The Weekly Standard’s Ties to Fusion GPS

The Weekly Standard’s Ties to Fusion GPS

By Julie Kelly| August 16th, 2018 

In his online appeal for money after being fired this week, disgraced former FBI agent Peter Strzok credited an unlikely source to vouch for his victim status: The Weekly Standard.

At one time a leading conservative magazine, the Standard declared last month that Strzok’s plight was merely an “overwrought tale of bias” and the case against him is “just sound and fury.” The article brushed off Strzok’s actions as “several bad judgment calls” and blasted Congressional Republicans for continuing a criminal investigation into the now-unemployed G-man.

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads

Strzok is following only 32 people on his newly-verified Twitter account. Bill Kristol, the editor-at-large of the Standard, is one of them.

So, what’s with the fanboying between the Standard—an allegedly serious publication dedicated to advancing conservative principles—and a corrupt government bureaucrat who embodies everything the conservative movement fought against for decades?

I found an article in the Standard archives this week that might explain why. On July 24, 2016, just days before Strzok helped launch a counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign, Kristol gave Strzok and the Obama Justice Department a big assist from the anti-Trump Right by posting a flawed and questionably-sourced article. “Putin’s Party” is compelling evidence that Kristol and the Standard were far from mere sideline observers as the Trump-Russia collusion scam took shape in the summer of 2016.

At the very least, the timing of the article suggests there was careful coordination between the central players—including the Hillary Clinton campaign—and Bill Kristol to derail Trump’s candidacy just weeks before the election. But the article’s content also serves to raise alarming questions about the claims by many Republicans that “conservatives” had no knowledge of or involvement with the Christopher Steele dossier.

Let’s back up a bit. On the morning that Kristol’s piece posted, the Trump-Russian election collusion story was in its embryonic stage—nearly all American voters that summer remained blissfully unaware of the details in this preposterous story—but secretly it was being peddled to the media by Fusion GPS, a political opposition research firm hired by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to dig up Russian-related dirt on Donald Trump. Talking points produced by Glenn Simpson, the head of Fusion, and contained in the Steele dossier, were making the rounds in the D.C.-NYC media claque during July 2016. (At the same time, Steele was working with the FBI and alerting the agency to his dubious findings about the Trump campaign.)

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads

Kristol’s article hits on every single one of the Simpson-Steele talking points: Trump forced the GOP to water-down language on the Ukraine in the party’s platform (it didn’thappen); the Russians were behind Wikileaks’ release of the DNC’s hacked emails (unproven); Trump encouraged foreign powers to interfere in the election (he didn’t); and Trump would not honor U.S. commitments to NATO (an overblown assessment of Trump’s NATO criticism nearly all the Republican candidates made). He listed a handful of unknown Trump campaign associates who would soon become household names, including campaign manager Paul Manafort; national security advisor, Lt. General Michael Flynn; and foreign policy aide Carter Page. (Strzok and the FBI formally opened their investigation into the three men—and campaign aide George Papadopoulos—on July 31, 2016.)

The content of Kristol’s piece closely mirrored reporting by other news outlets at the same time. (Lee Smith wrote about how the Fusion-planted media echo chamber evolved before the election.) But despite the flimsiness of the accusations, Kristol took his advocacy a step further.

These indications provide sufficient grounds for Trump’s links to Putin to be further investigated. Politicians who are currently supporting Trump should withdraw their unconditional support. We don’t know how direct and close a financial relationship Trump and Manafort have with the Putin regime. If Trump and Manafort don’t act to allay these concerns by releasing their tax returns (or in other ways), wouldn’t it be advisable for a Republican member of Congress to lead an urgent investigation into whether Putin is interfering in the current American election? Trump and Manafort may be Putin’s chumps. Will other Republicans sit by as the whole Republican party becomes Putin’s party?

A few hours after the Standard piece went online, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook reinforced Kristol’s message in an interview on CNN. Desperate to change the subject from DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s pending resignation, Mook also claimed the Russians were behind the DNC’s computer hack because Putin wanted Trump to win. There were other similarities to Kristol’s article. “Trump and his allies made changes to the Republican platform to make it more pro-Russian,” Mook told Jake Tapper. “And we saw him talking about how NATO shouldn’t intervene to defend our Eastern European allies if they are attacked by Russia. So, I think, when you put all this together, it’s a disturbing picture.”

The next day, Carter Page received his first text from a reporter and former Wall Street Journal colleague of Simpson’s, asking him about his ties to Russia and mentioning dossier-sourced specifics. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest fielded his first (planted) question during the daily press briefing by an AP reporter, who oddly asked whether the DNC hack was an attempt to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump.

Coincidence? Not a chance.

Kristol would take to Twitter dozens of times before the election to promote the Trump-Russia collusion fantasy, even referring to the GOP as “the Putin Party.” Kristol’s handpicked candidate to challenge Trump, Evan McMullin, also pushed the Trump-Russia narrative. (On the other hand, despite Fusion and Glenn Simpson being covered in the conservative media for more than a year, Kristol has zero tweets about the firm.)

It might be easy to dismiss all of this as mere happenstance, the rantings of a fierce Trump foe determined to do whatever he could to stop Trump from winning. But there is an important sidebar to consider: The Washington Free Beacon admitted last year that they retained Fusion from late 2015 until April 2016 to gather opposition research on Republican primary candidates. The website is run by Kristol’s son-in-law, Matthew Continetti. The Beacon posted numerous negative stories about the Trump campaign in 2016, including hit pieces on Carter Page in March and July.

The Beacon’s story keeps changing, however. At first, Continetti admitted that the Beacon “retained Fusion GPS to provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary.” Days later, Continetti explained why his website failed to mention its relationship with Fusion in several related articles prior to October 2017. After some blather about aggregated articles, Continetti vowed that future articles “will mention its history” with Fusion.

And they did. A few days after that, the Beacon posted an article with this disclaimer: “The Washington Free Beacon was once a client of Fusion GPS. That relationship ended in January 2017.”

Say what? Something is not adding up here; in fact, it stinks.

We are expected to believe that Bill Kristol’s son-in-law paid Fusion throughout the 2016 presidential campaign cycle but Simpson doesn’t pitch one dossier-related story to either one? Kristol just comes up with the very same flimsy talking points that Simpson and Steele are peddling—at the exact same time—and it’s pure coincidence? Kristol just happens to call for an investigation one week before the FBI takes the outrageous and unprecedented step of probing private citizens working on an opposing presidential campaign? Kristol and Robby Mook just strangely regurgitate the identical Trump-Russia plotline—on the same morning?

Since the election, Kristol and the Standard have ignored major developments in Spygate while shamefully working with Democratic operatives to smear lawmakers such as Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who are trying to get to the bottom of the scandal. Kristol has been in the forefront of keeping Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation working in perpetuity.

And the Standard has yet to report on Strzok getting fired. (Nor has Kristol tweeted about Strzok.)

Unfortunately, there are still some conservatives who trust Kristol and the Standard fairly to report on the Trump presidency and Republican Congress. It’s important that the public fully understands what role Kristol and his publication played—and continue to play—in fueling the biggest political corruption scandal in American history.

Kristol asks a lot of questions on Twitter. It’s time for him to answer some now.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo Credit: Ronen Tivony/NurPhoto via Getty Images

About the Author: Julie Kelly

Julie Kelly is a senior contributor to American Greatness.

Rubio Goes Nationalist

‘You’re on your own,’   

By JAY NORDLINGER

A metastasizing smear and the ongoing struggle over conservatism.

 In the past several days, I have noted three things in the media that bear on the struggle over conservatism. Well, maybe more than three, but I would like to comment on three. This will not be a very fun Impromptus, maybe — but, on the plus side, it’ll be brief.

Here I go.

• The Weekly Standard has published a very interesting article by John McCormack. It’s called “Rubio Goes Nationalist: Meet the new Marco.” One line in particular grabbed me by the throat.

It comes from Rubio himself, who denounced — get ready — “the radical you’re-on-your-own individualism promoted by our government and by our society in the last 30 years.”

Um . . . has our government, and our society, promoted such an individualism over the last 30 years? Not the government or society I have watched.

But it was the words “you’re on your own” that really grabbed me. That’s what Barack Obama used to say. When he was deriding, and caricaturing, conservative philosophy, he’d say, “You’re on your own!” That was what we conservatives were telling people, according to the Obama caricature.

I blasted him for this many times. And now to hear the same words out of the mouth of Marco Rubio? There could not be a clearer sign of the times.

Actually, Google tells me that Democrats have been using the “You’re on your own” slander for ages (and I have been blasting them for those ages). In 2007, Senator Hillary Clinton did it to President George W. Bush. What he was calling an “ownership society,” she said, was really an “on-your-own society.” (I blasted her here.)

I never heard a better answer to “You’re on your own” than one given by W. himself, after he left office. This was in 2013, when he was inaugurating his presidential center in Dallas. All the living ex-presidents were there, and their wives (so this included Mrs. Clinton). President and Michelle Obama were there too.

And in front of one and all, Bush said, “Independence from the state does not mean isolation from each other. A free society thrives when neighbors help neighbors, and the strong protect the weak, and public policies promote private compassion.”

David Cameron, too, gave a good answer. This was in a speech delivered in 2014: “I care deeply about those who struggle to get by — but I believe the best thing to do is help them stand on their own two feet. And no, that’s not saying, ‘You’re on your own,’ but, ‘We are on your side, helping you be all you can.’ And I believe in something for something; not something for nothing.”

Back to Senator Rubio (of whom I’ve long been a fan, which is why he ticks me off — most politicians, I’m indifferent to): When he embraced the “You’re on your own” smear, he was celebrating civil society, or, as he put it, “community.” I find the whole passage bizarre. You can read it in this speech, delivered earlier this summer.

In the past, conservatives emphasized limited government, civil society, and personal responsibility. We were not for dog-eat-dog individualism; we were not Social Darwinists (many conservatives weren’t Darwinists of any kind, and still aren’t!); we wanted solutions for people, whether those solutions were governmental or not.

When I was in college, some kids chanted, “Reagan, Bush, you can’t hide, we charge you with gen-o-cide!” What did they mean? They meant that the Reagan administration was trying to slow the rate of increase of social spending. They were not trying to decrease social spending — that was a pipe dream. They were trying to slow the rate of increase. And, for that: “gen-o-cide.”

Currently, there is a critique of the Right that goes something like this:

For years, conservatives had a message for the down and out in inner cities: Quit blaming others for your problems. Take responsibility for your lives. Drop the mantras of “systemic racism” and “the legacy of slavery.” Reject the victim mentality. Turn down your music, hitch up your pants, lay off drugs, stop having babies out of wedlock, get a job.

The critique continues,

And now? The Right talks differently, when it comes to the down and out — the down and out in places other than inner cities. They do a lot of scapegoating: of foreigners, immigrants, banks — the whole populist arsenal.

If this critique stings, it may be because there is truth in it. I think of Donald Trump’s closing ad in the 2016 campaign, his “final argument.” See it here. It is complete with pictures of George Soros, Janet Yellen, and Lloyd Blankfein.

In 2000, another candidate, another Republican nominee, spoke of “compassionate conservatism.” That was George W. Bush. And a lot of conservatives, including me, didn’t like it very much. (I thought it might be useful for rhetorical purposes.) Phil Gramm memorably said, “Freedom iscompassionate.”

Other conservatives were more heated than that. They denounced “compassionate conservatism” as a mollycoddling false conservatism, accepting of big government.

Today, many of those same people denounce pre-Trump conservatives as heartless — as “globalist” “elites” who say to ordinary people the equivalent of “Let them eat cake”: “You’re on your own.” The mind reels.

The pre-Trump conservative should defend his beliefs from defamation, whether it comes from Left or Right.

• In Ohio, the 12th Congressional District has just had a special election. And Robert Costa, an ace political reporter of the Washington Post (formerly an ace political reporter of National Review), tweeted the following:

“The moment that sticks out for me in this Ohio race: Ohio state Sen. Troy Balderson, a low-key state lawmaker, somewhat awkwardly adopting Trump’s style at Sat.’s rally. Glancing down at his notes, he took shots at ‘Dishonest Danny’ as Trump looked on.”

Name-calling has apparently become a Republican trait — a sine qua non. The Trump style has trickled down to the Republican party and the conservative movement at large. This is something hard to measure in the usual balls-and-strikes approach to Trump.

According to polls, a startling percentage of Republicans have a favorable view of Putin; and a startling percentage wish Trump had the authority to shut down media outlets he dislikes. How do you measure that in balls and strikes?

Back to this name-calling business — the style of brats and bullies in the schoolyard. I think of WFB, William F. Buckley Jr., who once presided over the conservative movement. He had notably good manners. He thought they were part of civilization, and thus of conservatism. When he lapsed from them — which was rare — he regretted it keenly. (I wrote about this not long ago, here.)

Whenever I write about manners — and the Trump persona — I hear from people who say, “Well, your well-mannered Romney is a loser, and you are a loser, and loser loser loser!” I’m not sure that the Trump style will win in the long run.

Or that it is good for the soul. Or that it is conservative. Or right.

• Some of my fellow conservatives knock what they call “zombie Reaganism.” What they are saying, I think, is that policies of the Reagan era don’t fit every time and place. Which is naturally true.

I have written on this subject over the years. I think, in particular, of an interview I did with Michael Gove, the British politician and writer, in 2014. I brought up “Reagan nostalgia,” and its cousin, “Thatcher nostalgia.” Gove was interesting on this question, as on all others.

Yet this notion of “zombie-ism.” Well . . . I think of free enterprise. Free trade. An opposition to dictatorship. Support of democracy and human rights. Alliances, such as NATO. American leadership in the world. An appreciation of immigration. A scorn for “crony capitalism.” An honest patriotism. Decency in office. E pluribus unum. And much more.

If this makes us old Reaganites zombies, fine: Paint a Z on my chest. And I’d rather be a zombie Reaganite than a zombie a-lot-of-other-things that are floating around, and, indeed, reigning.

Well, I promised you a short Impromptus — full of vegetables (lima beans?) — and you got it. See you next time!

SOROS, KELLOGG, FORD GAVE MILLIONS TO ANTI-TRUMP RESISTANCE GROUP

SOROS, KELLOGG, FORD FOUNDATIONS GAVE MILLIONS TO ANTI-TRUMP RESISTANCE GROUP

10:14 AM 10/04/2017

Peter Hasson | Reporter

Major left-wing foundations have given millions of dollars to a leading anti-Trump “resistance” group, a new report reveals.

The W.K. Kellogg Foundation, The Ford Foundation and the Open Society Foundation have channeled millions of dollars to the Center for Community Change, according to 2015 tax documents obtained by The Washington Free Beacon.

The documents provide a rare glimpse into the relationship between big progressive donors and the left-wing activists who have mobilized against President Trump and other Republican lawmakers. As a 501(c)3 organization, the center isn’t required to publicly disclose the source and nature of its donations.

Center for Community Change — 2015 Donors by Joe Schoffstall on Scribd

Farewell to the ‘Conservative Movement’

Farewell to the ‘Conservative Movement’

By Michael Walsh| August 10th, 2018

The #NeverTrumpumpkins define themselves by their visceral distaste for the president. He offends their fastidious sensibilities, outrages them with his unfiltered Twitter musings, and violates their sense of propriety with his secular hedonism and sheer joy in his own vulgarity. That he’s also delivering the most conservative administration in history is, to them, beside the point—because Trump neither represents nor embodies “movement” conservatism. And therein, for them, lies the problem.

Movements are, almost by definition, attractive to the young and the emotionally immature. Followers love to follow; even more, they love to memorize catechisms and rote talking points, which they parrot on the air and in column inches, as if by simply asserting their “principles” they are proving them as well.

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads

Eventually, though, both content and context are lost and only the talking points remain. The argument from authority becomes as circular and self-referential as any obscure religious contretemps, and of interest only to the anointed. Which is why they fall upon each other with the glee of zealots who have been given orders to purge the heretics by any means necessary.

I have coined a portmanteau term for this state of affairs: “preenciples.” You know what they are: smaller government, less regulation, free trade, federalism, etc. It’s a creed, constantly professed, acolytes of (fill in the blank: Mises, Hayek, Strauss, Buckley) reassuring each other that by consulting the sacred texts they will always have the correct views on the issues, and thus ensure their place among the elect.

Political creeds, however, are generally the provinces of the Left, which believes in history’s “arc” and “iron laws”—“scientific” dialectical materialism, socialism, communism, and the rest of the intellectual charlatanism (including psychiatry and sociology) that has followed in the wake of Rousseau, Marx, Lenin, and Mao. “Little Red Books” and Five-Year Plans are the staples of this form of political worship.

I’ve addressed the programmatic Left in my two most recent books, The Devil’s Pleasure Palace—a study of the eternal battle between good and evil, centered on the moral nihilism of the Frankfurt School of 20th-century Communist philosophers—and The Fiery Angel, a series of interlocking essays regarding some of the touchstones of Western art and culture, from the Greeks through the 20th century, and how they provide the antidote to the spiritual poison injected into Western veins by the Frankfurters and their fellow travelers in academe and now journalism.

Now, does everything from the Oresteia to Wagner’s Ring cycle form a coherent, intellectually and emotionally consistent “conservative” program, by which we can live our lives? Clearly not.  The great works of art are and must always be non-didactic. Politicized art is worthless; but art that has political resonance generally stands the test of time.

ADVERTISING

To my ears, then, the constant harping in some quarters on “movement” conservatism is reminiscent of everything I’ve ever heard from the Left, or experienced in East Germany and the old Soviet Union. I’m not suggesting that “true” conservatism involves replacing one (transient) set of “preenciples” with another one, albeit far older. Rather, my argument is that conservatism isn’t a movement at all. Nor should it be. Rather, it’s a simple acknowledgement of timeless verities and a willingness to defend them against malevolent faddishness masquerading as “progress,” whose object is the destruction of our culture and its replacement with… well, nothing.

In short, it’s a recognition of great cultural peril, and the willingness to do something about it.

Think of the struggle between Right and Left in military terms. We are the defenders of the citadels of Western culture, which are our hard-won patrimony. Leftists are the attackers, always seeking to undermine, to sap, to breach, to assault; for them, as for Hillary Clinton in her Wellesley senior thesis, “there is only the fight.” They stay awake nights trying to figure out new ways to bring the walls down; as I like to say, they never stop, they never sleep, they never quit.

But attackers have a problem: they generally need three times the manpower of the defenders in order to win. A well-defended, confident citadel, with plenty of provisions, doughty defenders, and at least one supply line, can hold out forever. Constantinople eventually fell to the Muslims after 700 years of battering, and then only because the Western Roman Empire had collapsed a thousand years prior, and Byzantium’s relationship with the emerging nation-states of Europe was often fraught; the Crusaders, after all, sacked the city even before the Turks did.

On the other hand, in 1565, the 6,000 or so Knights Hospitallers and other fighters on the island of Malta held out against Turkish force numbering nearly 40,000. And, of course, in World War II both Leningrad and Stalingrad repelled the might of the Wehrmacht after prolonged and deadly sieges.

The “conservative” advantage, then, lies not in a set of policy prescriptions but in its bedrock beliefs, which center on the necessity of preserving, protecting, and defending the Western civilization that eventually codified those principles in the U.S. Constitution, and which itself is now under attack. By articulating a set of policy principles, “movement” conservatism puts those principles on the negotiating table, and over the course of the past 75 years or so, has gradually bargained them away for a mess of pottage.

Real conservatism, however, conserves. It understands what’s a stake, whom to fight, and how to win; after all, it has more than 3,000 years of experience, much of which was recorded and remains accessible today. The Left tries to combat this disadvantage (via its control of the educational system) by delegitimizing and eradicating the past. By cutting us off from our cultural wellsprings, they hope to disarm and demoralize us. Don’t let them.

For in the end, the only truly “conservative” principle is to conserve. It may not be pretty, it may not be couth, but it’s all that really matters. We win, they lose, as a great man once said.

Photo Credit: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

REQUIRED READING: Thomas Sowell’s ‘Discrimination and Disparities’ Is The Book About Racism That America Needs. “Sowell’s calm and calculated look at racial disparity in America is a stunning work of brevity and reason.” Sowell certainly does not suggest that discrimination doesn’t exist, but he does break it down into two essential categories. The first is discrimination that is based on evidence and can be positive, such as “a person of discriminating taste.” The second is discrimination based on animosity towards a group. Importantly, Sowell divides the first form into two groups. The first takes no notice of race; the second takes race into account, but only based on accurate information. Sowell is essentially rejecting the progressive premise that there is no difference between racism based in hatred and racism based in accepting racist systems and disparate outcomes. As it turns out, attempts to address evidence-based discrimination that seek to eliminate the discrimination itself can have bad outcomes, especially for those who are members of groups with more negative outcomes. One example of this he gives is that progressives widely see criminal background checks for employment as racist. But in reality, employers that use background checks employ black workers at a higher rate. This is because without the checks blacks with clean records suffer from the fact that they belong to a group with a higher crime rate. Ideally, one could argue that employers shouldn’t take group tendencies into account, but until that happens, background checks are a solution that actually works. Yes, but that doesn’t keep Democrat voter groups riled up. Anyway — Sowell’s latest has gone to the top of my reading list. 93 Posted at 7:31 am by Stephen Green H

REQUIRED READING:

Thomas Sowell’s ‘Discrimination and Disparities’ Is The Book About Racism That America Needs.

 “Sowell’s calm and calculated look at racial disparity in America is a stunning work of brevity and reason.”

Sowell certainly does not suggest that discrimination doesn’t exist, but he does break it down into two essential categories. The first is discrimination that is based on evidence and can be positive, such as “a person of discriminating taste.” The second is discrimination based on animosity towards a group. Importantly, Sowell divides the first form into two groups. The first takes no notice of race; the second takes race into account, but only based on accurate information.
Sowell is essentially rejecting the progressive premise that there is no difference between racism based in hatred and racism based in accepting racist systems and disparate outcomes. As it turns out, attempts to address evidence-based discrimination that seek to eliminate the discrimination itself can have bad outcomes, especially for those who are members of groups with more negative outcomes.
One example of this he gives is that progressives widely see criminal background checks for employment as racist. But in reality, employers that use background checks employ black workers at a higher rate. This is because without the checks blacks with clean records suffer from the fact that they belong to a group with a higher crime rate. Ideally, one could argue that employers shouldn’t take group tendencies into account, but until that happens, background checks are a solution that actually works.

Yes, but that doesn’t keep Democrat voter groups riled up.
Anyway — Sowell’s latest has gone to the top of my reading list.

93Posted at 7:31 am by Stephen Green   

H

Jared Kushner helps Trump pave rare bipartisan path to big win.

KUSHNER’S TRACK RECORD HAS BEEN PRETTY GOOD:

Jared Kushner helps Trump pave rare bipartisan path to big win.

Thursday’s roundtable at President Trump’s summer White House in New Jersey to address prison and sentencing reform with governor’s is the latest bid by top aide Jared Kushner to give his father-in-law a rare bipartisan victory on a once controversial issue.

In getting Trump to carve out part of his working vacation at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., Kushner and other officials are hoping to demonstrate how important the issues are to the president as he works to get a Senate vote in the next month.
Trump’s meeting this afternoon with governors, state attorneys general, and top aides is the latest in which he will endorse prison reform and he is also expected to open the door to sentencing reform, a sign to key senators that he is ready for a deal. . . .

Not only has former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist joined in, but so have liberals like former Obama aide Van Jones and influential social media figures like Kim Kardashian have backed the president.

With Kushner’s urging, others involved include Koch Industries, former Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint and Right On Crime’s Craig DeRoche.

“It’s important the president is open to limited sentencing reform being added to the prison reform legislation being considered in the Senate,” said Gingrich. “The guilty must be held to account, and it is our responsibility to ensure the punishment fits the crime. Certain sentencing statutes have not performed as intended, have led to unjust consequences, and should be eliminated. Adding such provisions to the First Step Act is just common sense,” he added.
Kushner has also brought in prominent religious figures and pastors and he NAACP.

“Jared has the ability to go into ‘no-go’ zones for Republicans,” said an ally, noting that the Trump family member doesn’t stick to any partisan angle when he is trying to nail down a victory for the White House.

I had some related thoughts here.

81Posted at 8:30 am by Glenn Reynolds   

C