Monthly Archives: March 2016

Just back for a second to link to this: David S. Bernstein explains the challenge ahead for Donald Trump, assuming he is the Republican nominee. The core group that will support him is white male voters and they represent a diminishing percentage of the population. It wasn't such a good idea to attack Hispanics and to talk about women the way he has.

For those of you who have joined this blog recently, the mushroom soup can is a declaration that Mark is swamped today and may not be posting much. That's to save you the trouble of coming back to this page every twenty minutes, as so many of you do, to see if there are any late-breaking bulletins about tomato soup, Frank Ferrante or baby pandas.

The G.O.P. Friars Roast last night was kinda stunning. I couldn't sit through it all but just the sound bites here and there were enough to put the Springtime for Hitler look on the face of anyone who recalls when grown-ups used to run for president. The thing that's amazed a lot of us about this election is how the old disqualifiers no long disqualify.

Used to be that if any candidate had made even a vague reference to the size of his own penis — or anyone's for that matter — he might as well get out of politics and go get a job refilling propane tanks at a Home Depot. And it was injurious if he said something that his opponents could argue was an out-and-out lie…like Bill Clinton saying he'd never inhaled or Al Gore saying something that could be spun as "I invented the Internet!" Now, twenty such statements an hour do not alienate supporters who used to decide that one proved a candidate was unfit for public office.

But you know, I can't shake the feeling that things Trump said last night are indicators that his act is running out of material; that by Election Day or even by the time Republicans convene in Cleveland at the Quicken Loans Arena (appropriate, given all the candidates' tax plans), he'll have either drastically changed his approach or he'll have a helluva time passing himself off as a winner. Any comedian knows you save the dick jokes for the end and you only haul them out early when you're getting into trouble.

Which reminds me. I don't know if anyone has noticed this but we have an interesting marathon of conventions in July. The Republican one is July 18-21. This year's Comic-Con International is July 21-24. That means that while Donald or Somebody Else is making his acceptance speech, a whole lot of us are going to be in San Diego, attending a much better convention. The Democratic gathering is July 25-28 in Philadelphia.

So it's three conventions back-to-back. Which one do you think will have the greatest connection to reality and the fewest freaky creatures roaming about? Gee, that's a tough one. Think about it until I finish my script and resume normal blogging.

Several of you have sent me links to this demonstration of the Wintergatan Marble Machine. Watch and be amazed…

What do I think of Mitt Romney's attack today on Donald Trump? Pretty much the same thing Daniel Larison thinks of it. Romney's right that Trump is a dangerous charlatan but Mitt is hardly one to talk.

• I'm tempted to watch the Republican debate tonight just to see if anyone notices Ben Carson isn't there.

• Chris Christie says "I was not being held hostage" at that Trump event. But how do we know he wasn't being held hostage when he said that?

• Donald Trump is not beholden to special interests. Donald Trump is a special interest.

I suppose anyone who'd come to this site knows who Jack Kirby was and how awesome were his achievements. Still, it's nice to hear it said so here's a great video about him from the folks at Comics Alliance…

Two minor quibbles: When Jack left comics for animation, he worked briefly for Hanna-Barbera and DePatie-Freleng, then for a long time for Ruby-Spears. Ruby-Spears wound up being affiliated with Hanna-Barbera but he worked on Thundarr the Barbarian and Turbo Teen for them, not for H-B. And Thundarr was before the H-B connection, when Ruby-Spears was a wholly separate company.

Also, someone who saw this wrote to ask me how the look of his character Big Barda could have been inspired by the mother in My Big Fat Greek Wedding when that movie came out in 2002 and Barda debuted in 1971. The folks who made this fine video meant that Barda's looks were inspired by a 1970 Playboy layout on actress-singer Lainie Kazan. Much later, Ms. Kazan appeared in that movie. That is all my quibbles. Just two.

I'm going to do some posts here which in no way reference Donald Trump but here's something that's on my mind. I keep hearing folks who want to stop him from getting the Republican nomination — and these are mostly Republicans saying this — that either Cruz or Rubio should drop out so that the other one can pick up most of their votes. This sounds backwards to me.

According to Nate Silver, who counts these things as well as anyone, Trump is "just barely" on target to rack up the 1,237 delegates he needs to have to lock up the nomination before the convention. Silver estimates that at his current pace of winning about 46% of them, Trump will wind up with 1,276.

That's enough but it's not a landslide. It's 52%. Not a lot of safety margin there.

It seems to me that neither Cruz nor Rubio stands much chance of topping Trump in delegate count. The most likely scenarios whereby he doesn't become the nominee all involve him falling slightly short of 50% plus one. Are you with me so far?

Now let's say either Cruz or Rubio drops out and most of their followers flock to the other guy. I'm thinking some of those voters would go to Trump, especially if he looked unstoppable. Remember that part of his appeal is this "I always win" mantra he chants. There are Republicans who after eight years of Barack Obama just want someone in the White House who is "one of them."

So if either Cruz or Rubio drops out, doesn't Trump pick up some voters and therefore some delegates? And might those some delegates be enough to push him over the 50% mark?

There's a lot of "opposition research" (i.e., mudslinging) coming his way before the convention, even before Democrats take their best shot at him. Suppose it drives his total down to, say, 1230. That still makes him the frontrunner and some will argue that he deserves the nomination because of it. But that's not the same thing as if he shows up with 1,237. And if Cruz or Rubio withdrew, don't you think Trump would pick up some more votes? Enough to get seven more delegates? What am I missing here?

By the way: As you may have heard, Ben Carson is apparently out of the race. Last night, I captured this Tweet and forgot to post it. It made me chuckle…

Matt Taibbi writes about how Republican leaders who were fine with George W. Bush in the White House are panicking over the possibility of You-Know-Who getting the job. I think Taibbi is a little harsh on G.W.B., which is an odd thing for me to be saying since I think he might well have been the worst president of all time. Nevertheless, I think Taibbi is onto something when he says, as others have, that the problem the G.O.P. establishment has with Trump is not that he's dangerous to America but that he's dangerous to them.

He's lost the all-important Ben Stein vote.

This is another one of those "if that person's on the same side as me, maybe I'm wrong" moments.

You know about this battle where the government wants Apple to help them unlock a terrorist's iPhone and Apple is resisting. I'm not sure how I feel about it, not because I'm in favor of the government spying on us but because I'm not sure how this is that different from the government tapping conventional phones or seizing and examining desktop computers. There's an inconsistency here that I'd have to sort through. As it turns out, Fred Kaplan has more on this.

I am told that WonderCon is very close to selling out. If you wanna go, get tickets now. Tomorrow may be too late.

I have a feeling you've all seen this but just in case…

So I guess what we're waiting for now is some game-changing revelation or gaffe — like there's suddenly actual proof that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster…or Donald Trump gets up to give a speech, has a brain fart and declares, "We have to bring back slavery and make poor people and minorities the property of people as rich as me!" Something like that.

If nothing that jarring occurs, Hillary's the Democratic nominee and Donald gets the G.O.P. nod. Or I suppose the Republican establishment could get together and say in essence, "Okay…Trump won by the rules so we're changing the rules." That would sure tear the party apart but so have a lot of things the Republican leadership has done lately. My point is it's going to take some massive change in the dynamic for this to not be a Clinton-Trump face-off. Maybe a big scandal. Maybe some candidate doing something really, really stupid. Maybe even some external news event like a major disaster or another 9/11. Given how wacko this whole election has been so far, I wouldn't rule anything out.

I don't have a particular preference for Sanders over Hillary or vice-versa but I'm sorry Bernie's not doing better. He's saying some important things and he does seem to be the only guy in the race with a positive approval rating and some respect from the opposition party. Even my friend Roger who would sooner go bunjee-jumping on a strand of linguini than vote Democratic thinks Sanders is the only candidate truly speaking his own mind. You wish that counted more than it does these days.

I admit I don't fully "get" the appeal of Trump. It has something to do with the fact that a lot of people are sick of politics as usual and that they buy into the notion — which seems clearly bogus to a lot of us — that Donald is tough and a perpetual winner. I think it also has to do with so many voters finding the G.O.P. alternatives lacking. Rubio's looking more and more like a kid who's in way over his head. Cruz is looking more and more like a ferret.

Left-leaning friends of mine are in despair and terror at even the slight possibility of President Trump…but I don't think they'd be any happier with President Rubio or President Cruz or even President Kasich. What some of them seem to want in a Republican nominee is what Republicans want in a Supreme Court nominee. They want no one this year. If I had more interest in it, I could probably make the case that Trump is the least offensive of many bad choices: Most likely to lose, most likely to surprise us with occasional liberalism if he wins.

I'm not sure who the Big Winner was in the events of yesterday but I have a nomination for Big Loser: Chris Christie. Is there anyone who likes this guy anymore? When will Fox News offer this guy a good-paying show and end the self-destruction of his political career? (I caught him last night on some news channel saying, "If we work together, we can stop Hillary Clinton from getting to Washington!" I'm guessing that means more bridge closures.)

One of the odd things in politics is that every so often, you find yourself agreeing with someone you think is always wrong. It's like tomorrow, if Rush Limbaugh began talking the way I do about cole slaw, I'd find myself thinking, "Hmm…maybe that stuff is a lot closer to edible than I thought." In that spirit, we have Lindsey Graham saying, "You'll never convince me that Donald Trump is the answer to the problem we have with Hispanics. It will tear the party apart, it will divide conservatism, and we're gonna lose to Hillary Clinton and have the third term of Barack Obama."

Before he said that, that's what I thought I wanted. Now since it's him saying it, I'm not so sure.