Is Jeb Bush's candidacy dying in the crib?

As I am weary of fulminating against Hillary Clinton and other flailing, failing Democrats, let's check in with the alleged GOP inevitable one.  He's been having a bad month, so much so that it's not too early to question his inevitability.

1.  He's losing Iowa so badly that he's just not going to show up for any corndogs.

2.  There's some good news, however: he's leading in New Hampshire.  No one save Bill Clinton in the modern era has lost both Iowa and NH and gone on to the White House.  And recent polling suggests that the Granite State might even be pink.  (I questioned that back here.)

3.  But he's fading in South Carolina behind Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham and possibly other arch-conservatives, though as the macro-view US News article notes, SC polls tend to reshuffle after IA and NH vote.  Those Low Country folk like to jump on and off the various bandwagons.  The Palmetto State has grand family history as comeback territory for Bushes; remember John McCain's illegitimate black child?  But it might be Jeb's Combahee River this time.

What state comes after South Carolina?  Does it matter if he loses all three of those?  Will his hundred million bucks still be able pull his fat out of the fire if he loses two out of three?  He revealed himself this week as possibly being the dumber of the two Bush brothers, a truly remarkable achievement.

Jeb Bush on Tuesday sought to arrest a chorus of criticism from Democrats and some conservatives after he told an interviewer that, knowing what history has since shown about intelligence failures, he still would have authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Calling in to Sean Hannity’s syndicated radio show, Bush said he had misunderstood a question that one of Hannity’s Fox News colleagues, Megyn Kelly, had asked him in an interview shown on Sunday and Monday nights.

“I interpreted the question wrong, I guess,” Bush said. “I was talking about, given what people knew then.”

The attempt at mopping-up was quick, but it did not bring the controversy to an immediate end: When Hannity asked about the 2003 Iraq invasion again, in yes-or-no fashion, Bush said he did not know what the answer would have been, saying, “That’s a hypothetical.” Then, he seemed to go out of his way to absolve his brother, former President George W. Bush, who ordered the invasion: “Mistakes were made, as they always are in life,” Bush said.

Indeed they are.  And it looks as if rank-and-file Republicans and their kooky cousins aren't going to repeat the mistakes they have made in the past by voting for another Bush.  That might be the most exciting thing that could develop in 2015 for 2016.

Update: And now Jeb's porn problem surfaces.  No way the GOP nominates this guy.

A day after filibuster on TPP, Senate Dems fold like a cheap card table *Updated*

That post I wrote this morning?  Yeah, nemmind about that.

Less than a day after blocking the Obama administration's path to a secretive trade deal, Senate Democrats have accepted an offer put forth by Republicans. The Democrats, led by Senator Ron Wyden and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, came to accept the deal after personal lobbying from President Obama.

Some Democrats believed that a package of four trade bills would move along together, thus ensuring that Obama couldn't obtain fast-track authority without enforcement measures, but they ended up backing down on this as well. A Huffington Post story quotes Senator Sherrod Brown justifying the decision: "I understand that all four aren't going to be together exactly the way I want it, I understand that, but I can read votes. I also think that nobody saw us being successful yesterday three days out. And people have strong feelings about the customs enforcement and people have strong feelings about taking care of workers."

The new deal would allow the administration to begin negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal which has been criticized by labor unions and environmental activists. The economist Joseph Stiglitz recently wrote that, "These agreements go well beyond trade, governing investment and intellectual property as well, imposing fundamental changes to countries’ legal, judicial, and regulatory frameworks, without input or accountability through democratic institutions."

Gadfly also takes them apart over it.  Looks like we're back to being "sanctimonious purists".  I'm more convinced every day that we don't have the best government money can buy, we have the absolute worst.  And I would simply ask, since somebody else already mentioned that TPP is about the next president and not just this one: how is Hillary Clinton going to be any better on it for anybody on the left side of the Democratic party?

Update:  This.

The way Clinton and her advisers are thinking about this, apparently, is that there’s nothing forcing her to take a controversial stand, on trade or anything else. As long as no one who appears to be an overly serious threat is competing for support among the party’s various factions, then there’s no percentage in volunteering opinions that will inevitably create some ill will and give the media some conflict to write about. 

So instead, she goes around telling Democratic audiences that she’d do even more for immigrants than Obama has, or that she supports alternative sentencing for drug crimes. This is like telling Republicans you believe in God. 

But in fact, the Clinton people have the whole thing backward. This glide path toward the nomination that they assume they’re on isn’t an opportunity to hide from controversy; it’s an opportunity to show you can lead, clearly and thoughtfully. And that’s because, even if you get through the primaries unscathed, you’re going to have to confront your biggest vulnerability among general-election voters, which is this idea that Clinton does only what’s expedient.  

[...]

Clinton’s patronizing evasion on the trade deal, on the other hand, reinforces that impression. And if she waits until the summer of 2016 to actually choose sides on anything contentious, it may well be too late to turn that perception around. Remember that Clinton is trying to win a third term for her party, which is an exceptionally difficult task under any circumstances. 

There was an irony this week in watching Obama and Clinton, once again the two-headed hydra of Democratic politics, navigating their way through a decision point for their party. When it came to trade, he was direct, genuine and competitive. She was cautious, noncommittal, playing not to lose. 

That was precisely the contrast between them in 2008, and it didn’t work out for Clinton then. That Obama isn’t running against her doesn’t mean it will ultimately work out better this time.