"How stupid are the people of Iowa?"

I'll only go so far as to say that they really don't have any business hitting leadoff in our presidential election process and leave it at that (the last two Iowa GOP caucus winners, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, debated at the little table last Tuesday).  Trump, what do you think?

"How stupid are the people of Iowa?" declared Trump during a rally at Iowa Central Community College. "How stupid are the people of the country to believe this crap?" For more than an hour and a half Thursday night, the billionaire real estate mogul harshly criticized not only Carson, but many of his other competitors in the race for the GOP presidential nomination.

In his free-wheeling appearance, Trump also said Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who is rising in the polls, was "weak like a baby, like a baby" and "not a good poker player because every time he's under pressure he starts to just profusely sweat." And he said former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush didn't deserve his attention because his campaign is doing so poorly.

This is a full-blown rant.  A wall-eyed, snot-nosed hissy fit, as Juanita Jean likes to say.  Spit flying, white specks at the corner of his mouth, blood pressure humping and pumping.  Strokelandia.

 Let's make him do it again.

Trump accused Democratic front-runner Hilary Rodham Clinton, who is campaigning to be the first female president, of "playing the woman's card, big league."

But his strongest words, by far, were aimed at Carson, whose powerful life story and soft-spoken demeanor have captured the attention of many voters. Trump, once the undisputed poll leader, is now running neck-and-neck with Carson in many opinion surveys.

Trump previewed his attack line in an interview with CNN Thursday in which the businessman pointed to Carson's own descriptions of his "pathological temper" as a young man.

"That's a big problem because you don't cure that," Trump said. "That's like, you know, I could say, they say you don't cure — as an example, child molester. You don't cure these people. You don't cure the child molester." Trump also said that "pathological is a very serious disease."

Ladies and gentlemen, your front-runners for the Republican nomination to be President of the United States.  To be fair and balanced, Trump is just using Carson's own words against him.

In his book "Gifted Hands," Carson described the uncontrollable anger he felt at times while growing up in inner-city Detroit. He wrote that on one occasion he nearly punched his mother and on another he attempted to stab a friend with a knife.

"I had what I only can label a pathological temper — a disease — and this sickness controlled me, making me totally irrational," Carson said, in describing the incident with his mother. He referred to "pathological anger" again in telling about lunging at his friend, a knife blade breaking off when it hit the boy's belt buckle.

Carson's ability to overcome his anger as well as an impoverished childhood to become a world-renowned neurosurgeon has been a central chapter in his personal story. A spokesman for Carson declined to comment on Trump's remarks.

We have simply got to goad Carson into commenting, liberal media. 

During the rally Thursday night in Fort Dodge, Iowa, Trump said that Carson is "an enigma to me."

He went on to repeat the molestation analogy with his comments about pathological temper, and he questioned aspects of Carson's biography. At one point, Trump acted out the scene of Carson trying to stab his friend, lurching forward dramatically. "He lunged that knife into the stomach of his friend, but, lo and behold, it hit the belt!" Trump declared.

"Give me a break."

In "Gifted Hands," Carson describes racing to the bathroom in his house after the near-stabbing incident — and in time beginning to pray for God's help in dealing with his temper.

"During those hours alone in the bathroom, something happened to me," he wrote. "God heard my deep cries of anguish. A feeling of lightness flowed over me, and I knew a change of heart had taken place. I felt different. I was different."

In questioning Carson's religious awakening, Trump said in Fort Dodge that Carson went into the bathroom and came out, "and now he's religious."

"And the people of Iowa believe him. Give me a break. Give me a break. It doesn't happen that way," Trump said. "Don't be fools."

Despite what I have said repeatedly about polls, I'm anxious to see what they reveal about a week or two from now.  This feels like a turning point for a couple of candidates.   The conservative Borg has been completely unpredictable to this point, but a settling-out of the real lunacy of Trump and Carson to the regular loons of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio is somewhat overdue.

Watching, and waiting.

Update:

Will Donald Trump’s epic meltdown in Iowa — which has been widely ridiculed by the political classes today — have any impact on his long-term chances?

There is a great deal of chatter about how Trump may have fatally damaged himself by calling the voters of Iowa “stupid” for believing Ben Carson’s redemption tales. But as David Kurtz and Brian Beutler point out, this is just more of the same from Trump, who has built his entire candidacy on calling out mass stupidity and vowing to roll over it to get things done. Voters may just acquiesce to this as another part of the show, the way audiences submit to, and even laugh along with, a stand-up comic who is brutally ridiculing them.

But this meltdown represents something much greater than merely a cringeworthy spectacle. In a way Trump’s rambling monologue amounts to an indictment of the fundamental stupidity and arbitrariness of American politics in general. And as such, we may look back at this moment and see it in a different light, as crossing from sheer buffoonery into a semi-poignant glimpse into the foibles of human vanity. That’s because the stupidity and arbitrariness that Trump rages at here are the reasons why Trump himself has held the lead for so long, perhaps persuading him that he has an actual shot at being president. And so, whether he knows this or not, Trump is railing at the same forces that elevated him — and, he seems to sense, may be deserting him. They may not end up deserting him — perhaps Trump will be the nominee, though I highly doubt it — but he seems to sense that they just might.

Stop saying 'Vote for Hillary because of the Supreme Court'

H.A. Goodman is back on the point, this time slaying blinders-wearing Clintonites for their shitty rationales.  And he's taking a lot of incoming.  Because it is pissing them off so much -- and you should know by now how much I'm enjoying that -- I'm going to pile on.

He begins with my biggest beefs against her: inevitability polls and perpetual war.

First and foremost, the latest unscientific poll out of Western Illinois University has Bernie Sanders winning the presidency. Therefore, if polls are gospel, we’ll have a Democrat in the White House who plans on fixing the structural issues plaguing Wall Street and the U.S. economy. With Sanders, we’ll have an honest attempt at breaking up “Too Big to Fail” banks, reinstating Glass-Steagall, and tackling wealth inequality. Perhaps one reason WIU predicts Sanders winning the presidency is that Vermont’s senator has more than 1 million online donors who’ve funded his campaign. No need for prison lobbyists, like his challenger Hillary Clinton, and no need for a super PAC.

Once again: I don't place much faith in year-away polling, and the WIU poll is more than little screwy.  Take a look at their electoral map (click it to big it).  Note that the GOPer Sanders is defeating is named Bush, a tenuous proposition as we read and write today.

Would that it could be so: South Carolina, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Utah, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and both Dakotas are all blue.  Stranger still, Illinois, Maryland, and Hawaii are red.  This makes Ted look reasonable by comparison.

Now that the crack pipe has been hidden away...

Also, one great thing about a Sanders presidency is that Americans will be able to trust a person who never had to evolve toward progressive stances on war, foreign policy, Wall Street and environmental issues like Keystone XL. While critics haven’t let me evolve from one article on Rand Paul (written from a purely progressive outlook on ending perpetual war, please read the actual article), supporters of the former secretary of state are very comfortable with her evolution on a number of topics. Naturally, Clinton supporters aren’t concerned with perpetual wars.

According to one conservative historian in the New York Times, Clinton’s foreign policy can easily be deemed “neocon”:

“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

When a conservative historian known for neoconservative views says Clinton’s foreign policy is “something that might have been called neocon,” it’s safe to say her foreign policy will be hawkish. In addition, another New York Times article states that neocons are “aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy.”

Yes, Clinton will have something close to a neoconservative foreign policy, and if you don’t believe me, trust the neocons who approve of her views on war and international relations. Or, you can just read Hillary Clinton’s book review of Henry Kissinger’s “World Order.”

This is all dead solid perfect.  Perpetual war was the topic of my Blog Action Day post, if you recall, and Shadowproof follows up today with "Introducing the Next Cold War".  Hint: Same as the last one, except more expensive.  I don't believe it's going to be all that cold.  The latest headlines, in fact, demonstrate it's pretty hot already.

But the macro-meme is, as you might have guessed, Clinton's trust issues.  Add them up.

With Clinton, poor judgment is referred to as a regrettable mistake. Owning a personal server was a “mistake,” voting for the Iraq War was a “mistake,” she “wasn’t raised” to envision gay marriage, and now opposes the TPP based upon “What I know about it, as of today.”

Generally, poor decision-making is addressed as an honest error, then acknowledged wholeheartedly, while supporters find every way to justify the flip-flop. Accountability is a foreign concept to the Clinton campaign and any reasoned critique is met with“You sound like a Republican!” Even accepting $100,000 from Donald Trump is simply part of Washington politics.

Hillary Clinton has evolved on war, gay marriage, Keystone XL, the TPP, in addition to marijuana legislation, and her supporters believe this is a good thing. All human beings evolve, therefore politicians who do the same must be doing so for altruistic reasons. For the rest of America, 57 percent of voters nationwide find Clinton to be “not honest and trustworthy.”

Finally there's the whole money thing.

Luckily, Clinton has made up for this deficit in trustworthiness by stating she’ll no longer accept money from prison lobbyists.

This is a relief since four of her top five donors since 1999 are investment banks and there are questions about foreign donors to her foundation. Nonetheless, in the eyes of supporters, a Democrat is always better than a Republican, even if Politico labels Clinton to be Wall St. Republicans’ dark secret.

We dare not vote based upon principle, since only the political power Hillary Clinton is said to possess protects us from Trump, if Sanders doesn’t get the nomination. Granted, Bernie Sanders defeats Trump by a wider margin than Clinton, but we can’t rock the boat for fear of a Trump presidency if Clinton is the nominee.

Republicans are the enemy, says the thought process bolstering the Clinton campaign, therefore accepting money from prison lobbyists and Wall Street is part of the game.

There’s a reason Hillary Clinton waited almost three weeks to address the death of Michael Brown and the Ferguson protests. Sadly, part of this reason could be prison lobbyists.

Goodman's got a lot more, including taking down the tiresome 'SCOTUS' argument.  This one has been easy since November of 2000 -- remember, Gore didn't drop his challenge until December --and was brought to us by none other than Jim Hightower.

Now it gets really ugly for the Gore campaign, for there are two other Florida constituencies that cost them more votes than Nader did. First, Democrats. Yes, Democrats! Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Hello. If Gore had taken even 1 percent of these Democrats from Bush, Nader’s votes wouldn’t have mattered. Second, liberals. Sheesh. Gore lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader. 

And as you've been reminded several times, that was only the third best reason Gore lost.  Why did so many declared Democrats ignore Barbra Streisand's plea and vote Republican (not Green, mind you)?  Can we call them stupid, or is the argument simply too complex for low information and infrequently-voting, semi-sorta Dems to comprehend?  Whatever it is, it's a problem Democrats alone need to solve.

So please finish Goodman's latest, and either nod your head ruefully as the scales fall from your eyes, or grind your teeth and curse the people who fit the definition of the word 'progressive' as your enemy.  Goodman's fail, however and again, is suggesting a write-in for Sanders.  Those votes don't count in Texas unless you're a "qualified write-in candidate", according to the Texas Election Code.

You will have the best progressive option on the Texas ballot listed on the Green line, and by voting for Jill Stein you also send a message that Democrats don't hold the title to your vote.  Getting them to understand that is Job One for this cycle.