Hillary Clinton says she opposes the Trans-Pacific "Partnership," that Congress shouldn't vote on it before or after the November election, and that we need a "fundamental rethink" of future trade agreements. That's an awfully big commitment -- it doesn't just mean "during the lame duck session," which she may want you to think it means; "after the election" would cover at least up to November 2020. But when she goes back on her word, as I expect she will, she'll probably still say she was taken out of context.
Adam Johnson, writing at FAIR, wonders why "entitlement" "reformers" talk about how we can't "afford" Social Security and Medicare, but not so much about how we can't afford corporate tax loopholes and military spending. Oh, but it's even worse than that: when they talk about military spending, they're more likely to talk about veterans' pensions (apparently we can't afford that, either!) than weapons boondoggles or wars fought off-budget. I've also noticed that our "liberal" media never talks about closing corporate tax loopholes without talking about the absolute necessity of reducing the corporate tax rate. This is why we can't have nice things in America.
Uh oh: Republican Rep. Steve Knight says "I think Social Security was a bad idea" at a candidate debate. There's no way to claim he was taken out of context, either. His statement is ready-made for a Democrat attack ad; now watch them pass it up because it's "uncivil," or because their 13-dimensional chess game requires them to keep a Republican Rep in a district President Obama only lost 50-48 in 2012. (On the other hand, the Senate Majority PAC pulls no punches in this ad attacking Nevada Republican Rep./Senatorial candidate Joe Heck for calling the foreclosure crisis "a blip on the radar.")
Rupert Stone, writing at Newsweek, reminds us that science teaches us that torture doesn't get us very good intelligence. Among other things, torture damages the brain enough that terror suspects can hardly keep their heads together enough to answer questions intelligently. Millions of Americans squeal in response: but what about the incontrovertible science of my inexhaustible rage? Also, they saw on TV that it works.
Finally, Bill Scher picks out Donald Trump's secret weapon in his attempt to appear populist: "incoherence." You can pick out pretty much whatever you like from what Donald Trump says -- if you think he wants to give the rich a tax cut, you can find support for that, and if you think he wants to raise taxes on the rich, you can find support for that, too. And given that so many of Mr. Trump's supporters believe whatever reflects best on their Personal Lord and Savior, I expect "incoherence" to remain a valued strategy for Mr. Trump. Hey, it worked for George W. Bush.