THE DEMS: LERER – Bill Clinton’s talk; HANSON – How the Clintons got rich; LEDEEN – Hillary’s hacker; HOWLEY – DNC cheated Bern; FRENCH – Dems elect Trump; WILLIAMSON – Black Hole.
GOP: RUSHBO – Trump to win?; SILVER – Trump’s convention bounce.
LEADS: HANSON – Moral outrage; WHITE – Facebook no show x7 for IRS.
END NOTES: BRODY – Sugar Babe Hillary.
Remember a Vet!
RCP Polls – Tuesday, July 26
|Race/Topic (Click to Sort)||Poll||Results||Spread|
|General Election: Trump vs. Clinton||LA Times/USC||Trump 47, Clinton 40||Trump +7|
|Missouri: Trump vs. Clinton||KSDK-TV/SurveyUSA*||Trump 47, Clinton 37||Trump +10|
|Kansas: Trump vs. Clinton||Fort Hays St. University*||Trump 44, Clinton 27||Trump +17|
THE DEMS . . .
Lisa Lerer, AP: “BILL CLINTON TELLS A LOVE STORY TO MAKE HIS CASE FOR HILLARY”
“. . . “In the spring of 1971, I met a girl,” he began.
The former president’s tenth address to a Democratic convention was by far his most personal, a 42-minute tour through wedding proposals and Halloween parties, the deaths of parents and movie marathons.
Perhaps their worst moments – the Monica Lewinsky scandal, impeachment and legal battles that followed – were conspicuously omitted though hinted at.
“She’ll never quit on you,” he said. “She never quit on me.”
Instead, Bill Clinton cast himself as a passenger in his wife’s life, reshaping the story of much of their decades in politics.
The goal was to make Clinton, perhaps the most famous female politician in the world, yet a public figure her aides claim remains unknown, relatable to voters. He cast her as a liberal heroine of her own story, who fought for education reform, health care, civil rights, the disabled, 9/11 first responders and economically depressed rural areas.
“She’s the best darn change-maker I’ve ever met in my entire life,” he said. “This woman has never been satisfied with the status quo on anything. She always wants to move the ball forward. That is just who she is.”
Victor Davis Hanson, NRO: “How the Clintons Got Rich Selling Influence While Decrying Greed”
“Peddling access and elite status, the Clintons have turned progressivism into a lucrative global venture. Most presidents, before and after holding office, are offered multifarious opportunities to get rich, most of them unimaginable to Americans without access to influential and wealthy concerns. But none have so flagrantly circumvented laws and ethical norms as have Bill and Hillary Clinton, a tandem who in little more than a decade went from self-described financial want to a net worth likely over $100 million, or even $150 million.
“The media had been critical of former president Jerry Ford’s schmoozing with Southern California elites, with Ronald Reagan’s brief but lucrative post-presidential speaking, and with George W. Bush’s youthful and pre-presidential windfall profits from his association with the Texas Rangers. And all presidents emeriti glad-hand and lobby the rich to donate to their presidential libraries, but with important distinctions. One can argue that Jimmy Carter sought donations to his nonprofit Carter Library and Center out of either ego or a sincere belief in doing good works. The same holds true of the libraries of the Bushes and Reagan. No president, however, sought to create a surrogate nonprofit organization to provide free private-jet travel for the former first family while offering sinecures to veteran operatives between campaigns. The worth of both the Clinton family and the Clinton Foundation (augmented by a recent ten-month drive to raise $250 million for the foundation’s endowment) is truly staggering, and to a great extent accrued from non-transparent pay-for-play aggrandizement.
“What, then, makes the Clintons in general, and Hillary in particular, so avaricious, given that as lifelong public officials with generous pensions and paid expenses they nevertheless labored so hard to accumulate millions in ways that sometimes bothered even friends and supporters? Wall Street profiteering aside, why, while decrying soaring tuition and student indebtedness, would Hillary Clinton charge the underfunded University of California, Los Angeles, a reported $300,000 — rather than, say, $50,000 — for a 30-minute chat?”
Michael Ledeen, PJM: “Who’s Hillary’s Hacker and Why?”
“. . . The penetration of the DNC is almost certainly part of the larger story of Hillary’s use of an insecure private server. That server was apparently first discovered when “Guccifer” penetrated Sidney Blumenthal’s email account. He had many exchanges with Hillary, and Guccifer found them. That led him to Hillary. And once you’re in Hillary’s server, you can be sure that there are links to the DNC.
“Guccifer operated via an ‘anonymous’ server in Russia. I don’t know if he was working for a Russian intelligence service, or a Russian mafia, or for himself, or for some foreign government or intel service or just to make money. The Feds may know more, since he’s now in jail in Virginia, but then again they may not. They seem not to have known about Guccifer’s hacking activities in the first place, and I know people who have brought data about his activities to the FBI, who told me that the Bureau was surprised.
“I seem to recall that the FBI took many years to put together its own computer network.
“In any event, I suspect the Russians weren’t surprised at Guccifer’s activities—which they could have found regardless of any working relationship with him—and they would certainly have exploited the data.”
Patrick Howley, Breitbart: “EXCLUSIVE: DNC Blocked Challenge to Tim Kaine by Denying Paperwork to Bernie Supporters”
“PHILADELPHIA – The Democratic National Committee shut down the plot to field a vice presidential challenger to Sen. Tim Kaine … by stalling on paperwork!
Breitbart News has learned that the DNC used Office Space tactics to shut down the anti-Kaine effort, which we reported on Monday as it was developing among pro-Bernie delegates on the convention floor. The roll call vote to nominate Hillary Clinton and Kaine will occur Tuesday.
Donna Smith, executive director of Progressive Democrats of America, told Breitbart News that she requested the proper forms to get her anti-Kaine candidate on the ballot for Tuesday’s roll call vote.
“‘We have been working on fielding an alternative candidate for vice president because we felt Tim Kaine was not reflective of a progressive agenda,’ Smith said. ‘We talked to a lot of delegates and found someone who was willing to run if we got the paperwork in on time.’
“Smith said that she went to the information desk in the convention center, then to the DNC office on Market Street in Philadelphia, on Monday, to get the candidate forms, taking 45 minutes to park her car.
“A young male staffer at the DNC office went into a back room then came back out to the front desk and told Smith to send her request for the paperwork to a Democrat Party email account.
“I said, ‘Are you sure? That doesn’t seem like a very secure way to get the forms we are looking for,’” Smith said, just days after the contents of a DNC email hack threw the convention into chaos and led to chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s ouster.
“Smith did not get a response. . .”
David French, NRO: “Democrats’ Hysterical Rhetoric Could Help Make Donald Trump President”
“They’ve cried wolf so many times they don’t know how to fight a real beast.
“. . . Watching day one of the Democratic convention last night, I was struck by the fact that the speakers were describing Trump as simply a normal Republican, using the same rhetoric they’d use if the nominee were Marco Rubio or John Kasich. If anything, the rhetoric was less inflammatory than the rhetoric used against Bush and Romney.
“Oh, Elizabeth Warren tried to paint Trump as a unique danger to the country. She even went so far as to claim that she’s “not someone who thinks Republicans are always wrong and Democrats are always right.” But then she proceeded to resume the standard attacks on Republicans, tying Trump to a fiscal conservatism he’s never embraced.
“If there exists a formula for Democratic defeat, this is it. If they turn Trump into a normal (albeit larger-than-life and more entertaining than usual) Republican, then millions of GOP voters are apt to see him that way and come back home. As someone remarked on Twitter last night, it’s almost as if the Democrats would rather lose than admit that not all Republican politicians are racist, misogynistic know-nothings. . .”
Kevin Williamson, NRO: “The Black Hole”
“When a famous politician dies, what generally follows is not so much a paean to the fallen man but to the enterprise of politics itself, the highness and seriousness and nobility of it. Somebody will quote Teddy Roosevelt on the man “in the arena” (Pete Hegseth has a book out on that speech and its theme), and they’ll dig up some dusty old rival from the opposite party to talk about what a worthy opponent he was.
“This is at odds with the reality of politics. Right now in Philadelphia, there is under way a Democratic convention in which, in the words of Vice’s Michael C. Moynihan, “the arena seems to be filled with suicidal Marxists who work at TGI Friday’s.” The Democrats deride the GOP as the party of tired, old, out-of-touch white men living in the past . . . and then introduce Paul Simon for one last warbling and off-key rendering of “Bridge over Troubled Water.” (They probably could have gotten John Legend, who began his career in Philadelphia, at half the price.) Could have been worse, though: Last time around, it was James Taylor.
“The more insufferable half of Simon and Garfunkel was introduced by Al Franken, a comedian turned senator, and by Sarah Silverman, a comedienne heralded by the Washington Post as a “powerful political force.” Perhaps she even is. The Democrats have an unruly insurgency on their hands after the WikiLeaks disclosure of documentation that the Democratic National Committee, almost certainly in conspiracy with the Hillary Clinton campaign, violated its purported status as neutral arbiter of primary elections to attempt to torpedo the Bernie Sanders campaign in favor of the more easily electable Mrs. Clinton, a centimillionaire and serviceable figurehead. The most effective way to placate an angry mob of that sort is to give it a nice big dose of celebrity, hence the triple shot. Jon Stewart must have been busy, or else someone left a couple of brown M&Ms in his brandy snifter. . .”
GOP . . .
Rushbo: “Quick Hits Page”
“RUSH: You know, I have a piece of information here from Nate Silver yesterday predicted that there is a 58% chance that Trump wins, but I left out something. Nate Silver thinks that Trump is gonna win Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire, and I’ll fill in the blanks tomorrow, ’cause we also gotta deal with the crap we still have to hear tonight.”
Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight: “Election Update: Trump Gets Convention Bounce, Drawing Polls to Dead Heat”
“But one method to measure the convention bounce is to look at FiveThirtyEight’s now-cast, our estimate of what would happen in an election held today. We don’t usually spend a lot of time writing about the now-cast because — uhh, breaking news — the election is scheduled for Nov. 8. The now-cast is super aggressive, and can overreact to small swings in the polls. But it’s useful if we want to get a snapshot of what the election looks like right now. It suggests that in an election held today, Trump would be a narrow favorite, with a 57 percent chance of winning the Electoral College.
“The now-cast also suggests that Trump has gained a net of about 4 percentage points on Clinton in national polls from a week ago, turning a deficit of about 3 points into a 1-point lead. If so, Trump would turn out to have a fairly typical convention bounce. Over the past few cycles, convention bounces have been 3 to 4 percentage points, on average. As is also typical of convention bounces, Trump appears to have gained in the polls (taking votes from undecided and third-party candidates) more than Clinton has declined. . .
“On the one hand, the conventions are not a particularly good time to sweat every tick in the polls. Instead, they tend to be one of the less accurate times for polling. Historically, it’s unusual for candidates not to at least pull into a rough tie after their party convention — John McCain and Sarah Palin did so in 2008, for example, and even Walter Mondale led a couple of polls in 1984. But those bounces do not always turn out to be predictive.
If you must make a forecast, it’s probably better to adjust the polls (as the polls-plus model does) than not to adjust them. But even the polls-plus model is making what might best be described as an educated guess. “Recent convention bounces have been relatively small, but historically, the polls have been highly volatile around the conventions, with convention bounces in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s sometimes running into the double digits. In some ways, the trajectory of the Clinton-Trump race so far has resembled a “vintage” presidential race, with wilder swings in the polls, as opposed to the 2004, 2008 and 2012 elections, when the polls were generally quite steady.”
LEADS . . .
Victor Davis Hanson, NRO: “Trump and the Politics of Moral Outrage”
“We are very far from a politics of ideological purity and high character.
“Many have weighed in on whether Donald Trump’s agendas — to the extent that they are different from what are now ratified Republican policies — are crackpot, unworkable, or radical: e.g., building a wall to enhance border enforcement (“And make Mexico pay for it!”), renegotiating trade deals with China, promoting Jacksonian nationalism rather than ecumenical internationalism, suspending immigration from Middle East war zones (after Trump dropped his call for complete Muslim exclusion), and disparaging an Eastern-corridor elite that derives privilege from the intersection of big politics, money, and the media.
“No doubt, some of Trump’s flamboyant invective is isolationist, nativist, and protectionist. Certainly, we are in the strangest campaign of the last half-century, in which members of Trump’s own party are among his fiercest critics. In contrast, the ABC/NBC/CBS Sunday-morning liberal pundits feel no need to adopt NeverHillary advocacy. They apparently share little “Not in my name” compunction over “owning” her two decades of serial lying, her violations of basic ethical and legal protocols as secretary of state, her investment in what can be fairly termed a vast Clinton pay-to-play influence-peddling syndicate, and the general corruption of the Democratic primary process.
“Amid the anguish over the Trump candidacy, we often forget that the present age of Obama is already more radical than most of what even Trump has blustered about. We live in a country for all practical purposes without an enforceable southern border. Over 300 local and state jurisdictions have declared themselves immune from federal immigration laws — all without much consequence and without worry that a similar principle of nullification was the basis of the American Civil War or that other, more conservative cities could in theory follow their lead and declare themselves exempt from EPA jurisdiction or federal gun-registration laws. Confederate nullification is accepted as the new normal, and, strangely, its antithesis of border enforcement and adherence to settled law is deemed xenophobic, nativist, and racist.
“The president of the United States, on matters from immigration to his own health-care act, often has declined to enforce federal laws — sometimes because it was felt that to do so would have been injurious to his 2012 reelection bid. The reputations of agencies such as the IRS and the VA no longer really exist; we concede that they are politicized, corrupt, or hopelessly inept. An attorney general being found in contempt of Congress raises no more of an eyebrow than that same chief law-enforcement officer referring to African Americans as “my people” or writing off Americans in general as a ‘nation of cowards.’ . . .”
Aoife White, Bloomberg: “Facebook Fails to Show Up for Seventh Tax Summons From IRS”
“. . . U.S. authorities are examining Facebook’s federal income tax liability for the period ending Dec. 31, 2010 and are looking at whether the company understated the value of global rights for many of its intangible assets outside the U.S. and Canada that it transferred to a subsidiary in low-tax Ireland.
While Facebook has supplied some documents to the tax authority, it hasn’t provided books, records, papers and other data demanded in seven summonses, the IRS said in an amended petition filed Monday at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. These include a request to show up at an IRS office in San Jose on June 29. . .”
END NOTES . . .
James Brody: Sugar Baby Hillary!
According to Chris Stigall (WPHT, 6:10AM today) Bubba opened his talk with “In the spring of 1971 I met a girl.” The concept of “sugar baby” leapt to my mind.
“Sugar Baby” draws nearly 17 million hits on Google: The deal can be seen in chimps – I’ve seen a photo of a male chimp having intercourse while his female partner stares at a piece of fresh meat in one of his hands. Fresh fruit can also work and, for advanced players, so can a steak or salmon dinner at a restaurant. (Resorts, jewelry, clothing, and trips are more common in pockets of wealth such as we have on the Line!)
And a sugar baby is less apt to leave a comfortable nest if their partner is disloyal. Thus, Mother Hillary did not stay for her daughter but to protect her territory – even to the extent of stealing silver, dishes, and other bits of your property when she moved to Chappaqua.
Sugar Babies often have a “no strings attached” policy: Our girl, for example, cut deals (through the Clinton Foundation) with Islamic countries for millions of dollars in “speaking fees.” And she possibly ran the State Department to enhance BO’s chances for a post-presidential job as the mediator between the Islamic world and the United States. And her alliances with Jarrett, Huma, Susan (Rice), and Samantha (Powers) will still be around if she wins the election.
Bill remarked that she is the best “change maker” he has ever met.
Wrong . . . Sugar Babies don’t make change.
“Here is the full top 20 list of Fastest Growing Sugar Baby Schools
Rank – School – Number of New Sign-ups
1. New York University – 225; 2. Arizona State University – 189; 3. University of Texas Austin – 163; 4. Temple University – 155; 5. Kent State University – 153; 6. Texas State University -138; 7. Georgia State University – 131; 8. Florida International University – 129; 9. Penn State University – 121; 10. Virginia Commonwealth University – 120; 11. University of Central Florida – 112; 12. University of Houston – 104; 13. University of South Florida – 95; 14. University of Arizona – 84; 15. University of Alabama – 82; 6. University of Minnesota – 78;17. University of California, Berkeley – 67;18. University of Colorado, Boulder – 66;19. Columbia University – 66; 20. University of Georgia – 64.
Nancy Jo Sales, Vanity Fair: “‘Daddies, ‘Dates,’ and the Girlfriend Experience: Welcome to the New Prostitution Economy”
A growing number of young people are selling their bodies online to pay student loans, make the rent, or afford designer labels. Is it just an unorthodox way to make ends meet or a new kind of exploitation?
Terrance Ross, The Atlantic: “Where the Sugar Babies Are”
“In recent years the rising cost of student debt has given birth to an odd phenomenon: a population of ostensibly generous older men who appear poised to solve the higher-education crisis, one student at a time. Once a relatively underground subculture, this benevolent group of men is coming to the rescue across the country, essentially volunteering to subsidize the students’ tuition costs. But that description could be, shall I say, sugarcoating it.
“Yes, these men are ponying up their money—plus more—for financially struggling students. However, it’s not free money, and it’s not all students. In other words, these benefactors typically expect some compensation from their beneficiaries—students who generally tend to be women willing to accept the help from the men in exchange for providing some tender loving care. And, at least, flaunting their good looks. . .”