Kevin Drum

It's Official: Hillary Clinton Is Just Being Hammered by the Press

| Thu Sep. 17, 2015 12:48 PM EDT

Nate Silver takes a quantitative look at Hillary Clinton's headlines since July 24 and concludes that she's just getting hammered. The calendar on the right shows the near-daily punches she's taking:

Since Friday, July 24—I’ll talk about the significance of that date in a moment—there have been 13 mornings when Clinton’s email server was a major story, seven mornings when her bad polling numbers were a major story, and seven mornings when speculation about Biden running was a major story…By contrast, I identified just one morning since July 24 when a favorable headline for Clinton gained traction on Memeorandum.

…What changed? July 24 was the morning after The New York Times reported that “a criminal investigation” had been launched into whether Clinton had “mishandled sensitive government information” on her email account. That report turned out to be mostly erroneous; the Times later appended an editor’s note to the article, which is about as close as a newspaper will get to retracting a story. Still, the email story was back in the news after several months when there hadn’t been much reported about it. And subsequent stories about the investigation into Clinton’s email server, from the Times and other news outlets, have proved to be better-reported than the Times’s initial misfire.

Meanwhile, that was also about the time that speculation about a late Biden entry ramped up....Then, of course, there are the stories about Clinton’s poll numbers.

I know I'm repeating myself, but where's the beef? Hillary Clinton received official emails on a personal account. Jeb Bush did the same thing. So did Colin Powell. So did a bunch of folks in the Bush White House (using RNC servers). Some of the emails Hillary received may have contained information that's now deemed classified, but it's quite clear that government officials routinely send classified reports over email. Maybe they shouldn't, but they do. It's neither new nor unusual nor really a very big deal.

As for the personal emails, they're a complete red herring. No one ever turns over personal emails, and officials have always decided for themselves which ones are personal. No one cares whether those emails were on a private server.

So we're left with one thing: Hillary received official emails on her personal account. That's it. It's fair game for Republicans to attack her bad judgment in doing that, but there's just nothing more to learn about it. She did it. She's admitted it. It's part of her record as secretary of state. It's done.

But every new tidbit turns into a front-page story. Every release of emails turns into another set of front-page stories. (Gefilte fish!) And every front-page story leads to a poll decline, which then turns into another front-page story.

There's just got to be something else about Hillary Clinton that reporters are interested in. Maybe she needs to start yammering away about razing every coal-fired power plant in the country and turning northern Iraq into a glassy plain. That seems to be what it takes these days.

Advertise on

Jake Tapper Was Way Too Obsessed With Donald Trump Last Night

| Thu Sep. 17, 2015 11:54 AM EDT

I mentioned this last night, but I want to call it out specifically this morning: Jake Tapper sounded like he was auditioning for a place on Celebrity Apprentice during his moderation of the Republican debate. Over and over, instead of simply asking questions, he framed them in terms of something Donald Trump said. It was all Trump, all the time. Here's a complete rundown of his Trump-obsessed questions from just the segment before the first commercial break (along with a bonus question from Dana Bash):

TAPPER: ....Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, has suggested that your party's frontrunner, Mr. Donald Trump, would be dangerous as President. He said he wouldn't want, quote, "such a hot head with his finger on the nuclear codes."

TAPPER: You didn't answer my question. Would you feel comfortable with Donald Trump's finger on the nuclear codes?

TAPPER: Governor Bush, would you feel comfortable with Donald Trump's finger on the nuclear codes?

TAPPER: ....Governor Bush, you recently said while discussing Planned Parenthood, quote, you're "not sure we need a half billion for women's health issues."....But Donald Trump said....

TAPPER: In an interview last week in Rolling Stone magazine, Donald Trump said the following about you....

TAPPER: Governor Christie....You say that [Trump's] big wall, his plan to deport 11 to 12 million undocumented immigrants, it sounds great, but it's never going to happen....

TAPPER: With all due respect, you said about Donald Trump's plan to deport 11 to 12 million undocumented immigrants, "People who say that have no idea what this entails."

BASH: Governor Bush, Mr. Trump has suggested that your views on immigration are influenced by your Mexican born wife....

TAPPER: Ms. Fiorina, the vast majority of countries do not have birthright citizenship. Donald Trump is right about that....

TAPPER: ....Ms. Fiorina, you were CEO of Hewlett Packard. Donald Trump says you, quote, "ran HP into the ground," you laid off tens of thousands of people, you got viciously fired.

TAPPER: Donald Trump says that the hedge fund guys are getting away with murder by paying a lower tax rate....Do you agree?

This is ridiculous, and it demonstrates the bankruptcy of the political press corps. John Kasich even complained about it early on, and Tapper promised, "We are getting to the issues, sir." And he did—but usually by quoting Trump and demanding that the candidates respond to what Trump said.

I'm genuinely surprised that no one else on the stage called Tapper out on this. Hell, Tapper even expected it, and it would have been a good moment. "Jake, Donald Trump is a buffoon. Who cares what he says? Can you please run a real debate and start asking us questions about what we'd do as president of the United States? The stakes are too high to be playing these games." That would have taken down Trump a notch and attacked a mainstream media figure, which always plays well with Republican crowds. I wonder why no one took the opportunity?

Carly Fiorina Was Good Last Night, But She Wasn't Great

| Thu Sep. 17, 2015 11:08 AM EDT

After he was quoted in Rolling Stone insulting Carly Fiorina's looks, Donald Trump said he was really talking about Fiorina's "persona." So last night Jake Tapper asked Fiorina if she wanted to comment on Trump's persona. She paused, then replied stonily, "Women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said."

Not bad. She didn't get down in the mud with Trump, but still responded with some vigor. But that wasn't enough for a lot of commenters. Here's a smattering of reaction:

  • Vox: Carly Fiorina's mic-drop response to Donald Trump's comment about her looks
  • New Republic: Carly Fiorina is the best thing to happen to the Republican Party this year
  • Chris Cillizza: Carly Fiorina is absolutely killing it. KILLING it.
  • Mother Jones: The moment when Carly Fiorina completely owned Donald Trump
  • Daily Beast: Carly Fiorina slays sexist Trump onstage

I guess there are two possibilities here. First: It really was a killer moment and I'm just too jaded to see it. Second: It's an example of the internet's penchant for everything being the BEST EVER. John Oliver demolishes something or other every week. President Obama delivers the perfect response to the outrage of the day. Carly Fiorina owned Donald Trump.

For now, I'm still going with door #2. It was a good moment. And Fiorina did well in last night's debate: I'd say she and Marco Rubio probably helped themselves the most. But she didn't slay, kill, or own Donald Trump. She just delivered a decent jab.

And by the way, Trump was more right than wrong about Fiorina's tenure at Hewlett-Packard. Her star is going to fade considerably once the press starts relitigating that. Now that she's one of the front-runners, that should happen pretty soon.

Debate Liveblogging: The Second GOP Presidential Debate of 2015

| Wed Sep. 16, 2015 8:09 PM EDT

I'm not going to lie. I'm beat. That was a helluva long debate. And I even watched some of the early debate too. I'm not too proud to cry uncle.

So I don't have a deeply considered intsta-take on the whole thing. Instead, here's my quick impression of whether each candidate hurt or helped himself tonight:

Trump: Hurt himself. The first few minutes was a juvenile parade of insults. The split screen shots showed him mugging and making faces whenever the other candidates were talking. His jabs felt tired. He practically reveled in his ignorance. Not a good performance. Warning: This is what I thought after the first debate too.

Carson: Hurt himself. On the plus side: he's a crazy man, but very little of that was evident tonight. For those who want an outsider, but one who sounds kinda sensible, he probably seemed like a good choice. On the minus side: He didn't really stand out. Given his high poll numbers, that's probably a negative for him.

Bush: Helped himself. He showed more energy than before, and got in a few good shots at Trump. But he's still monotonous enough that nothing he says ever seems to make a permanent impression. So he might have stopped the bleeding, but he probably only helped himself a little bit. He really needs to learn how to make one or two sharp points and then shut up.

Fiorina: Helped herself. Mostly this is just by virtue of being in the main debate. Aside from that, she was a mixed bag. Sometimes she sounded strong and well prepared. Other times that shaded over into sounding rehearsed.

Rubio: Helped himself. He mostly stayed out of the insult scrums, and seemed like a breath of fresh air when he delivered a decent, adult-sounding answer to the question at hand. Like Bush, though, he sometimes delivers too much of a laundry list, and delivers it too fast. He needs to slow down and hit just a few high points instead.

Walker: Hurt himself. I don't think he made any big mistakes, but he really needed a strong showing to reverse his slide. He didn't deliver one.

Kasich: Hurt himself. I'm not sure about this one, but my sense was that he was trying to seem like a sensible moderate but instead sounded a little incoherent and wishy washy. But I could be wrong about that.

Paul, Christie, Huckabee, Cruz: Who cares? Huckabee sounded like a madman, and the others sounded OK but not special. It's hard to think that tonight's performance will do much for any of them. They should probably all drop out.

Jake Tapper: I've got nothing against the guy, but he really deserves to be dinged for constantly framing his questions as "Donald Trump said _____. What do you have to say about that?" That's good for a food fight, I guess, but it's a disservice to the candidates and to the audience. There's really no need to make Trump the center of everything, and there's no need to force the other candidates to respond to every ditzy thing he's said.

And that's that. I forgot to buy cat food at the market today, so I have to go out and get some. Right now that's Job 1. I'll leave further analysis to the spin room and the talking heads.

Debate transcript here.

Get comfortable, folks: you have three hours of Republican debatifying ahead of you. Let's do this thing.

11:14 - A-a-a-a-nd, that's a wrap. Finally.

11:13 - Christie wants America to stick its chest out again. I'll forego the obvious inappropriate joke.

11:10 - Fiorina's closing statement sounded like a well-rehearsed high school commencement speech. Maybe that goes over better with other people than it does with me.

11:09 - Walker didn't mention "wreaking havoc" in his closing statement. What happened, Scott?

11:07 - Bush's closing statement included the phrase "structural fiscal problems." This might just sum up his problems relating to the base.

10:58 - Trump really does seem to enjoy it when someone gets in a good jab at him.

10:56 - Mother Teresa. Margaret Thatcher. Ivanka Trump. Mama Carson. FFS.

10:54 - Oh God. A "lighthearted" question.

10:52 - Commercial break!

10:51 - Huckabee: "Why doesn't this country focus on cures rather than treatment" of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's? Gee, that's a great idea. I wonder why no one's thought of it before?

10:48 - Trump wants lower doses of vaccines over longer periods of time. Oh my God. Apparently he thinks autism is caused by too large a dose of vaccines.

10:47 - Carson: Vaccines are pushed by big government. I'm not sure that's what's really behind the anti-vax movement.

10:43 - Christie: We can stop climate change without government intervention. I'd love to hear the details behind that.

10:41 - Christie: Social Security is going to be insolvent in seven to eight years. Huh? And we can fix it by tightening up disability. Again, huh?

10:38 - Rubio: Obama is undermining our values, which explains why violence is endemic. Except, of course, that violent crime has declined over the past seven years.

10:28 - Blah blah blah drugs are bad blah blah blah. Except for Rand Paul, of course.

10:23 - Commercial break!

10:21 - Would Huckabee have a litmus test for Supreme Court justices? Oh hell yes.

10:17 - Fiorina is tossing out numbers to try to sound knowledgeable about military affairs. It's not working. She sounds like a student reciting in class. She should have mentioned Ohio-class subs in order to suck up to Hewitt.

10:15 - Getting a little woozy after two hours of debating? Here's a cat in a dishwasher to cheer you up.

10:12 - Walker refuses to say how many troops he'd send to Iraq. What a surprise.

10:09 - Who's really responsible for America's debilitating weakness? George Bush or Barack Obama? Gee, I wonder who they'll pick?

10:07 - Carson: Radical jihadists are an "existential" threat to the United States. That's so 2002-warblog, Ben.

10:05 - The most entertaining part of tonight's debate—by a mile—is the split-screen views of Trump shrugging and mugging while the others talk.

10:01 - Hewitt wants Trump to name a few names of people he might rely on in office. (Other than Carl Icahn, I assume.) He immediately changes the subject. So Trump doesn't know shit, and doesn't know anyone either. He's really reveling in his ignorance tonight.

9:58 - I just realized that I can't really remember any policy position Bush has taken tonight.

9:55 - Trump promising yet again that although he doesn't know shit now, he'll be up to speed by the time he gets inaugurated. Honest.

9:53 - Rubio seems to be mostly avoiding the food fight. He's sounding pretty presidential, I'd say. But maybe too much of a laundry list style of speaking. On the fact-checking front however, North Korea doesn't have "dozens" of nuclear weapons.

9:49 - Commercial break!

9:46 - Hugh Hewitt: Is it wrong not to attack Hillary Clinton at every opportunity? Hmmm? Deep, Hugh. Very deep.

9:44 - Carson thinks we need to get everyone together to negotiate a proper minimum wage. I wonder why no one's thought of that before? He also wants to index it to inflation. Socialism!

9:42 - Trump says progressive taxation is "not a socialistic thing." He's right. Of course, so is a stopped clock occasionally.

9:40 - Ben Carson thinks progressive taxation is socialism. Okay....

9:37 - Somebody on stage needs to take a shot at Tapper. He probably deserves it, and conservatives always love attacks on media figures.

9:34 - Trump wants credit for doing great in Atlantic City, but says his bankruptcies don't count. Not quite sure how he gets away with this.

9:30 - How many of Jake Tapper's questions have been framed as "Donald Trump says ...."? Why not just ask the damn question?

9:27 - Fiorina asks why Obama got nothing done on immigration. Um, because the Republican base revolted and the Republican caucus caved in on comprehensive reform and declined to pass anything?

9:20 - Rubio is the "son of a maid and a bartender." Take a drink.

9:17 - By the way, it turns out that Science™ explains why Jeb seems weak compared to Trump: It's because his voice is monotonous and boring. The chart on the right shows what's going on. Bush is the most boring sounding of all the candidates.

9:16 - Bush wants Trump to apologize to his wife. Trump refuses, of course. More alpha-chimp posturing.

9:15 - First hour done. Two hours to go. Oh God.

9:08 - Tapper wants Carly to respond to Trump's crack about not wanting to look at her face for four years. Fiorina says "women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said." Not bad. Trump seems almost admiring.

9:06 - Walker apparently thinks the filibuster is unconstitutional. Sort of. Stout man.

9:04 - Trump thinks we should talk about North Korea. OK. But Trump declines to say what he'd do about them.

9:02 - Now we're having an abortion-off. Systematic murder. Disgusting. Babies' limbs moving. Bartering for body parts. Etc. etc.

9:01 - Fiorina somehow turns a question about Planned Parenthood into an answer about Iran. Not sure if I'm impressed or appalled.

8:59 - Christie refusing to answer whether he'd shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding. Boo.

8:49 - Trump says GOP senators bear some responsibility for Syria problems since they refused to support Obama when he asked for authorization to attack Assad. Rubio responds that he refused because Obama only wanted to deliver a "pinprick." Pretty good answer.

8:41 - Cruz fought the World Court of the UN! What a badass.

8:39 - Fiorina would deal with Putin by building a kick-ass military and refusing to talk to Putin. OK. Then she starts talking about why it's important to know who General Soleimani is. Not sure most viewers are going to get the context for that.

8:37 - Rubio has managed to avoid the junior high school scrum so far. Good for him. Now giving a perfectly serviceable answer about Russia and Putin.

8:35 - Sort of fascinating watching Trump and Bush do a straight-up alpha-chimp competition with each other.

8:33 - Bush says Trump tried to buy his support for casino gambling in Florida. Trump says it never happened.

8:29 - Let's see. So far, Trump has insulted Pataki, Paul, and Walker. Only 12 to go!

8:26 - How has Trump managed to convince the world that he's a great negotiator, anyway? What deals has he made that are all that spectacular?

8:24 - All the pre-debate buzz was about how Trump would be little more sober and low key. Not so far. He's all insults all the time.

8:22 - Rand Paul: a "sophomoric quality" to Trump. We should have left that behind in junior high school.

8:20 - Fiorina already dodging. Refuses to say Trump shouldn't be trusted with his finger on the nuclear button. C'mon Carly.

8:12 - Debate to start momentarily.

8:08 - Everyone has a notebook, water, and a pen. No other props allowed. But what about spy pens?

I Think It's Safe to Say That the Ahmed Mohamed Incident Is a Product of Islamophobia

| Wed Sep. 16, 2015 6:04 PM EDT

So are conservatives starting to cover the Ahmed Mohamed story? With a three-hour debate death march looming, I don't have the energy to do a serious survey. But I did hop over to The Corner and found this from Ian Tuttle:

Unlike the Twitter hordes, I’m inclined not to spin this into some profound comment on our “cultural moment.” If it’s a comment on anything, it’s on the astonishing deficit of common sense at MacArthur High School and among local authorities....But this has become a story about nationwide “Islamophobia” and “white privilege”—or about those crazy-racist-redneck-gun-obsessed Texans—and it’s not about either. It’s about a few people in positions of authority who overreacted to the possibility of a weapon. Which, as it happens, is a too-frequent occurrence all over the country, regardless of the color of your skin.

I suppose the flip side of conservatives mostly ignoring Ahmed is, which so far has 11 separate pieces about this incident today. Now that's flooding the zone. But one of those 11 pieces turns out to address Tuttle almost directly. Max Fisher writes about the rise of Islamophobia in just the suburbs of Dallas near Ahmed's home in just the past year:

The trouble began in January, when American Muslim families...gathered to formally condemn violent extremism and to cultivate positive ties with their local communities....In response, thousands of protesters mobbed the event, waving anti-Muslim signs and American flags for hours, forcing local Muslim families who attended to endure a gauntlet of hate. "We don't want them here," a woman at the protests told a local TV reporter. One man explained, "We're here to stand up for the American way of life from a faction of people who are trying to destroy us."

....A few weeks later, in early March, an Iraqi man who had just fled the Middle East to join his wife in Dallas stood outside their apartment photographing the first snow he'd ever seen when two men walked up and shot him to death.

....Then, in May, a woman named Pamela Geller who is known for anti-Muslim hate speech organized an event with far-right political figures called the "Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest," also in Garland, to encourage Americans to draw deliberately offensive cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in a show of hostility toward Muslims. The event's organizers explicitly positioned it as "sounding the alarm about Muslim encroachment into Europe and America, and its potential impact on American culture," according to Breitbart.

And that's not to even mention the fact that the longtime mayor of Irving is Beth Van Duyne, who became briefly famous earlier this year for her Fox News interview about Islamic "courts" taking over the community. Avi Selk of the Dallas Morning News writes about a city council meeting last March:

Van Duyne had spent the last month criticizing and questioning a Muslim mediation panel, conflating it with a court in an interview seen around the country. That night, she pushed the council to endorse a state bill whose author had targeted the panel.

The dispute has made Van Duyne a hero on fringe websites that fear an Islamic takeover of America. “Beth Van Duyne for President,” a fan wrote on her Facebook page this week. “This lady has balls and Thank God she did this. If you do not like it, move ... to California.”

When Ahmed's arrest became public, Van Duyne's first instinct was to write, "I hope this incident does not serve as a deterrent against our police and school personnel from maintaining the safety and security of our schools." If she cared at all about a 14-year-old Muslim boy being hauled off in handcuffs from school, she sure kept it hidden.

(Until the flak started to get heavy. Then she hastily changed her tune.)

So: is this about local authorities overreacting? Sure. But it's also—obviously—about fear and Islamophobia and a growing climate of hatred that the leaders of Irving, Texas, did nothing to address. How about some common sense here, folks?

Debate Liveblogging Tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern: Come See if Kevin Can Make It Through the Whole Thing

| Wed Sep. 16, 2015 4:53 PM EDT

Updated: Read more live updates here

Last night my editor asked if I was planning to liveblog today's debate. Sure, I said. I always think I'm going to swear off this stuff eventually, but then I cave in yet again. So, yes, I'll be liveblogging Donald and Ben and the nine dwarfs.

But wait! This thing is three hours long? And I'm promising to liveblog it? Whose lunatic idea was this?

I figure maybe this is meant as a destruction test, sort of like American Ninja Warrior. Sure, you feel fine at first. You're halfway through and your arms are strong and loose. Then you hit the salmon ladder and start to feel a twinge. And then the swinging tires. You barely make it. You stop to take a breath, but your body just can't take much more. Sure enough, when you try to take on the Psycho Chain, your body rebels, and it's into the drink.

Maybe we'll see the same thing tonight. After 90 minutes, everyone is still feeling pumped. After 120 minutes, they're having a little trouble finding the right words. Finally, around the 150-minute mark, their minds are foggy and their legs are tired and the tension becomes too much. Everyone starts having their own "oops" moments.

Diabolical, isn't it? If it doesn't work, I recommend making the next debate an all-day affair, 6 a.m. to midnight. That'll weed out the pretenders from the folks who really have the desire and commitment to become the next American Ninja President.

Advertise on

Artificial Intelligence for Kids Is the Hot New Toy Sensation

| Wed Sep. 16, 2015 2:11 PM EDT

Artificial intelligence is here, baby!

In the past five years, breakthroughs in artificial intelligence and speech recognition have given the devices around us — smartphones, computers, cars — the ability to engage in something approaching conversation....With such technology widely available, it was inevitable that artificial intelligence for children would arrive, too, and it is doing so most prominently in the pink, perky form of Mattel’s Hello Barbie. Produced in collaboration with ToyTalk, a San Francisco-based company specializing in artificial intelligence, the doll is scheduled to be released in November with the intention of hitting the lucrative $6 billion holiday toy market.

For adults, this new wave of everyday A.I. is nowhere near sophisticated enough to fool us into seeing machines as fully alive....But things are different with children, because children are different. Especially with the very young, ‘‘it is very hard for them to distinguish what is real from what is not real,’’ says Doris Bergen, a professor of educational psychology at Miami University in Ohio who studies play. The penchant to anthropomorphize — to believe that inanimate objects are to some degree humanlike and alive — is in no way restricted to the young, but children, who often favor magical thinking over the mundane rules of reality, have an especially rich capacity to believe in the unreal.

Fine: it's artificial intelligence for six-year-olds. But you know what? Lots of adults also have a rich capacity to believe in the unreal. I will refrain from naming names in order to protect the guilty. In any case, if we can produce tolerable childlike AI in a bundle the size of a Barbie doll, how far are we from producing tolerable adult AI in a bundle the size of a PC? Five years? Probably too soon. Twenty years? It won't take that long. But somewhere in the middle, say ten or fifteen years, we'll all be talking merrily to our gadgets and mostly forgetting that they aren't actually people.

That's still not honest-to-God real AI, but it's in the ballpark. We'll be there by 2040.

Poverty Is Still Winning the War on Poverty

| Wed Sep. 16, 2015 1:34 PM EDT

The Census Bureau released its latest report on income and poverty today, and there were no big surprises. Median income is basically flat or down for all ethnic groups, though things would look a bit better if health care benefits were included. Full-time women are now earning about 79 percent of full-time men, a slow but steady increase. But here's the chart I want to highlight. You've seen it before, but it's worth seeing again:

Here's the nutshell version: Since 1970, thanks to Social Security, we've made steady progress in reducing elderly poverty. Among all other age groups, we've made no progress at all. In fact, poverty has increased. These numbers might look a little different if you use a different measure of poverty, but not by much. If you're under 65, it's safe to say that we fought a war against poverty, and poverty won.

How to Get Arrested In Two Easy Steps: (1) Be Named Ahmed, (2) Build a Clock

| Wed Sep. 16, 2015 12:28 PM EDT

From Fox News:

The incident went viral on social media and the hashtag #IStandWithAhmed was the top non-promoted U.S. trend on Twitter early Wednesday morning. Some supporters alleged Mohamed was arrested only because of his name, or the way he looked. Others claimed the situation was a case of Islamaphobia.

What went viral? And why quote Fox News on the subject? More on that in a moment.

The topic here is Ahmed Mohamed, a 14-year-old robotics geek at MacArthur High School in Irving, Texas. He decided to build an electronic clock to show off to his teacher, and ended up arrested instead. Apparently it beeped during his English class, and his English teacher decided it looked kind of like a bomb. So it was confiscated and Ahmed was led off in handcuff and then suspended for three days. This despite the fact that (a) it wasn't a bomb, (b) nobody thought it was a bomb, and (c) Ahmed told everyone who saw it that it was a clock. After the incident, the school sent out a letter to all parents not admitting any fault, but basically bragging about how vigilant they'd been and recommending that they review the school's Code of Conduct with their kids.

So why link to Fox News on the subject? To highlight the fact that, as near as I can tell, conservative blogs and websites have all but ignored this story. That's even though it practically saturated my Twitter feed last night and, as Fox says, went viral on social media. I realize that this kind of thing doesn't interest conservatives much, but it's such a blatant and stupid abuse of power that you'd think it would at least give them an opportunity to show that occasionally they care about obvious bigotry like this. Plus they'd get to take a shot at a public school and its stupid overpaid administrators. What more do they want?

UPDATE: I see that President Obama and Hillary Clinton have just tweeted messages of support for Ahmed. I think it's safe to say that conservative outlets will now start to weigh in. But it poses a dilemma for them. Even conservatives can't really defend what happened here. On the other hand, they can hardly agree with Obama, can they? What to do?

My guess: defend Ahmed, but somehow make the claim that Obama's terrorist-appeasing ways are responsible for an all-too-understandable suspicion of brown people. It's a win-win!

"Several Dozen" Tea Partiers Hold Fate of Nation in Their Hands

| Wed Sep. 16, 2015 11:35 AM EDT

The tea partiers are feeling their oats:

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) is bracing for what could be the toughest weeks of his speakership as several dozen conservatives in his party are threatening to topple him unless he is more ferocious with Democrats during the upcoming fiscal showdowns.

....The speaker’s lieutenants are openly girding for battle with the small but influential bloc of anti-Boehner conservatives, who have signaled that if Boehner cuts any deal that they don’t like with Hill Democrats and President Obama, they could seek to remove him from the speaker’s post. It is a threat that Boehner and his allies are taking seriously.

"Several dozen"! But these lunatics might still be able to force a government shutdown or unseat Boehner as Speaker of the House. This would be a hell of a show, since the TPers (a) apparently have no strategy for winning a shutdown fight, and (b) would never in a million years be able to agree on a replacement for Boehner. The whole thing is crazy.

Which is nothing new. The obvious solution for Boehner is to cut a deal with Democrats, who have more than enough votes to pass a budget and keep him safely in the Speaker's chair. In another era, that might be an option. But today? It would just dig Boehner into an ever deeper hole. Good luck.