Republican Trump drops 12 percentage points in poll


U.S. presidential hopeful Donald Trump’s support among Republicans has dropped 12 points in less than a week, marking the real estate mogul’s biggest decline since he vaulted to the top of the field in July, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Trump was the favorite of 31 percent of Republicans in a rolling poll in the five days ended on Nov. 27. That was down from a peak of 43 percent registered on Nov. 22.

The dip follows criticism of Trump for comments he made in the aftermath of the Nov. 13 Paris attacks that killed 130 people and wounded hundreds more.

Following the attacks, Trump told an NBC News reporter that he would support requiring all Muslims within the United States to be registered to a special database, which his critics have likened to the mandatory registration of Jews in Nazi Germany.

Trump has also been criticized for flailing his arms and distorting his speech as he mocked a New York Times reporter, Serge Kovaleski, who is disabled.

Trump mocked the reporter as he defended his unsubstantiated assertion that during the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, he watched on television as “thousands and thousands” of people in New Jersey cheered while the World Trade Center fell.

Still, Trump is not the only front-runner to slide in the latest survey.

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has seen his poll numbers drift downward and now trails Trump by more than half, with just 15 percent of Republicans polled saying they would vote for him in the same Nov. 27 poll. As recently as late October, Carson trailed Trump by only six points.

Following Carson, Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Texas Senator Ted Cruz are tied for third place, with more than 8 percent each.

Following Rubio and Cruz was former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, with 7 percent.

The five-day rolling average sample size ranged from 464 to 347 respondents between Nov. 22 and Nov. 27, with a credibility interval of 5.2 to 6.1 percentage points.

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a rally at the Birmingham Jefferson Civic Complex in Birmingham, Alabama November 21, 2015. REUTERS/Marvin Gentry


Caren Bohan and Andrew Hay

H/t: DB


Friday Fox Follies – Hasselbeck, Hannity, and Hate



Thanksgiving came early for Friday Fox Follies when it was announced on Monday that Elisabeth Hasselbeck Is Leaving Fox & Friends to spend more time with her family.

Yes, after only 2 years on the Curvy Couch, Elisabeth Hasselbeck to Step Down as Co-Host of Fox & Friends, something this reporter predicted privately. Having worked a decade on a morning tee vee show, I know first hand how grueling the hours can be – especially if you have a family – which may explain all the days off Hasselbeck has taken.

Usually, when a politician says they are resigning to spend more time with their family, it’s just after – or ahead of – a scandal. However – finally – we can take her at her word as Hasselbeck Explains Decision to Leave Fox & Friends: My ‘Kids Need the Best of Me,’ referring to Grace, 10, Taylor, 8, and Timmy, 6. Saying she’s leaving one family for another, Elisabeth Hasselbeck holds back tears as she explains her tough decision to leave Fox & Friends. WATCH:

Watch the latest video at

With Elisabeth Hasselbeck Exiting ‘Fox & Friends’ what blonde will Fox “News” find to fill those legs? The network claims it will use a rotating series of guests hosts (read: auditions) once Hasselbeck exits mid-December.

A look back as Elisabeth Hasselbeck calls it quits on “Fox & Friends”: Here are 5 of her greatest Fox News fails. Losing that hefty salary may be why Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Hubs Look To Unload Manse. However, it wasn’t long before she was back to her old self as Elisabeth Hasselbeck Gushes Over Patriotic, Christian Baker’s Exclusionary Sign because that’s exactly what Jesus did with those loaves of bread.

WITH FOX & FRIENDS LIKE THIS: Speaking of F&F, every single day there’s enough shenanigans for a whole column on the topic. Here’s a small sample of this week’s tomfoolery:

Fox’s Steve Doocy Laments That American
Mosques Are No Longer Spied Upon By Police

On Fox & Friends: No Free
Speech For Anti-GOP Cartoonists

Donald Trump Gives A Thumbs Up To
His Thug Supporters Who Beat Up A
Protester – And Gets A Pass From Fox & Friends

Fox News Isn’t Going to Like SNL’s
Latest ‘Cold Open.’ Neither Is Ben Carson…


However, the most bizarre thing that happened with those Foxy Friends this week was when a White Fox News host asks black female colleague, ‘Do you make Kool-Aid?’ Mensa memberVillage idiot Fox’s Kilmeade Asks African-American Fox Host If She Makes Kool-Aid With Her Cobbler because racism. However, Mediate – which far too often gives disgusting behaviour on Fox “News” a pass – claims Brian Kilmeade Asking Harris Faulkner About Kool-Aid Could Be Racist (But Isn’t). How does writer Andrew Husband twist himself into knots to defend this? Thusly:

But is Kilmeade’s question actually racist? A little bit, sure. Given his question’s context, however, it most likely wasn’t said with racist intentions — conscious and otherwise. After all, the question didn’t come up until Faulkner mentioned the recipe’s summer variation.

What about the title of the Media Matters post? It mentions the network and Kilmeade’s names — most likely for search engine purposes — but refers to Faulkner as an “African-American Fox Host.” It doesn’t even mention her last name. How is that any different from a contextually appropriate question about a popular summer beverage? (Albeit one tainted with racist humor.)

Here’s the thing, Mediaite: when something is a “little bit” racist and “tainted with racist humor,” IT’S RACIST!!! Like so much of the Fox “News” Channel.

#BLACKLIVESMATTER: Speaking of racism: Remember how Fox “News” defended Cliven Bundy as a great patriot for holding law enforcement at bay with guns and threats?

The same cannot be said for Black folk protesting peacefully in communities all across ‘Merka. It couldn’t be more obvious when one contrasts How Cable News Covered White Supremacists Allegedly Shooting Black Lives Matter Protesters In Minneapolis.


More #FoxRacismMatters headlines:

Fox News Feigns Concern For Black Crime
To Deflect From Laquan McDonald Protests

Fox Anchor: “The Most Important Message”
Of Laquan McDonald’s Death Is To Obey Police

Fox Panel Says Black Lives Matter Protesters
Are Inciting Violence “To The Point Of Hate Crime”

Watch A Chicago Protester’s Perfect Answer
To Hannity’s Question On Why People
Protest After Police Shoot African Americans

Fox’s Varney Waves Off Laquan McDonald
Shooting As ‘Extraordinary,’ Suggests Most
Black Protests Are Over ‘Perceived Slights’

However, no one at Fox displays the covert racism of whiter-than-white Megyn Kelly. From claiming that Santa and Jesus were both white dudes, to vilifying a handful of hapless New Black Panther Party fools as something to fear, she’s proven over and over she’s is frightened by powerful Black men. No more so than this week because Fox’s Megyn Kelly Has A Problem With This Young Black Protester Looking At A Cop:

RICHARD FOWLER: What is he instigating? Bernie, I’m sorry I’ve got to interrupt.

KELLY: But Richard look at him. This is a cop out there accused of doing nothing wrong, trying to keep the peace.

FOWLER: This guy is having a silent protest with this police officer. This is his first amendment right.

KELLY: He gets right in his face and stares him down? This cop hasn’t done anything wrong.

FOWLER: That is his first amendment right, Megyn.

KELLY: To get in a cops face and stare him down?

FOWLER: And you out of all people, Megyn, believe in protecting — this is his first amendment right. I don’t understand.

KELLY: You think that’s fine? You have no problem with this?

FOWLER: This is his first amendment right. This biggest problem here is —

KELLY: It’s not a question of what his constitutional rights are. It’s a question of what’s appropriate.

Other media took notice of this absurdity as well:

Megyn Kelly Gets Heated with Guest Over
Whether Chicago Protester Is Acting ‘Appropriate’

Megyn Kelly Complains About A Black
Chicago Protester Staring At A Cop

However, she has no problem with soft-spoken crazy Black men as Megyn Kelly Helps Rehab Dr. Ben Carson’s ‘Muslim Cheering’ And ‘Jefferson Crafted The Constitution’ Gaffes.


Fox News is a sewer: ISIS, Ebola and the
network’s familiar fear-mongering campaign

Poll Shows Muslims Overwhelmingly
Hate ISIS, So Fox’s Hannity Claims
[on radio] It Says The Opposite

RABID FOX ATTACKS: Nothing is as much fun as seeing Fox “News” get skewered, so Watch John Oliver Slam Anti-Refugee Rhetoric By Explaining The Thoroughness Of The Refugee Vetting Process. Clearly John Oliver hits a nerve: Fox hosts whine after HBO host debunks their anti-refugee paranoia. It’s stunning to hear Fox Hosts Attack John Oliver For Calling Out America’s “Ugly Reaction[s] To Refugees.”

What’s really funny is that when Fox Hosts Attack John Oliver For Calling Out GOP Fearmongering Over Syrian Refugees:

Of course they completely ignored the main point of Oliver’s segment, but taking comedians out of context and responding to only a small portion of what they said is par for the course over on Faux “news.” They did it constantly to Jon Stewart when he was still on the air.

The punchline comes in John Oliver Attacked By Fox News For Being ‘British’ During Segment On ISIS Infiltrating Syrian Refugees:

Fox host Jesse Watters responded by suggesting Oliver should thank the Pilgrims, because “without the Pilgrims bringing religious freedom here, we wouldn’t be bringing in all of these Muslims, right?” Dana Perino chirped in: “It is always interesting to listen to a condescending British person tell you about colonialism, because the British were so much better at colonialism than the Pilgrims.”

I guess Perino forgot that smarmy Brit Stuart Varney is a condescending sphincter himself.

IN THE TRUMP TANK: Of course, Dr. Ben Carson is not the only GOP presidential candidate for which Fox “News” provides cover.

Sean Hannity Bogusly Tries To Validate
Trump’s Lie About Cheering Muslims On 9/11

Donald Trump: ‘I’m A Great Unifier’

O’Reilly Grills Trump on ‘Totally Wrong’ Tweet;
Trump: ‘Am I Gonna Check Every Statistic?’

However, it was that last segment that proved Loofah Lad is in the tank for Trump. In O’Reilly Claims He’s Never Seen Racism From Donald Trump, Then Highlights His Racist Tweet, there’s this comment from The Falafel King:

O’REILLY: Look, you know I’m looking out for you, right? You know that? That I’m looking out for you? I look out for every honest politician, I don’t care what party they are in. Don’t do this. Don’t put your name on stuff like this. Because it makes the other side, it gives them stuff to tell the ill-informed voter that you are a racist. I mean, you just handed them a platter.

And, because O’Reilly’s looking out for him, Donald Trump Refuses To Take Responsibility For His False, Racist Tweet About Black Crime. Bill O didn’t press him the same way he presses anyone on the left.

BLAMING OBAMA: Last week Friday Fox Follies introduced this rubric. There is never an end to what Fox “News” will blame on the POTUS. This week’s sample includes:

Fox’s McFarland: Obama Gives
‘Encouragement To The Terrorists’ By
Attending Paris Climate Change Conference

On Fox, Rudy Giuliani Mocks Obama
Calling Climate Conference In Paris
“A Powerful Rebuke To The Terrorists”

“It Makes Me Sick”: Fox Criticizes Obama
For Saying International Climate
Summit Will Be A “Rebuke To Terrorists”

Hannity Defends Putin, Blames
Obama For Turkey Shooting
Down Russian Warplane

FOX BYTES: Fox News Sunday Interview With Rush Limbaugh Features His ‘Barack Hussein O And The Jihadi Singers’ SongFox’s Gasparino: Liberals, Academia And Multiculturalism Are ‘Destroying This Country’Listen To A Christian Pastor Push Back Against Sean Hannity’s Anti-Refugee RhetoricWatters World Special Premiere on Fox Gets 1.4 Million ViewersFox Anchor Dismisses Guest Who Accurately Explained Gun Violence Poses Greater Threat To Americans Than Syrian RefugeesO’Reilly: Allowing in Refugees Wouldn’t Endanger Us More, ‘The Bad Guys Are Already Here’

Headly Westerfield is thankful Fox “News” MoFos provides a never-ending vein of raw material to mine for laughs.

An Incomplete Catalog of Donald Trump’s Never-Ending Fabrications

Dennis Van Tine/Geisler-Fotopres/DPA via ZUMA Press


There’s a legal term applied to advertising called “puffery.” For example, if Coca-Cola says Coke is the best-tasting soda in the world, that’s just puffery. They can’t prove it, but that’s okay, even if polls show that most people prefer Pepsi. Legally, statements like this are evaluated not as strictly factual claims, but as mere ordinary boasting, something that “ordinary consumers do not take seriously.”

The same concept applies to politics. Presidential candidates always say their tax plans will balance, they’ll crush every one of our enemies, and the current incumbent is the worst ever in history. This is just puffery. It’s worth pushing back on, but it’s not generally a hanging offense.

But Donald Trump is different. Sure, his picture is probably in the dictionary next to the word “puffery,” but he also tosses out wild howlers with a con man’s breezy assurance and tells flat-out lies as a matter of routine. He’ll say things one day, and 24 hours later he’ll blandly insist he’s being malignly misquoted even though it’s all on tape. These aren’t just exaggerations or spin or cherry picking. They’re things that are flatly, incontrovertibly wrong.

And that’s not all. Trump doesn’t do this only in private or only when he’s under pressure. Nor does he do it to cover up dubious past deeds. That would at least be normal human weakness. Rather, he does it again and again in front of huge crowds and on national TV, whether he needs to or not. It’s just his normal, everyday behavior.

We need an official list of this stuff. Like I said: not exaggerations or spin or cherry picking. Things that are just plain wrong. Here’s a start:

  1. On 9/11, he personally saw thousands of Muslims in Jersey City cheering.
  2. He never said Marco Rubio was Mark Zuckerberg’s “personal senator.”
  3. There are actually 93 million people not working and the real unemployment rate is about 40 percent.
  4. The Obama administration is sending Syrian refugees to red states.
  5. Climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese.
  6. He opposed the Iraq War and has dozens of news clippings to prove it.
  7. Thirteen Syrian refugees were “caught trying to get into the U.S.” (Actually, they just walked up and requested asylum.)
  8. He never said the stuff Megyn Kelly accused him of saying in the first debate.
  9. He will allow guns at Trump golf resorts.
  10. People on the terrorism watch are already prohibited from buying guns.
  11. Among white homicide victims, 81 percent are killed by blacks.
  12. America has thehighest tax rate in the world.
  13. CNN lied when it reported that aspeech he gave in South Carolina was one-third empty.
  14. His criticism of Ford prompted the company to move a factory from Mexico to Ohio.
  15. Vaccines cause autism.
  16. The Obama administration wants to admit 250,000 Syrian refugees.
  17. ISIS built a luxury hotel in the Middle East.
  18. He was on 60 Minutes with Vladimir Putin and “got to know him very well.”
  19. He was never interested in opening a casino in Florida.
  20. November 17: The United States only started bombing ISIS oil fields “two days ago.”
  21. His campaign is 100 percent self-funded.
  22. Mexico doesn’t have birthright citizenship.
  23. The Iran deal forces us to “fight with Iran against Israel” if Israel attacks Iran.
  24. We still “really don’t know” if Barack Obama was born in the United States.
  25. More than 300,000 veterans have died waiting for VA care.
  26. The Bush White House begged him to tone down his “vocal” opposition to the Iraq War.

This is not normal political hucksterism. It’s a pathological disregard for the truth. Trump knows that the conventions of print journalism mostly prevent reporters from really calling him out on this stuff, and he also knows that TV reporters won’t usually press him too hard because they want him back on their shows. And when he does get called out, he just bluffs his way through. He knows his followers will believe him when he says the fault-finding is just another example of how the liberal media has it out for him. Within a day or three, he’s repeated the lie often enough that it’s old news and enters the canon of what “everyone knows.” Journalists don’t even bother with it anymore because they’re already trying to play catch-up with his latest whopper.

Anyway, this list is meant only as a start. It’s what I came up with just by digging through my memory and doing a bit of googling. I’m sure there are plenty of others. Feel free to add them in comments.

Mosque Protester Who Posted Muslims’ Addresses: I’m Being ‘Smeared’





Wright told local TV station KDFW that the anyone could access the information he posted through the city’s website.

But The Dallas Morning News, which first reported the list, noted Thursday that the list of names had disappeared from BAIR’s Facebook page. The newspaper also noted that the personal Facebook profile Wright posted the list of names on had disappeared, although he appears to have created a replacement page. Wright posted the list of names again Wednesday afternoon on that new page.

“I am being attacked and smeared by the liberal media for legally exercising my 1st and 2nd Amendment rights and for using public data to defend my credibility when they make accusations against me,” Wright wrote on Thursday.

Wright went on to describe his group as “self defense only” and wrote that none of its members had killed any Muslims.

“You know as well as I do if it was my intention to use this as a hit list then it would have already happened,” he added in a comment on the post.




Republicans Move to Dump ‘Fascist’ Trump

Photo Credit: AFP


Rivals and party leaders are starting to wonder how committed Trump is to democratic values.

Many say the populist crazy talk is typical of the White House primaries, but Republican front-runner Donald Trump’s increasingly incendiary remarks are leading some conservatives to brand him a “fascist” and party rivals to ramp up attacks against him.

His stance has become so belligerent that voices are asking, even inside his party, whether he is committed to democratic values.

Republican experts are warning that Trump could do lasting damage to the GOP, and that his nomination in the party primaries would essentially hand the presidency to Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

Several campaign teams in the primary race now appear to be coalescing around the need to oppose the celebrity billionaire’s candidacy.

Establishment conservatives even took the unfathomable step of using the F-word against a member of their own party.

“Trump is a fascist. And that’s not a term I use loosely or often. But he’s earned it,” Max Boot, a military historian and foreign policy advisor to Republican presidential hopeful Marco Rubio, posted on Twitter.

“Forced federal registration of US citizens, based on religious identity, is fascism. Period,” added John Noonan, a national security advisor to former Florida governor Jeb Bush.

In its Tuesday editorial the New York Times said the past week of the campaign had been “dominated by Donald Trump’s racist lies.”

The Seattle Times used similarly strong language in a Wednesday editorial that denounced Trump’s “button-pushing lie after button-pushing lie.”

“Trump’s campaign message reflects a kind of creeping fascism,” the paper said. “It needs to be rejected.”

Some campaigns have seemed reluctant to directly take on the Trump machine.

But Bush, struggling to gain traction in the race, piled on, telling Fox News Wednesday that Trump has been creating “an alternative universe” with his harsh rhetoric, particularly about Muslims.

“He doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” Bush said of Trump’s assertion that thousands of people were cheering on 9/11.

– ‘Defeat and destroy’ –

Many Republicans like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie have argued that the climate sparked by the Paris attacks would lead voters towards experienced politicians — not an untested commander in chief such as Trump.

But Trump’s campaign has shown extraordinary resilience, and “the Donald” remains atop all major new polls despite fact-checkers debunking many of his statements.

“They say that Trump can do almost anything, and nobody leaves me. And it is true,” Trump said at a rally Tuesday in South Carolina.

Republican groups are reportedly preparing attack ads against him including a political committee associated with conservative economic group Club for Growth.

Republican political operative Liz Mair has formed a new group, Trump Card LLC, that will fuel an anti-Trump ad blitz.

It aims to solicit funds from anonymous donors to help “defeat and destroy” Trump, according to a recent Wall Street Journal report.

A few anti-Trump videos have recently emerged. Ohio Governor John Kasich launched a one-minute web ad that links Trump to Nazi Germany.

The ad shows US Air Force colonel Tom Moe, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, paraphrasing the words of German pastor Martin Niemoller who spoke out against the Nazi regime.

“You might not care if Donald Trump says Muslims must register with their government because you’re not one,” Moe says in the clip.

“And you might not care if Donald Trump says he’s going to round up all the Hispanic immigrants, because you’re not one,” he adds.

“But think about this: if he keeps going, and he actually becomes president, he might just get around to you. And you better hope that there’s someone left to help you.”

Agence France-Presse

Police Arrest 4th Suspect In Black Lives Matter Shooting, No Charges Yet Filed




Police said in the news release that they weren’t seeking any more suspects although the investigation was ongoing with the help of the FBI.

Court records showed one of the men who was arrested called a police officer he knew to confess to shooting the demonstrators.

A search warrant application showed that Scarsella called a Mankato, Minnesota police officer identified only as “Levin,” who was an old high school friend of his, at 1 a.m. Tuesday to confess to the shooting, according to the Star-Tribune. Scarsella told the officer that he went to the protests, sparked by the fatal police shooting of 24-year-old Jamar Clark, to livestream and then got into a confrontation with demonstrators, according to the newspaper.

Police searched Scarsella’s Bloomington home for white supremacist paraphernalia and found camouflage clothing, ammunition and several firearms, including an AR-15 rifle, according to the warrant obtained by the Star-Tribune.

The four men arrested appeared to connect through 4chan message boards for firearms enthusiasts and racially charged political commentary, according to the newspaper. The Star-Tribune also reported that Gustavsson and Macey were both are students in the gunsmithing and firearms technology program at Pine Technical and Community College.

Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman told the Star-Tribune that an extenstion for prosecutors to file charges against the four men expires at noon Monday. Previously, the newspaper reported that authorities were weighing whether to treat the shooting as a hate crime.

Catherine Thompson

H/t: DB

This is the entire GOP plan: Credibility destroyed after Bush debacle, their only strategy is to scare us

This is the entire GOP plan: Credibility destroyed after Bush debacle, their only strategy is to scare us

(Credit: Zdorov Kirill Vladimirovich via Shutterstock)


Under the presidency of George W. Bush, the so-called “Daddy Party” failed spectacularly on all major adult-male-gender-stereotyped fronts.

On the economic front, its record was terrible, even before it brought us the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression; on the military/national security front, its failure to prevent 9/11—the worst foreign attack on American soil since the War of 1812—was only compounded by its fighting-fire-with-gasoline response, turning both Iraq and Afghanistan into incubators for new generations of jihadists. On the science front, it presided over a widening war on science. In short, the entire framework of the “Daddy Party” construct fell into disrepute by the time Bush left office in 2008.

But now—thanks to the terrorist attacks in Paris—there’s a full-on rush to try to resurrect it. Only of course it’s an incoherent mess, with more focus on spreading fear than countering it. Donald Trump has benefited most on the GOP side, with his quick-draw tough talk, but it was similarly mindless, fact-free tough talk that made such a mess of things post-9/11 in the first place, and this time there’s not even a hint of an actual plan—it’s all just heated bluster, and denouncing Democrats for not frothing at the mouth just like them.

The panic over Syrian refugees is particularly revealing in this regard. Not one American has died at the hands of a refugee either during or since 9/11, although there have been 745,000 of them. Yet, irrational fear of these refugees has defined the only “coherent” policy response the GOP has come up with—both among myth-driven governors and in the shutdown-happy Congress. But when it comes to actually confronting ISIS, they’ve got nothing unified except a PC rampage against Democrats not using the phrase “radical Islam;” aside from that it’s a smorgasbord of proposals ranging from basically endorsing Hillary Clinton’s position (John Kasich) to cutting off their money (Paul and Fiorina) to grandstanding in Congress (Cruz), to reinvading Iraq, with a side of Syria (Bush, Graham and Santorum), to total war (“destroy them”—Carson) or multi-front bellicosity (Trump).

Overall, it skews heavily toward an amped-up front-line war, which is exactly what the terrorists want. It’s what they wanted from the 9/11 attacks, and it’s just what we gave them, and we only got a vastly stronger terrorist enemy as a result. So the “Daddy Party” script is already a proven failure. It’s done. It has no foundation in the adult world of facts, only in infantile, fear-filled imaginations, which is why there’s been so much GOP focus on circulating discredited scare stories.

In fact, the only time that such an all-out-war strategy genuinely has worked in modern American history was World War II—in part because our enemies were ruled by the same kind of flawed hypermasculine ideology, and in part because we made a just peace afterwards with the surviving populations, so that the enmities that led to war in the first place were not reborn.

It’s the remarkable post-war peacemaking process we need to pay far more attention to—and a truly adult attitude, male and/or female, would clearly recognize that. But what stands in our way most dramatically now, like an 800-pound gorilla, is the GOP’s wild-eyed phantasy of omnipotent male power. And if we want to understand that, we need to dig deep into early childhood psychology, exemplified by the work of Melanie Klein, who used that spelling—’phantasy‘ with a ‘ph’ to distinguish unconscious cognition from conscious daydreams. That phantasy world is profoundly dichotomous—me/not-me, omnipotence/powerlessness, bliss/despair, or even terror—and ruled by its own internal logic, confused and contradictory as it may appear to us, that has nothing to do with the outside world, and everything to do with managing imaginary hopes and fears.

As Kleinian therapist Chris Minnick writes, “It is often said that if Freud discovered the ‘child’ in the adult human personality, then Klein discovered the ‘baby’ in Freud’s child.” The tendency for fearful conservatives to posture as strong and attack liberals as weak is sometimes seen as an example of projection, a Freudian defense mechanism where an unwanted feeling or quality is defended against by projecting it onto another. But Klein—discovering the “baby” in Freud’s child—uncovered something more primitive, what she called “projective identification,” which is not directed onto another, but into them, opening the doorway to a much deeper, richer, more complex world of psychodynamic relationships. Minnick’s website contains a wealth of information about Klein’s approach, but before delving into it, it’s helpful to review some other findings first.

I’ve written before about advances in understanding liberal/conservative differences in terms of conservatives’ higher levels of threat sensitivity or “negativity bias” at the physiological level, summarized in the paper “Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology,” by lead author John R. Hibbing of the University of Nebraska. According to this line of research, liberal/conservative differences represent a normal range of human cognition, which has proven itself through evolution.

I quoted part of the paper which advanced the notion that population mixtures of different sensitivity levels had a group adaptive purpose, similar to how “groups of spiders benefit from having a mix of social and asocial members and virtually all species benefit from having individuals with different immune systems.” Consequently, “If this were true, the polarization that afflicts many modern democracies may be a vestige of the mixes of the behaviorally relevant, biological predispositions that worked well in small-scale societies.”

But that doesn’t mean that ideological polarization today is similarly benign, much less helpful. Threat level responses that may be in a normal range when surrounded by a diverse mix of people can quickly become pathologically abnormal if a group is surrounded by others who are equally sensitive to threat, and who feed off of each other’s fears, creating a dynamic based on shared phantasy, rather than any actual real-world threat. Something akin to this is clearly at play in societies where racial or ethnic hysteria breaks out into sustained episodes of mass violence, ethnic cleansing, or genocide, and while political leaders in such situations doubtless posture as strong protectors, their actual base of support is wildly out-of-control fear, fear of a sort that is normally only found in helpless infants who have no ability at all to provide for their own needs.

In America today, this is where “Daddy Party” politics now stands. Which is why Kleinian insights need to be drawn into our discussions in order to fully grasp what’s going on. Gone are the days of actual policies, however deeply flawed they might have been, and we only further confuse ourselves by insisting on trying to understand things in policy terms, when something much darker and more primitive is actually going on.

Minnick’s website is called “Minnick’s Klein Academy: Melanie Klein’s Models for Understanding the BabyCore of Personality,” and a subsection, “The ‘Baby Core’ of the Personality,” takes us right to the heart of what all the “Daddy Party” posturing desperately tries to avoid: “Although most adults behave much of the time in a ‘mature and rational manner,’ ALMOST NOTHING WE ADULTS THINK, FEEL, OR DO IN THE COURSE OF OUR DAILY LIFE IS LEFT UNTOUCHED BY ‘BABY’ STATES OF MIND.” Minnick isn’t normally given to the use of all caps. He really wants to drive that point home. So what are “baby” states of mind? For one thing, they’re something we’d rather not think about:

Being helpless, understanding almost nothing, being utterly dependent on of others for one’s very survival (which depends on these “others’” willingness and capacity to “sacrifice” on behalf of an infant) hardly represents a state of affairs that anyone would stand in line for a chance to experience again.

As a result of this painful state, Minnick notes, there is “a need in early infancy to bring order to the chaos of life outside the womb. This order is achieved by trying to hold ‘good’ experience (i.e. pleasurable) separate and apart from ‘bad’ experience (i.e. painful).” This is where the most basic psychological processes emerge: “This separation leads to a division or partitioning of ‘self’ and ‘objects’ (in psychoanalytic parlance, ‘objects’ refers to people, not things), in which self and object are quite literally divided into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ aspects or ‘parts’.”

This process, commonly referred to as “splitting,” is one of two terms often associated with Klein—along with projective identification. Minnick goes on to say:

This division into ‘parts’ that are generally held separately in the mind, will usually include the evacuation of the ‘bad’ versions of self and object, into the outside world, on a semi-permanent basis, via projective processes, and this whole process will continue to be active throughout the lifespan.

“Projective processes” is Minnick’s preferred alternative for projective identification, which he calls “simultaneously the single most important concept in all of psychoanalysis and simultaneously the most confusing and misunderstood.” In fact, “projective processes” include introjection (imagining another—or aspects of another—inside oneself) as well as projection—or even both, simultaneously.

As Minnick points out, the first example Klein herself ever gave of projective identification was precisely along these lines, in a case of “envious reversal.” Elsewhere he explains:

In this envy driven “role reversal” (or ‘envious reversal’ for shorthand), two processes take place instantaneously and simultaneously. The first is that the projector rids himself of the unwanted baby state, by projecting it into the ‘container’ [the recipient of the projection]. Simultaneously, the projector steals the desirable state of affairs (i.e. some aspect of the “container’s” identity) from the container and takes it in for himself.

Situations like this, in which “the projector’s unconscious motive has a large component of a desire to exchange positions in life with the container,” are “also so common in infancy with mom,” Minnick notes—an indication of their primal power.

Now let’s consider the situation of the “Daddy Party” post-Bush. Everything they once pretended to be had gone bust. The first time since Herbert Hoover that they controlled the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court had ended in utter disaster—disaster so bad that they no longer even knew what conservatism was. On the theory that “conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed,” many conservatives simply stopped counting Bush as one of their own. And yet, although they adopted that conscious dodge, a deeper part of them, subconsciously, could not escape the sting. Which is part of why there was so much animosity toward Obama, and such eagerness to lay blame on him for things that were actually Bush’s responsibility, or the fault of conservatism more broadly, such as rising debt/GDP ratios, a trend dating back to Ronald Reagan.

The fact that Obama tried to reach out and work with conservatives only made matters worse for them at this deeper level of subconscious animosity, intensifying the driving need for an envious reversal. Projecting blame for conservatism’s failures into Obama as the liberal “other” was a move made more difficult by every act he took to try to court cooperation—by including tax cuts as more than one-third of the stimulus, for example.

Such actions by Obama, clashing with their original projections, required more follow-on phantasies to rearticulate the envious reversal. The simplest involved flat-out negating what Obama had done, the more imaginative reinterpreted his actions as deceptive—”setting up Republicans” or conservatives, one way or another. Of course, there was already a phantasy template at hand to help generate these as needed—the birther phantasy, which held that Obama himself was entirely a fraud.

Conservatives had always been comfortable with blacks as other, as containers for their most unwanted projections. But before blacks were demonized, the pattern was initiated with Native Americans. Another Kleinian theorist, Robert Young, has written about racism and projective identification (here and here, for example), noting that “the price of admission into a culture is the acquiring of its projective identifications.” Young cites the example of a 1503 decree by Queen Isabella citing Native Americans’ purported “hard habits of idolatry and cannibalism” as justification for authorizing slavery:

The European charge of cannibalism was unfounded. Harmless and helpful natives were bad-mouthed as wild and bestial, thus legitimating the activities of a master race. The savagery of the conquistadors was projected onto their victims, who could then be seen as subhuman and could be treated in subhuman ways — which they extravagantly were.

A similar dynamic applied to enslaved blacks, regardless of the colonizing power involved. The savagery of conquest was projected into the conquered. However, when situations allowed, there was often a place for a few “respectable” tokens who served a variety of different functions for white slaveholders, and later white leaders who followed them—to endorse their views, make them seem more reasonable, provide pacifying “leadership” for the masses, etc.

Obama was threatening for a number of reasons, not least that he adopted a form of respectability politics, while remaining relatively loyal to the black base, and running as a Democrat, whose policies were anathema to movement conservatives. Hence, at the overt level, he disarmed the demonizing projective processes, particularly in courting conservatives outright—praising Ronald Reagan, inviting Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration, reaching out to conservative opinion writers,dining with them within weeks of taking office, etc.—but he would not validate the projection of otherness onto other blacks as a whole, which is a core purpose of the “respectable black” figure. And thus the need to otherize him (and project white evil acts, impulses, phantasies, etc. into him), as blacks had always been otherized, needed to find a new form, a new rationale. Which is precisely what the birtherphantasy did. It said that everything about him was a lie, so nothing he did could make any difference. It invalidated any action he might take, leaving it to be reinterpreted by those who most despised him, without any regard to the facts.

Once established, the core birther phantasy could be applied in any situation. It took the place of a totalizing ideology to unify the conservative base, even as they remained adrift with the wreckage of the “Daddy Party” legacy. But in a sense, this move only made matters worse, deeping the hold of negative partisanship on the GOP. Defeating the monster Obama effectively took over the space where some semblance of a positive policy agenda ought to have been—if only conservatives had a clue what that might be. “Repeal and replace Obamacare”… with what, exactly?Romneycare? Really?

The more obviously hollow the the GOP’s policy side became, while Obama’s wonkish side was increasingly on display, the more compelling the projective dynamic became—all the conservatives’ incoherence, cluelessness and destructive rage were repeatedly projected into their image of him, and the more reasonable he acted, the more adult he tried to be, the more intense their infantile rage became. Nothing made them feel more like helpless infants than seeing Obama act presidential—especially when he reached out to them, inviting a mature response, which they were utterly incapable of, boxed in by their own intricate structure of lies about him, prisoners of their own dark projections.

In 2011, Donald Trump made his first serious play for a presidential run, using birtherism as his calling card. It ended disastrously, when Obama released his long-form birth certificate, and then teased Trump in public at the White House Correspondents dinner, while secretly preparing the raid that killed bin Laden. And yet, some nine months later, more of the GOP base than ever believed in the birtherphantasy. It had absolutely nothing to do with empirical evidence.

Fast-forward to this year, when Trump almost accidentally stumbled onto his new ticket to the top—demonizing immigrants—just one of several topics he vaguely rambled on about, but the one that immediately caught fire, and the one that’s really still dominant in a very real sense, since anti-immigrant policies—this time directed against Syrian refugees—are the only consistent form that GOP anti-ISIS politics has taken since the Paris attacks. This is yet another sign of the “Daddy Party” decay: anti-immigrant phantasies run wild, driving actions by Congress and dozens of governors, but there’s no sign of any coherent anti-terrorist strategy aimed at actually defeating ISIS.

The driving force of anti-immigrant animus is racism, of course. But it’s intensified by the size of the demographics trends involved. After losing the 2012 election, GOP elites saw the need for a work-around, a way to blunt the inevitable political impact, give themselves space and time for repositioning. But the phantasy life of their base simply left no room for that.

Once again, the “Daddy Party” had no actual policies to offer, and it fell back ontophantasy-based fearmongering instead. Also, once again, Obama had played the role of adult, bending over backwards to meet Republicans halfway. Deportations evenreached record highs under him—causing a fair amount of anger from his base. And so, once again, Republicans responded with an envious reversal, painting Obama as eagerly flooding the country with “illegal immigrants,” and utterly denying their own lack of responsible action.

That was the field on which Trump built his phantasy-fueled racist campaign, propped up by his ludicrous claim to be a builder, rather than someone who hiresbuilders, and his equally ludicrous claim that building a 95-story building (there are more than 30) is more difficult than building a 2,000-mile wall (there’s just one).

The situation with fighting ISIS that erupted after the Paris attacks was strikingly similar in several ways. The envious reversal to place blame on Obama moved on two main levels. First, the problem was created by Bush’s invasion of Iraq, but Obama is evil, so he had to be blamed for that. Ergo, erase the fact that Obama was only following Bush’s blueprint when he withdrew forces from Iraq, the thread that’s used to try to shift the blame to him.

Second, last year, after the explosive spread of ISIS, Obama began trying to craft an adult response, balancing the need for military action with the realization that deploying substantial U.S. ground forces was both counterproductive and politically unsustainable. There are problems with Obama’s plan, to be sure. But it is an adult plan, and can be debated as such. In February, after months of delay, Obama asked Congress for authorization of military force to support his plan. Two months later,GOP leaders said forget about it! They didn’t come up with their own counter-plan. They didn’t do anything adult at all. They just—as almost always—did a big fat incoherent nothing.

Here, then, is the substance of the second envious reversal: Obama has a plan, the GOP does not; Obama cares a great deal, and has put a lot of thought and effort into it, the GOP has not. Suddenly, the Paris attacks happen, and it’s envious reversal time: Obama’s the one with no plan, and no interest, no effort fighting ISIS, the GOP—heck, they’re the “Daddy Party,” remember?

Every day it seems there’s a new wave of over-the-top GOP claims, mostly inflating fears and attacking others who won’t do the same. This is not a matter that’s open to debate. It’s not a matter of “opinions may differ.” It’s not even a matter of fact-checking individual fact-claims. It’s not a case-by-case kind of situation. Their entire framework of thinking is grounded in deeply-buried phantasies of helplessness and omniscience; it has no relationship whatever to the real world.

At the Washington Post recently, Daniel Drezner wrote a piece, “Donald Trump is constantly lying.” There’s nothing new about this, of course. He’s been lying constantly all along. But it’s gotten more acute, more noticeable since the Paris attacks. At the conclusion of his piece, Drenzer writes:

Trump has lied so many times about so many things during the past week that it’s difficult to keep track of all of them. But it doesn’t matter whether one focuses on Trump’s attitudes about crime or American Muslims or trade policy. He lies about all of these issues. And he will continue to lie as long as it works for him.

That’s what liars do.

True enough. But it’s not the heart of the matter. Closer to the heart is something Drezner said earlier, that “Trump’s MO on this ever since he’s become a candidate has been a simple five-step plan,” to wit:

  1. Say/tweet/retweet outrageous thing;
  2. Dominate the next news cycle;
  3. Bully the media that focus on the outrageous statement;
  4. Backtrack/claim misinterpretation;
  5. Sustain polling advantage.

In a sense, lying is basic to this—his outrageous statements all flow from lies. But the dynamic itself is much more important for us to focus on. It focus attention on how Trump uses lies—on what he does, rather than what he says. Which, in turn can be described as how he acts out and mobilizes Kleinian phantasies. Make no mistake, he’s a master at it. But he’s not the only one in the game. The entire “Daddy Party” is. Watch what they do, not what they say.

What they do: They couldn’t govern their way out of a paper bag. In fact, they’re really the baby party. All they can do is finger-point and fear-monger. That’s it.

What they say: If they can just pull off one more master envious reversal, convincing everyone it’s the Democrats who are helpless, clueless idiots, then they recapture the White House once again.

We’ve been warned. We’ve seen the “Daddy Party” fail spectacularly. Now, will we really believe it wasn’t them?

H/t: DB



An Officer Has Been Charged With The Murder Of Laquan McDonald. But What About The Cover-Up?



After the first murder charge against an active-duty Chicago police officer in over three decades, the city’s political establishment is eager to move on.

But while Officer Jason Van Dyke could face 20 years or more in prison if convicted of killing 17-year-old Laquan McDonald over a year ago without apparent justification, the broader breakdown of the police department and city government’s responsibilities to McDonald and the broader Chicago community threatens to go unpunished.

The whole ugly thing would likely have gotten swept under the rug if journalists had not exposed an autopsy report and video footage that contradict the official narrative about what happened to McDonald. One of those journalists is Jamie Kalven, who emphasized the extensive and toxic cover-up of the killing to the Chicago Reporter on Tuesday.

Instead of taking statements from eyewitnesses, Kalven says, police moved people away from the scene of the killing. They did not take down contact information to ensure they could follow up later, witnesses told the journalist. Cops even went into a nearby fast food store and deleted nearly an hour and a half of security camera footage that may have captured the killing, the local NBC news affiliate reported back in the spring.

After neutralizing the potential for an alternative narrative based on civilian accounts and security camera footage, the police infrastructure offered its own version of events to the public. According to Fraternal Order of Police spokesman Pat Camden, “none of the officers who responded had a Taser to use on the teen and were trying to detain him long enough for one to arrive.” Camden told the Chicago Tribune that McDonald lunged at the cops, who shot him in self-defense.

The video Kalven helped expose indicates Camden was lying, or at least relaying a story that bears little resemblance to the truth. McDonald is seen jogging and then walking in the middle of a street, roughly parallel to a line of cops and cop cars. He is starting to veer away from the officers when Van Dyke empties a 16-round clip into him in about 15 seconds. Charging documents indicate that 14 of Van Dyke’s shots came while McDonald was already on the ground, and that one of the two fired while the child was standing struck him in the back first.

Van Dyke opened fire just six seconds after exiting his car and just half a minute after his vehicle arrived at the scene, according to prosecutors. Less than a minute passed between Van Dyke’s arrival to a scene where fellow officers were working to contain McDonald and detain him, and when the accused murderer had to stop and reload his service pistol because he’d fired a full clip into McDonald.

Yet the department itself claimed that McDonald died of a single gunshot to the chest, not the 16 shots to the back, legs, arms, chest, and head that Van Dyke actually fired.

The documents also say that no other officers at the scene thought McDonald had done anything threatening toward Van Dyke, corroborating the appearance of events from the dashcam video. But the investigation that produced those statements from Van Dyke’s colleagues began only after reporters challenged the official story.

Today, even with the official story of McDonald’s death in tatters, city officials appear eager to limit the blame to Van Dyke. “One individual needs to be help accountable,” Mayor Rahm Emanuel said on a conference call with community leaders Monday.

Once Van Dyke is prosecuted, the mayor said, “we can go as a city and begin the process of healing.” That process seems unlikely to include accountability for Van Dyke’s colleagues who abetted the official story about why and how he killed McDonald.

It’s rare for police officers to face professional accountability over misconduct allegations, let alone to be prosecuted for a crime. But its rarer still to see prosecutors, supervisors, or city officials seek broader remedies for the offending officer’s co-conspirators even when video evidence indicates a cover-up. In part that’s because it’s tough to discern between an out-and-out cover-up and a more understandable degree of confusion in the immediate wake of a police killing.

Policework requires officers to arrive at a consistent narrative of events in general, managing editor Jonathan Blanks said in an email. “Each case is different, but typically officers sign-off on one another’s official accounts for consistency in any case, whether or not there is misconduct or use of force. This isn’t necessarily malevolent on the part of the officers–consistent accounts build much stronger cases than cases that have conflicting accounts,” Blanks, who has studied policing for years, said.

That baseline dynamic of policework makes it hard for even the most aggressive prosecutor to discern between willful dishonesty and good-faith consensus between officers with different vantage points and recollections.

When a group of Fullerton, CA police officers beat Kelly Thomas to death as he cried out for his father and told his assailants he couldn’t breathe in 2011, city officials initially told reporters that Thomas had actually died of a drug overdose. They also said he’d been violently resisting arrest to such an extent that multiple officers had broken bones. Neither of those claims is true, and Thomas’ father has accused Fullerton officials of intentionally smearing his son’s character in the press to excuse an abuse of force. But the broken bones claim is partially supported by initial medical reports that the officers might have fractures, and an outside review commissioned by the city found officials did not intentionally deceive the public. Two of the officers were charged and later acquitted in Thomas’ death, and the city paid out a multimillion-dollar settlement to Thomas’s father.

After Officer Timothy Loehmann killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland, he claimed he’d given the child multiple verbal warnings before shooting him in the chest. Loehmann said Rice, who was holding a toy gun rather than a real weapon, then reached into his waistband. “He gave me no choice, he reached for the gun and there was nothing I could do,” Loehmann told investigators. Prosecutors have commissioned reports from experts siding with Loehmann on the reasonableness of his decision to kill Rice. Video shows he in fact shot Rice less than two seconds after arriving on the scene, and is inconclusive on the claim that Rice reached for something. Prosecutor Timothy McGinty has accused Rice’s family of being out for money rather than justice and generally stalled on deciding whether or not to charge Loehmann in the killing, but investigations have revealed that other officers are not willing to corroborate Loehmann’s claims about yelling multiple warnings prior to shooting Rice.

Sometimes, though, the cover-up question is more clear-cut. Officer Michael Slager spent days telling the world that Walter Scott had tried to take his taser, forcing him to shoot Scott fatally in South Carolina last spring, before a cell phone video exposed that Slager had in fact shot a fleeing Scott repeatedly in the back. The video appears to show Slager dropping his taser near Scott’s body only after killing him. Slager’s police department backed up his story for a matter of days before the truth came out, leading prosecutors to charge the officer with murder.

Video similarly contradicted an initially-widespread narrative in the killing of Sam DuBose by University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing. Tensing and multiple other officers said DuBose’s car had begun to drag Tensing, causing the officer to shoot the driver in self-defense. The video shows the car didn’t start moving until after Tensing put a bullet through DuBose’s head at point-blank range.

Anecdotes don’t satisfy. But there’s almost zero hard data that can shed light on the divide between legitimate officer consensus and willful cover-up. The police misconduct tracking site that Blanks helps run has flagged a small percentage of overall misconduct cases as involving some form of dishonesty by officers, but that’s a broad category.

“Our data is very limited for a number of reasons,” Blanks said. “The so-called Blue Wall of Silence is an informal institutional norm that tends to place officers’ loyalty to one another over professional dedication to justice,” in part because honest officers are afraid of what their coworkers would do to them if they don’t back a colleague’s story. That undermines the quality of the data across the board, and even those incidents where the Blue Wall breaks down can remain out of public view thanks to records laws. “The public is left to trust the administrative mechanisms to mete out officer punishments for violations…without the public eye watching over that you would see in a criminal trial,” Blanks said.


The New York Times Finally Calls Trump What He ACTUALLY Is, And It’s About Time


While conservatives love to complain that the media is somehow run by liberal overlords somewhere, when one actually pays attention to the news being told by media outlets, it actually appears to be quite the opposite. If there’s one thing Republicans are actually good at, it’s controlling the conversation — including, but not limited to, the media.

Many news outlets are still giving Donald Trump the microphone weekly, or rather daily, to spew his rhetoric, hate and nonsense. He was even given the much-coveted spot of hosting Saturday Night Live a few weeks ago, and the reason is simple — ratings.

Trump knows what he’s doing, he’s been doing it for decades, and that’s getting ratings and selling things. The product that he is selling currently isn’t a book or a television show, but rather himself, and the media is falling for his schtick hook, line and sinker. Seemingly embracing every horrible thing that comes out of his mouth because it drives ratings.

However, it looks as though at least one media outlet finally called Trump what he is — a liar.

In an article titled “Mr. Trump’s Applause Lies” the New York Times finally called the real estate mogul, and aspiring emperor of the world out on his many lies.

They write:

“In the Republican field, Mr. Trump has distinguished himself as a fastest to dive to the bottom. If it’s a lie too vile utter aloud, count on Mr. Trump to say it, often. It wins him airtime, and retweets go through the roof.

This phenomenon is in fact nothing new. Politicians targeting minorities, foreigners or women have always existed in the culture. And every generation or so, at least one demagogue surfaces to fan those flames.”

The New York Times then points out a number of just flat-out lies and compares the bombastic egomaniac to the likes of former Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy, who similarly fanned the flames of prejudice and provocation in the 1950s. He’s one of the main reasons we now have ‘Under God’ and ‘In God We Trust’ all over everything — because of McCarthy’s fear-mongering then. The Times also goes on to compare Trump to the same tactics of George Wallace.

They write:

“Mr. Trump stays at the top of the Republican field, it’s become a full-time job just running down falsehoods like the phony crime statistics he tweeted, which came from a white supremacist group. Yet Mr. Trump is regularly rewarded with free TV time, where he talks right over anyone challenging him, and doubles down when called out on his lies.”

The New York Times is pointing out the truth in the overall media’s allowance of Trump’s lies, nonsense, racist rhetoric and bloviated prose, and good on them for finally doing so.


Watch: Republican Candidate John Kasich Is Fed Up With His Party’s Hate Speech (VIDEO)


At least one member of the GOP seems to be very well aware of the Republican party’s descent into something bordering on Nazism.

Republican presidential candidate John Kasich just released an ad that has to be seen to be believed. It’s based on the famous “First they came for…” quote, attributed to German Pastor Martin Niemöller.

The original statement by Niemoller speaks of the conditions in Nazi Germany, prior to the Second World War.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

The ad, which was released on Tuesday, features Col. Tom Moe, a retired Air Force serviceman, and former Vietnam prisoner of war. As the video begins, Col. Moe says “I would like anyone who is listening to consider some thoughts.”

He then goes on to paraphrase the words of Pastor Niemoller.

Watch the video below

Last month Kasich slammed his fellow candidates at a campaign rally in his hometown of Westerville, Ohio.

During his speech he asked, “What’s happened to our party? What’s happened to the conservative movement?”

He told his supporters in no uncertain terms that he is at the end of his rope when it comes to his fellow conservatives.

“I’ve about had it with these people,” he said. “I want you to know I’m fed up. I’m sick and tired of listening to this nonsense and I’m going to have to call it like it is in this race.”

Kasich asked, “Do you know how crazy this election is? We got one candidate that says we ought to abolish Medicaid and Medicare. You ever heard of anything so crazy as that?”

Speaking of Ben Carson’s flat tax proposal, he said, “We got one person saying we ought to have a 10 percent flat tax that will drive up the deficit in this country by trillions of dollars.” He went to ask, “Why don’t we have no taxes? Just get rid of them all, and then a chicken in every pot on top of it,” bringing the Hoover era, and the corresponding Great Depression, to mind.

“We got one guy who says we ought to take 10 or 11 million people … we’re gonna pick them up and we’re gonna take them to the border and scream at them to get out of our country? That’s just crazy,” he said.

After lamenting the descent of his party into complete stupidity and craziness, he remarked to the audience,

“You know, folks, we better be careful that we don’t turn this country over to somebody who’s not capable of running it. Because if we turn this country over to somebody with wild ideas that thinks they can scream and bluster or operate their way to success, it’s my kids who are going to be at risk and your kids and your grandchildren and all of us. So why don’t we grow up?”

Here’s an excerpt from the speech, via NowThis Politics on Facebook.