The WaPo must really be afraid of Rubio

The New Neo Posted on by

For obvious reasons—his good polling against Hillary—there’s been an ongoing press attempt to dig up the dirt on Rubio. This is the latest effort, an article about how in 2002 Rubio helped an ex-con brother-in-law obtain a real estate license in Florida, and didn’t reveal he was his brother-in-law or that he lived with Rubio’s parents at the time.

The brother-in-law’s drug-offense (cocaine dealing) had occurred in 1987, and he had served a long sentence (11 1/2 years) and been released. There are no allegations of wrongdoing by him since; his record has been fine. And here I thought liberals were all for rehabilitation, particularly of drug offenders! I guess not, if a Republican can be hurt by it.

A statement by the Rubio campaign:

“Orlando made some very big mistakes almost 30 years ago, served his time, and has paid his debt to society,” Rubio’s presidential campaign adviser, Todd Harris, said in an email. “Today he is a private citizen, husband and father, simply trying to make a living. It is appalling and shameful that The Washington Post continues to drag him into the spotlight.

“Marco has recommended scores of Floridians for various professional positions and after Orlando paid his debt to society, Marco was happy to recommend him as well. He believed Orlando should be judged on his own merits and felt it would be highly inappropriate, and could be perceived as exerting undue pressure, if his letter stated that Orlando was a relative.”

It seems to me, however—not that I’ve got my finger on the pulse of America—that this information is about as likely to hurt Rubio as his purchase of a boat or his wife’s speeding tickets did, which is not very much. Rubio is already hurting with the Republican base, but I doubt this will help or hurt him any more or less there, either.

The perfectly punctual podiatrist

The New Neo Posted on by

The other day I had an appointment with a podiatrist. My rather modest goal was for him to view a slightly-ingrown toenail, and perhaps offer a solution. I hadn’t been to a podiatrist in many moons, but I chose one who is relatively nearby, about a seven-minute drive.

Easy-peasy.

I had filled out a ton of paperwork they’d sent me—you’d think I was going in for major surgery or being vetted for a job with the CIA—and I was to bring the forms with me. So all was set for the 2 PM appointment. I was on track to be on time, or maybe one minute late, and the drive was through a part of town that never had any traffic to speak of at that time of day.

But about 3 minutes from my destination, an enormous truck emerged from a construction site and pulled out in front of me. It did not budge. No one else could move, either, and that included me. I figured that any moment now it would be going. But it stayed put, and as minute after minute passed my consternation grew.

Should I phone the podiatrist’s office? Would it matter? How late was I going to be? While I was mulling that over the truck started moving, but at a snail’s pace—perhaps one mile per hour, a slow slow roll. I had no idea what was going on or why. After a couple more minutes the truck came to a turn and got off the road, and I proceeded, figuring I’d be around ten minutes late to my appointment.

I arrived at 2:12—but still, not bad under the circumstances. I told the receptionist my sad tale, and she took my papers and started processing me, asking for my insurance card and xeroxing it. Then another woman working there came towards the first one and they had a conversation I couldn’t hear, after which the first woman turned to me and said, “It’s too late. The doctor can’t see you.”

I looked at my phone again—now it was exactly 2:14, and I’d been there several minutes already. I asked how long an appointment I’d been scheduled for, and she said a half hour. I asked if I could have the remaining quarter hour to see the doctor, because I had a very simple problem I just wanted him to look at. It wouldn’t take long at all, and I’d waited two weeks for this appointment.

Her answer was “no.” Just no, with no real explanation. I said that I’d cleared the decks of other things and put myself out to get there, and through no fault of my own I’d been twelve minutes late, and that I’d often had to wait much much longer than that in doctors’ offices.

“Well, we run this office on time,” she said. “I can reschedule you.”

“I don’t think so,” I answered. “After all, if another truck comes by next time, the same thing will happen again.”

And then I walked out. I plan to go to a different podiatrist.

But here’s my question: is this sort of thing standard these days? A few minutes late, and it’s better luck next time?

Republican senators introduce bill to pause Syrian refugee acceptance

The New Neo Posted on by

Let’s see how far this bill gets:

A group of Senate Republicans wants to largely pause the acceptance of Syrian and Iraqi refugees until the administration meets a wide-range of hurdles aimed at bolstering background checks.

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) has introduced legislation that would block the administration from accepting or resettling the refugees until the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Director of National Intelligence have determined that each refugee has passed a background check ensuring that they aren’t a national security threat and haven’t supported a terrorist organization.

Kirk also wants the DHS inspector general and the comptroller general of the United States to, separately, review the certifications and give their findings to Congress and for DHS to give a quarterly report to Congress on the number of refugees who tried to enter the United States and how many were given certifications.

Kirk’s legislation ”” which is backed by five other Senate Republicans ”” comes after an end-of-year spending bill didn’t address the refugee issue. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has pledged to move legislation on the refugee acceptance program during the first quarter of next year, though it’s unclear what proposal he would have the Senate take up…

Kirk’s legislation would also crackdown on the Visa Waiver Program while prioritizing visas for Iraqi and Afghan translators.

The above article doesn’t mention it, but recently the House passed a similar bill by a veto-proof majority, with many Democrats joining. Obama had threatened a veto, but if the Senate passes it with a similar margin, a veto would not be possible.

That’s a big “if.” I have no idea what the level of support is in the Senate for this, but if it’s anything like in the House, this bill will be enacted. No doubt, however, that if that happens, Obama will find a way to undermine its implementation by some sort of executive/agency action or inaction. Also, the bill depends on trust that there is a way to effectively vet these refugees and that the government would be able to implement it effectively if in fact it wanted to do so.

Houston mosque fire set by mosque attendee

The New Neo Posted on by

Another “dog bites man” story:

A Houston man has been arrested in connection with a suspected arson at a mosque on Christmas Day.

A spokeswoman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives confirmed that the man was arrested early Wednesday, sometime after midnight, and appeared in court 7 a.m. Wednesday.

The suspect, Gary Nathaniel Moore, 37, of Houston, appeared in court at 7 a.m., spokeswoman Nicole Strong said.

According to a charging instrument released by the Harris County District Clerk, Moore told investigators at the scene that he has attended the mosque for five years, coming five times per day to pray seven days per week.

It’s certainly not outside the realm of possibility that some non-Muslim who is angry at Muslims could be setting a mosque on fire. But these sorts of things—including accusation of hate crimes against blacks or gays or other minorities on campus—have so often been set-ups by members of the allegedly-persecuted group that it has now become an unavoidable possibility to suspect that it’s another crime of that ilk.

Obama uses the NSA to spy on Congress

The New Neo Posted on by

This WSJ article is getting a lot of attention, although I wonder how many people on the Democratic/liberal/leftist side are the least bit concerned by it.

The gist of what the piece reveals is that the NSA continued to spy on Israel even after it had stopped spying on other “friendly” heads of state, this spying on Israel included conversations with members of Congress, and the information contained therein was reported to the Obama administration.

At least Nixon used his own team to spy on the Democrats, and he wasn’t very effective at it either. I often think that what people thought Nixon was, Obama really is, on steroids—only with more charm, a compliant party, and a sycophantic rather than hostile press. Plus, although Nixon was a very political animal, he appears to have been motivated by sincere love of country.

Fred Fleitz (formerly of the CIA) analyzes the WSJ report in a National Review piece:

According to the Journal story, President Obama did not halt NSA spying against Netanyahu. This is not a surprise, given the president’s chilly relations with the Israeli leader and Israel’s aggressive spying against the United States. It’s also not a surprise that the Obama administration sought intelligence on Netanyahu’s efforts to undermine the nuclear deal.

But it is stunning to learn that NSA sent the White House intelligence on private discussions with U.S. congressmen on a major policy dispute between the White House and Congress. According to the Journal article, to avoid a paper trail that would show that they wanted the NSA to report on Netanyahu’s interactions with Congress, Obama officials decided to let the agency decide how much of this intelligence to provide and what to withhold. The article cited an unnamed U.S. official who explained, “We didn’t say, ”˜Do it.’ We didn’t say, ”˜Don’t do it.’”

This suggests major misconduct by the NSA and the White House of a sort not seen since Watergate. First, intercepts of congressmen’s communications regarding a dispute between Congress and the White House should have been destroyed and never left the NSA building. The Journal article said a 2011 NSA directive requires direct communications between foreign intelligence targets and members of Congress to be destroyed, but gives the NSA director the authority to waive this requirement if he determines the communications contain “significant foreign intelligence.”

Netanyahu’s discussions with members of Congress on a policy dispute between Congress and the president do not qualify as foreign intelligence. Destroying this kind of information should not have been a close call for NSA. Congress should immediately ask NSA director Michael Rogers and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to verify the Journal story and explain why intercepts of private discussions of members of Congress were provided to the White House. If this did happen, both officials should resign. Second, the White House bears significant responsibility for this scandal. By encouraging and accepting this intelligence, the White House used the NSA as an illegitimate means to undermine its legislative opponents.

Please read the whole thing.

I would add that I disagree with Fleitz on one thing: it is not “stunning” to learn this. I wish it were, but it’s not. It is exactly and precisely what I would expect from this administration and this president. Obama and his administration have had no hesitation to use government agencies against those he regards as his domestic enemies, as the administration’s use of the IRS to hamstring the Tea Party prior to the 2012 election has proven. Outrage against such excesses has been both one-sided and ineffective, unlike during the Watergate era, when Nixon’s own party—the Republican Party—turned on him, which was his undoing. No such luck with Obama and the Democrats.

And I would so dearly love to be wrong with that last sentence.

How about that Constitution, and what about those candidates?

The New Neo Posted on by

Blogger Sultan Knish (Daniel Greenfield) tackles a topic that seems to be on everyone’s minds lately: whether the way to go in order to combat today’s Democratic Party (otherwise known as the Left) is to follow the strict letter of the Constitution, or if we should wink at that Constitution in order to save it.

Greenfield sets up the idea that Obama has changed the rules of the game by abusing his power. In evaluating Trump’s appeal, Greenfield makes it clear that he does not necessarily think Trump can or will do what he says he can, or that he’s a person who even means what he says. But that is not so relevant when looking at his appeal to people who have become profoundly disillusioned with and angry at the current state of affairs.

It’s certainly not just about Trump, either. It’s about how best to fight the left and win. I would add that I think it’s only been in the last few years of the Obama administration that more people on the right have become alarmed at this, and have recognized the power of the left and the vast inroads it has already made. Until recently, the right was for the most part living in a dreamworld about that, and some on the right still are. Again, the question is what to do about it. Greenfield puts it this way:

How do you uphold a liberal open system while fighting an illiberal left for control of it?

There are no easy answers. And most of the easy ones come down to messaging. But simply making a better argument isn’t enough when the left flagrantly abuses power.

It’s not simply a question of getting a Republican in the White House. Reagan and Bush II were both in the White House. How much did they really get done? Bush II had a Republican congress. But the left simply shifts power and legitimacy to whatever institutions it controls, elected or unelected, and then governs from there.

I agree with the last sentence—or, at least, with the prediction that if a Republican president and a Republican Congress were to be elected then the left would try to shift power and to govern from whatever institutions it does control (and they are many—for example, the press).

But I have some things I’d like to add to the rest of the paragraph. Of course, it’s not simply a question of getting a Republican in the White House. But what of Reagan and Bush II? Reagan was hampered by the fact that, although he had a slight Republican advantage in the Senate (until he lost it in the last two years of his presidency), Democrats strongly controlled the House for the entire eight years of his presidency. So he is not an example of a Republican president and a Republican Congress, and what the combination might be able to accomplish.

And what about Bush II’s Republican Congress? As with Reagan, Democrats were in control of Congress for the last two years of the Bush II presidency. What’s more, for the first four years, the Senate was essentially split just about evenly, and the Republican margin in the House was also exceptionally slim. And even during those 2 years of Republican Congressional control of both houses when the Senate was not essentially split and was instead firmly in Republican hands—January 2005 to January 2007, when there were 55 Republican senators to 45 Democratic ones—not only did that mean that the Democrats could continue to block legislation by failing to vote for cloture, but in addition, among those 55 Republican senators there were many who were so liberal as to practically be Democrats. In fact, some of whom later became Democrats, such as Lincoln Chafee and Arlen Spector, and some of them merely voted with Democrats a fair amount, such as Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Chuck Hagel and Lindsay Graham. What’s more, 2005-2007 were the years when the Bush presidency was consumed and distracted by the Iraq War and the need to muster support for the surge. And to top it all off, Bush himself was no conservative, and was not trying to lead in a conservative direction.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that, if there were a conservative president and significant (as opposed to borderline) control of both houses of Congress by Republicans, we’d see a sea-change at this point. I’m merely saying that I don’t think that analogies with Reagan and Bush II are all that relevant. One change since Bush II’s time is that there are fewer RINOs in the Senate today (although some remain), due to conservative challenges which will no doubt continue. And I contend that we have not had a conservative president plus a Republican Congress since the days of Coolidge. Reagan has been the only conservative president since Coolidge, and he did not have a Republican House (Nixon, who was a bit of a conservative but not really, had a completely Democratic Congress to work with). So the formula “conservative president and Republican Congress” has not been tried in nearly a hundred years.

However, “the question of how to defeat an illiberal left remains.” That has been the question for a long time. Greenfield writes:

If the Republican establishment really wants to defeat Trump, it needs to find a credible answer to this question. Instead of thinking about how to defeat Trump, it really needs to answer how it will defeat Obama and the forces that gave rise to him. If it can’t figure out how to defeat illiberalism, it will be defeated by it.

Indeed. Hear, hear.

Greefield doesn’t explain how Cruz, for example, answers that question. But I believe that Cruz is certainly well aware of the problem. I believe that Cruz’s answer would be to stand your conservative ground and to win elections, and then implement changes. Some of these changes could be accomplished by an executive who merely undoes the executive orders of his/her predecessor, Obama. So perhaps that wouldn’t be so hard, nor would it be unconstitutional.

But the more basic problem—and it’s a problem we’ve been discussing on this blog for many many years—is that the left fights on all fronts, and is winning on many of them and controls them: press, education, entertainment (immigration is part of it, and that’s why it has become so important lately). Those things shape minds, and there is no quick way to change those institutions and to weaken liberal control over them, or undo their effect on generations who have grown up under them. I believe, however, that Cruz and several other candidates imagine that, if Republicans hold their own in Congress and a conservative is also elected president, it would lead to results that Americans will notice and will like, and then the conservative point of view will get more support. In other words, success will breed success.

The trouble with throwing away the Constitution and fighting fire with fire is that “ends justify means” actions tend to get out of control, destroying the good in the system as well as the bad.

Here’s a comment I found in the comments section of Greenfield’s piece:

…[W]e must set aside the constitution to save the constitution. The Left (and their collaborators in the GOPe) must be rooted out by unconstitutional means. After the job is done then the civil, liberal society can thrive again.

Okay, so tell me: how would that look? What would be set aside? And once it was done, how would “civil, liberal society thrive again?” And why on earth do a certain proportion of his supporters think Trump would be the man for that particular job, other than the “setting aside” part? He never speaks of the Constitution except in the most general of terms. What parts of the Constitution would he be throwing off, and what parts restoring?

Tyrannies always justify their tyranny by saying it’s for the greater good. That’s why the Founders were very wary of such a process; they had studied history. One piece of history they hadn’t studied—because it hadn’t quite occurred yet—was the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. Now, Robespierre was an extreme example—and Trump isn’t about to cut off heads—but the Reign of Terror illustrates the principle of ends justify means so that “liberal society can thrive again”:

Robespierre had not abandoned his libertarian convictions, but he was coming to the conclusion that the ends justified the means, and that in order to defend the Revolution against those who would destroy it, the shedding of blood was justified…

Perhaps it is because of the stark contrast between Robespierre’s ideals and what he became that the question of the Terror remains shocking. In the mind of Robespierre and many of his colleagues, the Terror had a deeper moral purpose beyond winning the civil war: to bring about a ”˜republic of virtue’. By this he meant a society in which people sought the happiness of their fellow humans rather than their own material benefit. France must be regenerated on moral lines. ”˜What is our aim?’ he asked in a speech of February 1794:

“The peaceful enjoyment of liberty and equality; the reign of that eternal justice whose laws are written, not on marble or stone, but in the hearts of all men, even in that of the slave who forgets them and of the tyrant who denies them.”

He came to the conclusion that in order to establish this ideal republic one had to be prepared to eliminate opponents of the Revolution. The irony of this idea rings through in the same speech, when he justified the Terror. He said:

“If the basis of popular government in peacetime is virtue, the basis of popular government during a revolution is both virtue and terror; virtue, without which terror is baneful; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the patrie…”

He was not a hypocrite. He really did believe that the Terror could sustain the republic of virtue. But he was naturally self-righteous, suspicious and unforgiving. All these qualities came to the fore as it became evident that while the Terror played a key part in winning the war and quelling the counter-revolution, it was having the reverse effect as far as installing the republic of virtue was concerned…

As I said, neither Trump nor any of the other candidates are planning extra-judicial executions. But neither was Robespierre, initially. And summary executions are hardly the only way to trash the Constitution, as Obama and others before him have demonstrated.

I am very concerned by the willingness to go beyond the Constitution in the name of restoring virtue. I see the year 2016 as pivotal because with a conservative president and a Republican Congress we would actually have a chance of reversing things without resorting to ends justify means solutions, probably the first chance in a long long time. I see the answer, also, as much bigger than a strongman president: it’s that old Gramscian march once again. Reversing that accomplishment by the left requires a group of conservative activists dedicated to a long slow slog through those institutions in order to gain—or to regain—influence. If that isn’t done, we spiral down no matter who gets elected in 2016.

[NOTE: By the way, this is one of the most informative charts you’ll ever see. Please take a look.]

The grieving widow of the Bataclan terrorist

The New Neo Posted on by

Lovely woman:

Samy Amimour, aged 28, was one of the three shooters who killed 90 people at the Bataclan. Three days after the massacre, his wife, named as Kahina, emailed an old friend in France saying: “Did the attacks shock you? LOL,” before boasting that her husband had been one of the assailants.

“I encouraged my husband to leave in order to terrorize the people of France who have so much blood on their hands […] I’m so proud of my husband and to boast about his virtue, ah la la, I am so happy,” the emails uncovered by investigators said.

The woman is 18 years old and based in Iraq, where she recently gave birth to a child. She had also sent threatening messages to the friend before the attacks took place, saying “France and the whole coalition will know what it’s like to have war at your home. You kill us, we kill you, the equation is simple.

“As long as you continue to offend Islam and Muslims, you will be potential targets, and not just cops and Jews but everyone.”

Why am I spotlighting this? Mainly because this woman was apparently (as far as I can tell from the article, anyway) born and raised in France, or at the very least raised in France. She and her husband met there.

Note some of the modernisms that make her sound like the French equivalent of a Valley Girl, the “ah la la” and the “LOL.” Eighteen years old and very happy about the slaughter. Note, also, the inclusion of “cops” along with Jews as an obvious target, reflections of a sort of Muslim Lives Matter mentality that sees police (and Jews, of course) as the most natural enemy in the world.

She is warning the friend to whom she’s writing that all French people are now fair game, because of a “you kill us, we kill you” mentality. But she has also made it clear that killing will be the remedy for all offenses, not just for killing—“as long as you continue to offend Islam and Muslims” you will be killed. And it’s Muslims who will decide what is offensive.

This young widow adds a pro-welfare-state mentality as she goes on to describe her apartment in Iraq under ISIS:

I have a furnished apartment with a fitted kitchen, two bathrooms and three bedrooms, and I don’t pay rent, electricity or water bills. What a great life!”

So she’s touched several leftist bases: revenge killings against the evil West, the right to declare what offends you and to act on it, hatred for police, and free stuff. Is it any wonder that the Left sometimes displays certain sympathies with radical Islam and jihadis, and that many leftists make excuses for it and strive to “understand” it?

Answered: a question I’ve been wondering about for years

The New Neo Posted on by

My dog was a champ at this:

While we’re at it, here’s another. This one’s about yawning:

Dr. Seuss remarked on this phenomenon in a book I used to read to my son at bedtime, in the hope (usually vain) that it would induce sleep. I’m doing this from memory, so it might not be an exact quote; at one time I had quite a few lengthy Dr. Seuss books entirely memorized, but those skills are a bit rusty:

A yawn is quite catching, you see, like a cough
It just takes one yawn to start other yawns off.

seussSleep

Obama equates the danger from Syrian refugees with that of tourists

The New Neo Posted on by

Sometimes it seems as though there are so many outrages occurring, and so many lies/misrepresentations told, that some of the most important get lost in the shuffle and start blending in with the rest of the din. For example, about five weeks ago President gave forth a comforting message meant to soothe the silly frightened children known as The American Public, and to belittle the Republican position:

Speaking to reporters with his usual impatience, Obama said Republicans are ginning up unsubstantiated fear when it comes to our new neighbors [the Middle Eastern refugees].

“The idea that somehow they pose a more significant threat than all the tourists who pour into the United States every single day just doesn’t jive with reality,” Mr. Obama said. “So my expectation is after the initial spasm of rhetoric, the people will settle down, take a look at the facts, and we’ll be able to proceed.”

This is interesting on a number of levels. If you think about it, there’s no reason a tourist couldn’t commit a terrorist act. The same is true of those coming here on visas, whether those visas are overstayed or not (many Republicans candidates are suggesting finding a better way of vetting and/or tracking people here on visas of all types), as was well-demonstrated by the carnage in San Bernardino—where one of the perpetrators was here on a fiance visa—not long after Obama’s remarks.

But even before that, there was an interesting little historical fact that Obama was ignoring when he made his remarks, which is that most of the 9/11 hijackers were here on visas. Actually, they were here—wait for it—on tourist visas and business visas:

The fact is, only one of the 19 9/11 hijackers came to the U.S. on a student visa, according to the 9/11 Commission Report. That one was Hani Hanjour, a Saudi Arabian terrorist who piloted the plane that was flown into the Pentagon, according to a 2004 staff report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. In his student visa application, Hanjour provided paperwork showing that he was enrolled in an English as a second language program in Oakland, Calif., but he never attended after arriving in America (a fact that would draw scrutiny today [sic?]). He did not, however, overstay his student visa.

Of the other 18 9/11 hijackers, 14 came to the United States on six-month tourist visas and four came on business visas, according to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Once in the U.S., two of the hijack pilots applied to have their immigration status changed to vocational student, but neither used such a visa on their subsequent re-entry into the country.

So President Obama may indeed be correct that the danger from Syrian refugees is similar to that from tourist visa holders. Unfortunately, that’s not really a great argument for the case he’s trying to make—which is that no one should worry about either phenomenon.

Naturally, terrorists who are here longer and who have time to plan and to recruit can probably do more damage. But there is little question that those who come here as refugees, or on tourist visas, or on student visas, or on business visas, could be terrorists. And of course, terrorists would always be a tiny tiny percentage of the whole of each group. But it only takes a very small number of terrorists to do damage: in many cases, just one.

Or two, as in the case of the Tsarnaev brothers. They weren’t Syrian refugees, but this is their initial history. Note the role played by tourist visas:

In April 2002, the Tsarnaev parents and Dzhokhar went to the United States on a 90-day tourist visa. Anzor Tsarnaev applied for asylum, citing fears of deadly persecution due to his ties to Chechnya.

The story of the Tsarnaevs illustrates several principles. One is that actual or potential terrorists can come here many ways, including (of course) as refugees on on visas of various kinds, including tourist visas initially. Another is that the Muslim immigrant population in this country—and all Western countries—constitutes a reservoir of potential recruits for jihadists, either through the influence of radical mosques, acquaintances, or online. The longer a person lives here the more assimilated that person would be, and the less vulnerable to this—theoretically. But in practice, it is most definitely possible for a long-term resident or even someone born here to become radicalized. As we see from the Tsarnaev brothers, as well as in San Bernardino and the pattern of attacks in Europe, those who have been born here or lived here from childhood are hardly immune.

That does not mean that refugees from a country such as Syria, which is loaded with terrorists, are not also potentially dangerous. Obama would have us draw a false conclusion from his equivalence, whose main purpose is to mock and/or condescend to those who question his judgment.

Does Trump own the media or does the media own Trump?

The New Neo Posted on by

So who’s using whom?

Rush Limbaugh says that Trump has the media frustrated and wrapped around his little finger:

…[T]hey can’t take him out. They can’t stop covering him. They can’t humiliate him. They can’t embarrass him. They can’t diminish his support. They’re powerless, and this has them in a panic. The media that can make-or-break anybody cannot touch Trump, and every time they try, all they do is make him bigger. They can’t explain this. They are frustrated to no end, and so are both political parties who rely on the media to be the great equalizer in all of this.

Nothing’s working. No matter what Trump says, the media is there, and every member of the media is there. Every network, every camera, every microphone is there.

There’s no question Trump is getting more coverage than anyone else, by a huge margin. YUUUGE! So perhaps Limbaugh is right, and Trump is having a good laugh on a media that can’t do a thing about him except his bidding, and is instrumental in getting him more and more attention even though they don’t want to do it.

But here’s an alternate theory, one I happen to ascribe to.

I think the media knows that Trump is the story of the election. He’s exciting, people are entertained by watching him. So they get something out of covering him—readers and viewers. Remember, though, that the vast majority of the MSM is on the left, so much of what they do is with the goal of directing their readers and viewers to what’s so dreadful about Trump, and of energizing Democratic voters so that, if Trump’s the nominee, voters feel they must vote for the sane person—who would be Hillary—even if they don’t much like her.

I have believed from the very start of Trump’s campaign that the MSM (except for the MSM on the right, which is a very small group compared to the liberal MSM) would very much like Trump to be the Republican nominee. They believe very strongly that, if nominated, he will lose, and that his chances of losing are greater than that of certain other candidates such as Rubio (polls bear that out).

I think they are correct, although of course I don’t know for sure. But more importantly, they think they’re correct. So for them, covering Trump is win/win. They get ratings. And although they’re not trying to destroy him—not for now—they dearly want him to be the nominee, and they’re confident they can destroy him later, or that he will self-destruct with the majority of Americans.

They might be right or they might be wrong. But they think they own him in the sense of using him to fit their purposes, not the other way around.