6, Paul 5, Huckabee 3, Fiorina 3, Christie 3, Kasich 2, Santorum 1
OKLAHOMA—Sooner Poll/News9/News on 6: Trump 27, Cruz 18, Carson 18, Rubio 16, Huckabee 4, Bush 2, Fiorina 2, Paul 2, Kasich 1
Donald Trump “was repeatedly asked to explain the difference between requiring Muslims to enter their information into a database and making Jewish people register in Nazi Germany,” MSNBC reports.
He responded four times by saying, “You tell me.”
Alright, Herr Trump, I’ll tell you. There is no difference.
Amy Walter says the Paris Attacks have not clarified the GOP Race: “While Bush is no longer the frontrunner in that camp, there’s also no evidence that Marco Rubio has overtaken him as the de-facto leader. The events that unfolded this weekend in Paris won’t make the establishment figure any more obvious. Neither Rubio nor Bush can claim expertise in the area of foreign policy (though Rubio can point to his tenure on Senate Foreign Relations Committee). And, neither is proposing solutions or options that are much different from the other. GOP voters remain wary of Bush and electing a ‘legacy’ candidate and Rubio remains virtually unknown and undefined. So, if voters are indeed looking for a ‘safer’ more traditional choice as a GOP nominee, there’s no obvious candidate for them to flock toward.”
“Meanwhile, Trump is simply doubling down on the rhetoric that has helped him attract his loyal following with calls to ‘bomb the sh$%’ out of ISIS and to potentially close down U.S. mosques that are seen as incubators of violent rhetoric.”
And thus Trump maintains his lead.
It is now established fact that all Republicans are by their nature panic-striken cowards, able to form puddle of urine underneath their feet at any moment. But why?
[W]e shouldn’t really be surprised, because we’ve seen this movie before (unless we were too scared to go to the theater). Remember the great Ebola scare of 2014? The threat of a pandemic, like the threat of a terrorist attack, was real. But it was greatly exaggerated, thanks in large part to hype from the same people now hyping the terrorist danger.
What’s more, the supposed “solutions” were similar, too, in their combination of cruelty and stupidity. Does anyone remember Mr. Trump declaring that “the plague will start and spread” in America unless we immediately stopped all plane flights from infected countries? Or the fact that Mitt Romney took a similar position? As it turned out, public health officials knew what they were doing, and Ebola quickly came under control — but it’s unlikely that anyone on the right learned from the experience.
What explains the modern right’s propensity for panic? Part of it, no doubt, is the familiar point that many bullies are also cowards. But I think it’s also linked to the apocalyptic mind-set that has developed among Republicans during the Obama years.
Think about it. From the day Mr. Obama took office, his political foes have warned about imminent catastrophe. Fiscal crisis! Hyperinflation! Economic collapse, brought on by the scourge of health insurance! And nobody on the right dares point out the failure of the promised disasters to materialize, or suggest a more nuanced approach.
Given this context, it’s only natural that the right would seize on a terrorist attack in France as proof that Mr. Obama has left America undefended and vulnerable. Ted Cruz, who has a real chance of becoming the Republican nominee, goes so far as to declare that the president “does not wish to defend this country.”
For the record, Syrian refugees are not “pouring” into the United States. There’s hardly even a trickle: Since the civil war began, slightly more than 2,000 refugees have been admitted. Compare our meager total with the estimated 2 million Syrians taking refuge in Turkey or the hundreds of thousands flooding into Europe. Boosting the number to 10,000 over the next year, as Obama plans, would still mean that the U.S. contribution to alleviating one of the worst refugee crises since World War II doesn’t amount to a drop in the bucket. I could describe in detail the lengthy pre-entry vetting process, which can take up to two years, but why bother? As far as the GOP field is concerned, generosity of spirit is for losers.
The Morning Sentinel in Maine:
The [refugee] process has proven secure. Since 9/11, more than 780,000 refugees have entered the United States, with little impact on security. More than 2,000 of those refugees have come from Syria — half of whom were children, and only 2 percent of whom were males of “combat age” — again, with little effect on safety. The United States certainly can take in more refugees while maintaining security. In fact, to earn its moral standing in the world, and to defeat extremism in the Middle East, it must.
Boy, does Donald Trump have thin skin. He went on a Twitter rampage after learning that a GOP group affiliated with Gov. John Kasich “was planning to spend at least $2.5 million on an ad campaign aggressively targeting the real estate mogul, whose four-month stint atop the Republican primary polls has alarmed many in the party establishment,” according to Politico. Said Trump: “I want to do negative ads on John Kasich, but he is so irrelevant to the race that I don’t want to waste my money.”
A new study released by the Pew Research Center on Thursday reported that more than 1 million Mexicans and their families left the U.S. for Mexico from the years 2009 to 2014. Meanwhile, over the same period, a total of 870,000 Mexicans came to the U.S. That, in the simplest of terms that even Republicans can understand, means that over those five years, there was a net flow 140,000 people from the U.S. to Mexico. Many of the families leaving for Mexico, the study says, also included children born in the U.S. About 61 percent of the families who’d returned to Mexico responded to surveys saying that they were leaving to reunite with family.
What does Mein Fuhrer Trump say to that? Maybe Mexico should build a wall to keep us out.
Americans like to think of themselves as brave and strong. But a good portion of them are acting very weak and frightened. […] Never to be outdone in the lunacy Olympics, Donald Trump is leaving open the possibility of forcing Muslims — including not just refugees but U.S. citizens — to register with the government as such, and perhaps even carry special ID. (No word on whether that might be a yellow star or crescent.) Instead of taking those suggestions, perhaps America should — oh, maybe stop the bed-wetting, for example. Then pull up its big-boy pants — and get a grip.
It’s tragic that by doing so the GOP governors and members of Congress are turning their backs to victims of the Islamic State, as well as the American tradition, imperfect though it may be, of providing a haven to victims of wars and violence.
[…] Learning more about the refugee screening process will allay fear that it’s an easy avenue for terrorists to waltz into the country. […] There are easier ways for terrorists to get into the United States – to cite one example, the visa waiver program allows 20 million people a year to enter the country.
The Star-Ledger in New Jersey:
How can we respond? The cheap way is to fall into the trap that ISIS is setting for us. They want us to take rash actions that will further their cause by provoking an apocalyptic conflict between Islam and the West. Turning away Syrian refugees, even toddlers, plays into their hands perfectly. So does applying a religious test that admits Christians and excludes Muslims. So would another grinding military occupation in the Middle East.
Nate Cohn: “The weakness of mainstream candidates in New Hampshire poses a big challenge for the party’s beleaguered establishment. If a candidate acceptable to the party can’t win New Hampshire or Iowa, the G.O.P. will face a bleak choice: undertake the daunting and expensive task of mounting a come-from-behind effort, or grudgingly acquiesce to a candidate it really doesn’t want, like Ted Cruz, but who may be better than someone it can never accept, like Mr. Trump. The extent of the weakness of the establishment in New Hampshire is a striking departure from recent contests.”
That is how Cruz is going to win the nomination. He is the only one acceptable to evangelicals and the knuckle dragging racists/bigots, and he at least is a Senator. The Establishment can at least hold their nose at him. And it is a win/win for them. If they win the election, they win. If they lose, then Cruz is finished, as is the Tea Party.
