You have to congratulate ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos today for managing to demonstrate, within a 45 minute span, everything that is currently wrong with the Presidential race, and the current front-runners:
First George interviewed Donald Trump, who, as always, said nothing of substance, declared that what he would do as President would be wonderful, gave no specifics whatsoever about how he would “be great for the blacks, bring all those jobs back from China,” and showed that his versions of law, logic and ethical reasoning are infantile…BUT did it with cockiness and flair, which is apparently good enough for millions of people. He mainly rambled on about how Chief Justice Roberts has been “a disaster,” demonstrating that he assesses judges like interior decorators: if you like the result, they did a great job. Trump cited Ted Cruz’s support for Roberts’ nomination, and Stephanopoulos didn’t have the wit to point out that Cruz wasn’t elected to the Senate until 2012, whereas Roberts was confirmed in 2005.
Actually, the Cruz-Roberts connection is that Cruz recruited Roberts, whom he knew as a Supreme Court law clerk, for George Bush’s legal team during the 2000 election controversy. Bush won that election, you will note, so in that case, Roberts seems to have been a good choice. I suspect that history will look at Roberts as an unusually skillful Chief Justice who managed to keep an unusually fractious court in line, and squeezed a lot of unanimous decisions out of a group that easily could have been dysfunctional.
When the host pointed to an old video in which Trump appeared to endorse the concept of “New York values,” Trump repeated his stunt that worked so well during the debate, waxing on about the city’s response to 9-11. I can understand why Cruz didn’t make this point, but a competent interviewer is obligated to: “Wait, sir, are you saying that New York City reacted any differently or more courageously to that tragedy than Charleston responded to the church shooting or the people of Oklahoma City responded to its bombing? Surely you know that Sen. Cruz was talking about liberal social values, not typical American resilience in the face of tragedy?”
Trump also used ad hominem attacks on Cruz, saying that “everybody hates him” (Everybody who had to work with Teddy Roosevelt hated him, too, because he always led, never followed. Leaders are often disliked that way) and that “he’s a nasty guy.” Other nasty guys: Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama-…and Donald Trump, just to keep it to WW II and after. Everyone liked Gerald Ford, Warren G. Harding and Ulysses Grant, however.
George appeared afraid of Trump.
Then Stephanopoulos interviewed the wife of his old boss. He asked some tough questions, but did nothing adversarial or probing when Hillary ducked them. He began by asking about reports that her campaign (actually it was a campaign hit-man, Media Matters’ David Brock, which is the same thing as her campaign) asked Bernie Sanders for his medical records, a public inference that the 74-year-old Sanders was hiding an infirmity. Clinton then showered George with weasel words about how ‘we all have to produce medical records’ and how this is just the typical give and take in a campaign (“everybody does it”) while never actually admitting that her campaign did make the demand, and that it came because Sanders is breathing down her neck in the polls.
Discussing the controversial Iran deal, she uttered a statement (I wish I had the transcript, but it’s too early) that epitomizes the astounding fantasy underlying this irresponsible agreement. Yes, she said, we have lots of problems with Iran violating international accords, taking American citizens and supporting terrorism on a grand scale, but we have stopped its nuclear threat, and that means that yesterday was good news for Americans.
I don’t care if one is a Democrat, a Republican or a codfish, there is no way that statement makes any sense at all. It’s a self-proving lie:
1. If a country can’t be trusted to follow international accords, then it can’t be trusted.
2. The nuclear agreement is such an accord. The fact that Iran hasn’t violated it yet does not mean any nuclear threat has been stopped. At best, it has been delayed. Her statement could have been authored by Neville Chamberlain.
George didn’t challenge her at all because—well, you know, right? Meanwhile, Clinton, even with an interviewer she knew would be friendly, seemed tense and creepy, as usual. Was there an agreement beforehand that George wouldn’t address the FBI’s expanding the investigation of her e-mail security to the Clinton Foundation, or reports that the FBI and the intelligence community was going to insist that she be indicted? If there was, that’s a betrayal of the public interest, and if there wasn’t, Stephanopoulos should be sacked.
3. Finally George interviewed Bernie Sanders like he was cross-examining a hostile witness in court. The difference between his tone and aggressiveness with Bernie and his respectful, gentle touch with Clinton was palpable, and embarrassing. He even dredged up decades old Sanders statements that contradicted his current positions, to which Sanders, reasonably enough, said, “So what?” Somehow, while blatantly displaying his pro-Clinton bias, George still allowed Bernie to wiggle out of corners that a competent and diligent interviewer would have blocked: asked if accusations that he would dismantle Medicare were fair, Sanders said absolutely not, and then promoted his single-payer system, which will require the complete dismantling of Medicare and Obamacare, not to mention finding billions of dollars that will have to come out of somebody’s pocket, or add to the burgeoning debt.
There we have it, America, our current frontrunners: a blustering, empty ego who reasons at a rudimentary level and speaks in hyperbole, insults and generalities, a secretive, Machiavellian woman who can’t be trusted no matter what she says, and a confident, deluded double-talker, revealed to America by fearful, lazy, biased journalism.
No wonder Americans are angry.
Ethics Alarms 
True.
Given the ballistic missile test, Iran has not violated the agreement in only most technical sense.
Wow! How come that’s obvious to you, and not any Democrats??
I really wish Elizabeth Warren had run….
She is spectacularly unqualified for any executive position.
Oh, but her plan to lower interest on student loans by taxing the rich was such a great idea…
The author of this is the person who didn’t do their research, not ABC.
Trump is right on this one.
Cruz already admitted to publicly supporting Roberts and he even said it was a mistake:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ted-cruz-john-roberts-mistake
Read. Can you read? I wrote that Cruz never supported Roberts as a Senator, which is what Trump’s typically sloppy rhetoric implied. Cruz’s support in any other capacity is as meaningful as my support, which is NOT. Support as a Senator means Cruz is accountable—his personal opinion as “support” is insignificant.
Of course Cruz says that now, being a tea party leader and against anything that allowed Obamacare to stand. Roberts is not partisan, and his decision was legally supportable and responsible. I didn’t argue that Cruz wasn’t pro Roberts at some point, just that Trump was misleading and George didn’t clarify. Roberts’ performance as Chief Justice is irrelevant to Ted Cruz.
Read. The post was clear.
Again, “A pox on both their houses and George S. Too!!
“He asked some tough questions, but did nothing adversarial or probing when Hillary ducked them.” “George still allowed Bernie to wiggle out of corners that a competent and diligent interviewer would have blocked….
No one ever, ever, ever asks even a follow-up question on television anymore, Jack. It’s as if there’s a written rule that the questioner asks a question and the questionee can say anything they want, read some talking points or just spout some gibberish. Then the questioner (who evidently doesn’t even listen to the response) simply moves on to the next prepared question says “Thank you for being here” and moves on to a commercial.
Probing? Diligence? Hah. I haven’t seen either on television in decades and it is pathetic. And ubiquitous.
I wonder what the rationale was that brought about the situation where dealing with the front runners from each party included two Democrats and one republican. Is it that they don’t see Bernie as a Democrat, so used to seeing the I beside his name? Is it because having three people in the race, as opposed to… What are we at? 10? Makes it a whole lot easier to have poll numbers North of 40%? Or is it because Cruz scares George even more than Trump?
The thing is, opening up Iran more to the west is likely to corrupt their culture just as it has corrupted numerous other cultures. The West – and the US in particular – is good at exporting their culture. The ultimate goal of opening up Iran is to make them no longer want to be a problem child. Iran isn’t particularly dangerous compared to numerous other nations which we are less alarmed about, like, say, Saudi Arabia.
Plus, they did fill in their reactor with concrete, which is kind of hard to undo.
Iran has been showing some good faith here, and the fact is that if you never reward anyone for good behavior, you aren’t really going to be doing much to make them want to be good.
Incidentally, this is extremely disturbing:
“Trump also used ad hominem attacks on Cruz, saying that “everybody hates him” (Everybody who had to work with Teddy Roosevelt hated him, too, because he always led, never followed. Leaders are often disliked that way) and that “he’s a nasty guy.” Other nasty guys: Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama-…and Donald Trump, just to keep it to WW II and after.”
First off, a lot of those people were quite popular. Everybody DIDN’T hate them. They had lots of allies. Indeed, LBJ was excellent at coalition building and getting people to agree with him to do things. It is how he got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, and how he had so much power. FDR, too, was widely liked. Clinton is still widely liked.
Secondly, the overwhelming majority of people that everybody hates are people who are, in fact, unfit to be president of the United States. The odds of someone who everyone dislikes being unfit to be president are vastly, vastly higher than the odds of someone who is liked to be president. And indeed, Cruz shows all the characteristics of someone who is unfit to be president, and is disliked because of it – he cannot understand the concept of compromise or working together, and he engages in unethical behavior, like shutting down the government as a political stunt and wasting billions of dollars.
You’re committing a major logical fallacy in claiming that being disliked is a sign of leadership. In fact, it is quite the opposite – leaders tend to be, at a minimum, respected, and frequently are indeed liked. Cruz is neither.
1. Iran’s been firing missiles and humiliating US servicemen. Calling anything Iran has done “good faith” is an unwarranted exaggeration
2. Those Presidents I mentioned were NOT popular with those who worked with them, nor personally. I wasn’t talking about poll numbers. Teddy Roosevelt acted just like Ted Cruz in the NY legislature, and was hated by his own party.
3. I did not say that being disliked was a sign of leadership. I really detest having words put in my mouth—don’t do it again, please. I won’t be nice next time. I pointed out that other leaders, good ones, successful ones, have been disliked. Saying that a feature is not a disqualification for leadership is nothing like saying that it is a sign of leadership. My point is that it’s largely irrelevant. Trump, who reasons like a child, is always pointing to poll numbers to validate his worth. Popularity doesn’t mean some one is smart, good, or effective.
George Stephanopoulos got his spot because his political connections were right and likewise carried a lot of clout, being Clinton derived. I wonder if ABC dared NOT hire him. Certainly, they wouldn’t dare to fire him short of his molesting Chelsea Clinton on his desk during a broadcast.
“There we have it, America, our current frontrunners: a blustering, empty ego who reasons at a rudimentary level and speaks in hyperbole, insults and generalities, a secretive, Machiavellian woman who can’t be trusted no matter what she says, and a confident, deluded double-talker, revealed to America by fearful, lazy, biased journalism.”
I disagree with the assertion that Sanders is a “deluded double talker.” I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to suggest that. My sense of Sanders is that his intentions are sincere and his motives are basically non-sociopathic, which in this day and given the others in the race, is refreshing and inspirational.Perhaps with time and more exposure to Sanders, my sense of Sanders may shift. But the critiques of Trump, Clinton and Stephanopoulos are spot on. We’re fucked, I’m afraid.
Sincere, he is. Sanders was a Stalinist. He can’t add: none of his grand, socialist plans can be paid for. His theories have wrecked the economies of countries across Europe. He literally appears to have neither interest, knowledge nor comprehension of the importance of US foreign policy. Sincerity is unusual in a politician, but it’s faint compensation for delusion and incompetence.