The Only Thing Trump Has Never Denied Is That He Has A Mushroom Dick

Trump would rather people see him as a tax cheat than as a loser. He's both, of course. If you think his base of drooling morons and racists cares, you haven't been paying any attention at all. They don't. He's their hero. When he said he could shoot someone in the face on 5th Avenue and not lose a supporter, he was 100% correct. But the NY Times isn't publishing for the drooling morons and racists who back Trump, are they? The 5 biggest takeaways from the investigation into his 1985-1994 taxes:

• Trump was deep in the red even as he peddled deal-making advice

Trump: The Art of the Deal came out in 1987. It became a best seller-- and a powerful vehicle for the self-spun myth of the self-made billionaire that would ultimately help propel him to the presidency.

Mr. Trump has long attributed his first run of business reversals and bankruptcies to the recession that hit three years later, in 1990. But the new tax information reveals that he was already in deep financial distress when his master-of-the-universe memoir hit the shelves.

For Mr. Trump, the 1980s were a frenzy of acquisition and construction, buoyed by hundreds of millions of dollars of borrowed money. In 1985, for the first time, Forbes’s “rich list” included Mr. Trump individually, independent of his father. But his estimated net worth according to the magazine, $600 million, included the real estate empire Fred Trump still owned.

With Mr. Trump’s vast debt and other expenses on his properties-- among them Trump Tower and the Grand Hyatt hotel in Manhattan, and two Atlantic City casinos-- his fortunes were already on the way down. In 1985, his core businesses reported a loss of $46.1 million; they also carried over a $5.6 million loss for earlier years.

Because those businesses were generally created as partnerships, they did not pay federal income taxes themselves. Instead, their gains, and their losses, flowed onto Mr. Trump’s ledger. To put his results in perspective, The Times compared them with detailed information that the I.R.S. compiles on an annual one-third sampling of high earners. Most of them appeared, like Mr. Trump, to be businessmen who received what is known as pass-through income.

For 1985, the I.R.S. information indicates this: Only three individual taxpayers in the sampling reported bigger losses than Mr. Trump.

• In multiple years, he appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual taxpayer

The tax results for the years that followed trace an arc of continued empire building-- and gathering loss.

He bought the Eastern Airlines shuttle for $365 million; it never made a profit, and he spent more than $7 million a month to keep it flying. His new Trump Taj Mahal Hotel and Casino, opened in 1990 with more than $800 million in debt, sucked revenue from his other casinos, pulling them along into the red.

And so, year after year, Mr. Trump appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual taxpayer, according to the I.R.S. information on high earners-- a publicly available database with taxpayers’ identifying details removed. Indeed, in 1990 and 1991, his core businesses lost more than $250 million each year-- more than double those of the nearest taxpayers in the sampling for those years.

The tax code allows owners of commercial property to write down the cost of their buildings-- a valuable tax shelter known as depreciation. In The Art of the Deal, Mr. Trump cited one of his Atlantic City casinos to show how it works. Built for $400 million and depreciated at a rate of 4 percent a year, he said, it could allow him to shelter $16 million in taxable income annually. But Mr. Trump’s example, meant to demonstrate the magic of depreciation, shows something else: Depreciation alone cannot account for the hundreds of millions of dollars in losses he declared on his taxes.

• He paid no federal income taxes for eight of the 10 years

Business owners like Mr. Trump may also use their losses to avoid paying taxes on future income. Over the years, those losses rolled into a $915.7 million free pass, known as a net operating loss, that appeared on his 1995 tax returns, pages of which were mailed anonymously to The Times during the 2016 campaign.

The new tax information shows how Mr. Trump’s net operating losses snowballed, reaching $418 million in 1991. That was fully 1 percent of all the losses that the I.R.S. reported had been declared by individual taxpayers that year.

And the red ink continued to accumulate apace. In all, Mr. Trump lost so much money that he was able to avoid paying any federal income taxes for eight of the 10 years.

• He made millions posing as a corporate raider-- until investors realized he never followed through

For a time, Mr. Trump was able to stave off his coming collapse with the help of a new public role: He traded on his business-titan brand to present himself as a corporate raider. He would acquire shares in a company with borrowed money, suggest publicly that he was contemplating a takeover, then quietly sell on the resulting bump in the stock price. An occasional quote from a high-profile associate helped burnish the myth.

“He has an appetite like a Rocky Mountain vulture,” his stockbroker, Alan C. Greenberg, told the Wall Street Journal in 1987. “He’d like to own the world.”

From 1986 through 1989, Mr. Trump declared $67.3 million in gains from stocks and other assets bought and sold within a year.

But ultimately, the figures show, he lost most, if not all, of those gains after investors stopped taking his takeover talk seriously.

• His interest income spiked in 1989 at $52.9 million, but the source is a mystery

Amid the hundreds of figures on 10 years of tax transcripts, one number is particularly striking: $52.9 million in interest income that Mr. Trump reported in 1989.

In the three previous years, Mr. Trump had reported $460,566, then $5.5 million, then $11.8 million in interest.

The source of that outlier $52.9 million is something of a mystery.

Taxpayers can receive interest income from a variety of sources, including bonds, bank accounts and mortgages. Hard data on the workings of Mr. Trump’s businesses is hard to come by. But public findings from New Jersey casino regulators show no evidence that he owned anything capable of generating that much interest. Nor is there any such evidence in a 1990 report on his financial condition, prepared by accountants he hired at his bankers’ request.

Mr. Trump’s interest income fell almost as quickly as it rose. By 1992, he was reporting only $3.6 million.

As Chris Cillizza noted for CNN yesterday, it's an emperor has no clothes moment for Señor Trumpanzee. The pig's "entire persona is built on a singular idea: He's the brash, break-all-the-rules billionaire. Like him or hate him, you can't help but admire his massive wealth and the smarts that allowed him to accrue it." What a laugh! And Cillizza points to the Times/ report to prove it: "The numbers show that in 1985, Mr. Trump reported losses of $46.1 million from his core businesses-- largely casinos, hotels and retail space in apartment buildings. They continued to lose money every year, totaling $1.17 billion in losses for the decade. In fact, year after year, Mr. Trump appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer, The Times found when it compared his results with detailed information the I.R.S. compiles on an annual sampling of high-income earners. His core business losses in 1990 and 1991-- more than $250 million each year-- were more than double those of the nearest taxpayers in the I.R.S. information for those years."

More than $1 billion in losses in a single decade!

More than double the losses of the nearest other taxpayer in 1990 and 1991!

The single biggest loser (of money) of all American taxpayers in the period 1985-1994!

What the Times story does is something simple but profound: It punctures the balloon-- puffed up by years of Trumpian marketing and salesmanship-- that the President of the United States was some sort of business genius. In fact, Trump was one of-- if not the-- biggest failures (in terms of money making and losing) in the country during a decade-long stretch. His ability to maintain his wealth and, eventually, to grow it was born of taking advantage of a system of tax laws and loopholes friendly to big business.

...Trump explicitly ran for president on the idea that his business acumen gave him a unique-- and more valuable-- perspective on how to run the country than anyone else who had ever held the office (and certainly the other Republicans and Democrats running for the White House in 2016.)

...The logic is simple: I am rich. I made all of this money for myself over all these years but now I want to make the country-- and you, individual voter!-- rich too. Trump was pitching a secularized version of the Joel Osteen aspirational gospel; I can teach you to think and act like me, and, in so doing, you can be just like me!

A huge part of Trump's appeal was encased in the idea that he was the American dream: A super-wealthy guy with a beautiful wife, lots of homes and his own plane with his name on the side. His years as a reality TV star served to codify that idea in peoples' minds; Trump was always getting off a helicopter or riding in a limousine-- in the middle of some major deal that would make him millions.

Thanks to the New York Times, we know now all of that was pure American myth-making. Trump wasn't-- as he tried to portray himself-- a self-made man at all.

His wealth was hugely derived from his father. (Trump famously/infamously said his father, Fred, gave him only a "small" $1 million loan as he began his career as a real estate developer.) And now we know that during a critical period of his business life, Trump was losing more than $1 billion in a 10-year span-- a total that made him one of the single largest losers of money in America at the time.

Put plainly: The story that Donald Trump has been telling himself and the American public for much of his life-- and especially since becoming a presidential candidate in 2015-- isn't true. And it's more than an exaggeration. It's the opposite of what happened. Trump was gifted huge amounts of money by his father. He lost it at eye-popping rates.

Will any of this matter to Trump's supporters or, more broadly, to the 2020 electorate? Probably not. Minds have been made up-- on both sides-- about Trump for a very long time. Facts and reality don't seem to puncture those opinions about the President.

But whether voters vote on this issue next November is, really, beside the point. And the point is this: Donald Trump is not the person he sold himself to be to the American public in 2016. Period.

Tuesday I took an odd call-- and stayed on the phone for two hours with someone I didn't know. He recently wrote the autobiography of another brash New Yorker who happens to be a Trump doppelgänger. Writing the book-- he wrote every single word, just the way Tony Schwartz wrote every single word of The Art of the Deal-- he came to loathe the monster he was helping to mythologize, just as Schwartz had. He told me there wasn't a single word of truth in the book, that it was just one self-serving lie after the other. He described his subject to me as the very definition of a malignant narcissistic sociopath, which is also the way mental health experts describe Trumpanzee.

Malignant narcissism is "a psychological syndrome comprising an extreme mix of narcissism, antisocial behavior, aggression, and sadism. Grandiose, and always ready to raise hostility levels, the malignant narcissist undermines families and organizations in which they are involved, and dehumanizes the people with whom they associate." Sound like anyone you know?

By understanding the characteristics of a high functioning sociopath, you can see how this individual may be manipulating and exploiting you. They are usually very charming and clever and, at first, their actions may seem genuine. Over time, their lies, deceptions, and lack of empathy are exposed to reveal their sociopathic nature. These characteristics traits include:

• High IQ: High functioning sociopaths often have a higher IQ than other sociopaths or people without personality disorders. This helps them plan, manipulate, and exploit others.
• Lack of empathy: Difficulty in empathizing with others or understanding the emotional consequences of their actions.
• Narcissism: They often have strong self-love and grandiose self-image. This occurs because of low esteem and delusional beliefs.
• Charming: Although most sociopaths lack empathy, they are capable of mimicking and manipulating emotions to appear charming and normal.
• Secretive: A sociopath doesn't feel the need to share intimate details with others unless it is to manipulate.
• Sexually deviant: Since they lack guilt, remorse, and emotional attachments, sociopaths tend to have affairs and engage in the questionable sexual activity.
• Sensitive to criticism: Despite their lack of empathy, sociopaths desire the approval of others. They feel entitled to admiration and are quick to anger when criticized.
• Impulsive behavior: Sociopaths often live in the moment and will do what they feel is needed to reach their immediate goals.
• Compulsive lying: Disregarding the truth to make themselves look better or get what they want.
• Needing constant stimulation: Sociopaths often get bored easily and need to be actively engaged.
• Addictive Behavior: Their compulsive mindset may result in addiction to drugs, alcohol, sex, gambling, or other addictive behaviors.
• Criminal Behavior: Criminal activity associated with sociopaths could include theft, assault, or destruction of property.

Time for a new president? I have a good idea on that... if you're so disposed.

Or do you want 4 more years? If you want for more years of Trump, just help make Status Quo Joe the Democratic nominee. He's exactly what voters don't want. This morning an old friend wrote me a long letter about Biden. She thinks he would be a much worse disaster for Democrats than Hillary was. "As bad as we think Hillary was, Biden would be a MUCH MUCH WORSE candidate than she was. She is gigantically smarter than him, for one, and she would have been much better than him policy wise in several areas-- women’s health issues for sure and racial and social issues, and maybe even protecting the environment. I don’t think she would have compromised about Social Security and Medicare whereas Biden would in a heartbeat (and has historically). She would have been much stronger about health care coverage, too, although perhaps not behind medicare for all-- after all she did try in the 1990’s-- but Biden would be totally awful. Oh, and I have said-- I heard him speak-- she is eloquent and he is a bumbling jerk. He is a lousy speaker and Trump will bully him and make him look stupid quickly and easily, whereas Hillary stood up to Trump and did well in the debates. Biden would fare very poorly-- he is not swift on his feet. As you said, he is not smart by a long shot, he is an idiot."

Good. The second part of her letter is disturbing though, for several reasons: "My friend’s husband, a progressive with whom I talk politics occasionally," she wrote "is now behind Biden all the way. When I entered their house recently he yelled, "This is Biden country." I offered to send him stuff about Biden but he was not interested and said he wouldn’t read it. I am very disappointed in him and have revised my opinion of him-- he is an idiot. Literally and clearly, he is not a smart guy. He keeps up with politics but still, he is not bright. I think he is a rigid thinker and he is feeling relief that he can get behind someone he thinks could beat Trump-- totally wrong, of course. Biden would lose to Trump, unquestionably. His horrible history and poor speaking ability would and should ruin him as a candidate."

Both Biden and Bernie are very much today like they were in the 1970s. Biden is grudgingly apologizing for everything he ever did. Bernie embraces his earliest policies.

Petty Narcissistic Sociopath

The world is so black and white for narcissistic sociopaths, especially the malignant kinds... like you-know-who. There's Trump and then there's the rest of the world... and what those in the rest of the world can do for him (or to him). He call to consolidate members of his party who lost their seats Tuesday or to ask how their families are bucking up. He'd didn't send them a message through an intermediary that he would keep an eye out for a job for them.

Instead-- and totally in line with his character and moral fiber-- he razed them and wished them the worst. NCB News reported yesterday that at a White House news conference he said of one member whose race is still too close to call that "Mia Love gave me no love, but then she lost. Too bad."

He was sure to single her out because she's both black and a woman-- two cohorts among his subjects who he has particular animus towards-- but he didn't stop with poor Rep. Love, who's vote he may need in the lame duck session or... if she winds up winning after all.

He listed several other GOP lawmakers he said had rejected his "embrace" before falling to Democratic opponents: Reps. Carlos Curbelo in Florida; Mike Coffman in Colorado; Peter Roskam in Illinois; and Barbara Comstock in Virginia, among them... Retiring Rep. Ryan Costello (R-PA) fired back at Trump on behalf of his colleagues:

The main lesson he learned from the midterms, he said, was "I think people like me."

Though Republicans lost control of the House Tuesday night, Trump portrayed the midterms as a "tremendous" success because the GOP picked up several Senate seats-- against the headwinds of historical precedent.

He said Republicans in the House "dramatically over-performed" expectations. And he even framed the loss of the chamber as a victory for him.

"If we had the majority and we had one or two or three votes to play with we would have been at a standstill," he said. With Democrats in charge, he said, "we can do a tremendous amount of legislation."

But he also warned that if Democrats try to investigate him, Senate Republicans will do the same to them, producing a stalemate. And he said that he would not work with them on policy if they investigate his administration.

"If they do that then all it is is just a war-like posture," he said.

Verizon Throttled Firefighters' Data As Mendocino Wildfire Burned

Thomas Middleditch, actor and star of the hit series Silicon Valley, taking "sellout money" (his phrase) and shilling for Verizon, the company most strongly associated with killing net neutrality

by Gaius Publius

There's no way to sugarcoat this. As one commenter noted, this is "pure evil."

It looks like Verizon, already the greedy face of the death of net neutrality, throttled the data speed of California fire-fighting equipment during a 300-arce wildfire in an attempt to force them to upgrade to a more expensive data plan.

During a 300-acre wildfire.

Sounds like blackmail for money to me, with lives and homes held hostage. ArsTechnica tells the story. Since their focus in on the net neutrality angle, I'll present what they present in a little different order (emphasis mine throughout).

Start here:

"County Fire has experienced throttling by its ISP, Verizon," Santa Clara County Fire Chief Anthony Bowden wrote in a declaration. "This throttling has had a significant impact on our ability to provide emergency services. Verizon imposed these limitations despite being informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire's ability to provide crisis-response and essential emergency services."

[...]

"In the midst of our response to the Mendocino Complex Fire, County Fire discovered the data connection for OES 5262 [the county's command-and-control vehicle for in-the-field firefighting] was being throttled by Verizon, and data rates had been reduced to 1/200, or less, than the previous speeds," Bowden wrote. "These reduced speeds severely interfered with the OES 5262's ability to function effectively. My Information Technology staff communicated directly with Verizon via email about the throttling, requesting it be immediately lifted for public safety purposes."

Verizon did not immediately restore full speeds to the device, however.

"Verizon representatives confirmed the throttling, but rather than restoring us to an essential data transfer speed, they indicated that County Fire would have to switch to a new data plan at more than twice the cost, and they would only remove throttling after we contacted the Department that handles billing and switched to the new data plan," Bowden wrote.

All "in the midst of our response to the Mendocino Complex Fire."

This is not the first time Verizon has done this to the Santa Clara County Fire department, and the department anticipates it won't be the last:

Verizon throttling also affected the department in a response to previous fires in December and June, emails show.

Bowden argued that Verizon is likely to keep taking advantage of emergencies in order to push public safety agencies onto more expensive plans.

"In light of our experience, County Fire believes it is likely that Verizon will continue to use the exigent nature of public safety emergencies and catastrophic events to coerce public agencies into higher-cost plans, ultimately paying significantly more for mission-critical service—even if that means risking harm to public safety during negotiations," Bowden wrote.

In other words, this is part of the plan — disaster capitalism, county by county.

Psychopathic Corporate Capitalism

It's difficult to use a word like "psychopathic" to describe this behavior and still be taken seriously, but it's hard not to use it too. Among the characteristics of psychopathic behavior are these: "antisocial violence, a selfish world view that precludes the welfare of others, a lack of remorse or guilt, and blame externalization."

Verizon's "antisocial violence" is clear, as is their world view, which "precludes the welfare of others." As for "blame externalization," this was their initial response:

Verizon also noted that the fire department purchased a data service plan that is slowed down after a data usage threshold is reached. But Verizon said it "made a mistake" in communicating with the department about the terms of the plan.

"We made a mistake in how we communicated with our customer about the terms of its plan," Verizon said. "Like all customers, fire departments choose service plans that are best for them. This customer purchased a government contract plan for a high-speed wireless data allotment at a set monthly cost. Under this plan, users get an unlimited amount of data but speeds are reduced when they exceed their allotment until the next billing cycle."

In the meantime, here's what their serial "mistakes" make worse:

Ranch fire takes another 4,000 acres for new acreage total of 361,562 

The Mendocino Complex fires now are at 410,482 acres, having added about 4,000 acres to the total Tuesday night into Wednesday.

The newly burned acreage, part of the gargantuan Ranch fire, is an incremental increase to the combined totals of the Ranch and River fires. The two fires took off in late July and raced east into and across Lake County, threatening numerous towns and communities and burning at least 157 homes. One firefighter has been killed.

Cal Fire officials early Wednesday reported the added acreage came in the Ranch fire’s north and northeastern sections. Some of the growth came from backfiring operations by firefighters. More backfiring was slated for Wednesday if weather allowed.

Containment on the Ranch fire, which is at 361,562 acres, remained at 67 percent. Cal Fire officials still are looking at Sept. 1 for full containment.

By the way, human beings at Verizon did this; corporations are just buildings and paperwork. I don't think a legal construct, acting alone and in secret, pulled those switches and shut down their data feeds. Policy start with a person saying yes.

As I said, it's hard not to use "that word" for this behavior. Ask yourself how the law would react if a living person had acted in this way. Then ask what the newspapers would call him.

The Net Neutrality Angle

Now the net neutrality angle, which ArsTechnica featured up front in the story:

Bowden's declaration was submitted in an addendum to a brief filed by 22 state attorneys general, the District of Columbia, Santa Clara County, Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District, and the California Public Utilities Commission. The government agencies are seeking to overturn the recent repeal of net neutrality rules in a lawsuit they filed against the Federal Communications Commission in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Verizon did say something about whether the throttling had anything to do with net neutrality. They said it didn't:

Update: The Santa Clara fire department has responded to Verizon's claim that the throttling was just a customer service error and "has nothing to do with net neutrality." To the contrary, "Verizon's throttling has everything to do with net neutrality," a county official said.

The death of net neutrality — which Verizon and its former counsel (and now FCC chair) Ajit Pai want desperately to bring about — is all about money, very large piles of it. And while this (that word) industry successfully killed net neutrality at the federal level, the issue is very much alive in California:

California’s net neutrality bill is back and as tough as ever

California lawmakers will be moving forward with tough provisions in a legislative proposal that could turn into one of the most ambitious net neutrality laws in the country. [...]

“This will be the most comprehensive and the strongest net neutrality protection in the United States, where we are restoring what we lost when Donald Trump’s FCC obliterated net neutrality,” [state Sen. Scott] Wiener told reporters Thursday, referring to the Federal Communications Commission’s decision last year to repeal its national-level regulations for Internet service providers.

The California proposal goes further than the defunct federal rules. The revised bill will contain tougher language that not only bans Internet service providers from blocking and slowing websites, but, for example, it will also ban “abusive” forms of a practice known as zero-rating, the lawmakers said. Zero-rating occurs when an ISP exempts its own apps and services from customer data caps but counts other app usage against those monthly limits.

Which takes us back to Thomas Middleditch, the cool new Verizon spokesman. You probably love him if you like the cool series Silicon Valley. Verizon bought his services so his cool lovable persona would rub off on them, and he happily sold his services to them. 

Interestingly, Middleditch called their cash "sellout money" in this glowing interview with the New York Times:

Did you ever expect that playing [Richard on Silicon Valley] would also land you a Verizon endorsement deal?

Ten, 15 years ago, if you were on a successful TV show or in a movie, and you did a commercial, everyone would go, “Oh, his career’s over.” But now, it’s the opposite. Studios look at it and go, this major corporation put a ton of money behind this person — he must be marketable. You get your sellout money and a nod from studios.

I don't for a minute think his is behavior could be characterized by ... that word. He just sounds clueless. Dangerous, of course, given the rest of this story, but clueless in that Hollywood way.

Maybe someone should talk with him about his choices. Yes, the cash is good, but cash isn't everything — unless you're (that word) Verizon, who pays him to cover for their crimes. Which he does.

GP
 

Trump’s Mental Health-- What is Narcissistic Personality Disorder? What is a Sociopath?

-by Helen Klein

Much has been said about Trump’s mental health, particularly of late. Indeed, his continuation of astonishing tweets and comments gives cause for alarm. The bells are ringing loudly! Unlike some earlier assurances that were made, Trump has not become “more presidential” as this election season has unfolded. Frighteningly, he has become increasingly and astoundingly less so. Many, including those who know him well (or at least have spent time with him), are very worried and are saying that he is unfit for the Oval Office.

Some on both the right and left are now focusing on exposing Trump’s main shortcoming-- his mental instability. In Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens notes:

(Trump’s) problem isn’t a lack of normal propriety but the absence of basic human dignity. He is morally unfit for any office, high or low…As one wag on Twitter put it, the man always finds a new bottom. Conservative die-hards may try to hold fast to the excuse that Hillary Clinton was, is, and always will be “worse,” but the argument can’t be sustained indefinitely. Mrs. Clinton is not the apotheosis of evil. She may be a corner-cutter and a liar, and she’ll almost surely appoint liberals to the Supreme Court. But at least she’s not a sociopath.

Samantha Bee praised the Democratic convention on her show, Full Frontal: “All it took to get their shit together was the looming threat of Armageddon.”

In his speech at the Democratic convention, Michael Bloomberg called Trump a dangerous demagogue. “Truth be told, the richest thing about Donald Trump is his hypocrisy…Trump is a risky, reckless and radical choice and we can’t afford to make that choice… I’m a New Yorker and New Yorkers know a con when we see one…Let’s elect a sane, competent person…”

On ABC News, Senator Lindsey Graham said, “If you are going to be leader of the free world, you have to be able to accept criticism. Mr. Trump can’t.”

On the front page of today’s New York Times, Obama Says Trump Unfit to Serve as President.

In an extraordinary denunciation of Donald J. Trump’s temperament and competence, President Obama urged leaders of the Republican Party on Tuesday to withdraw their endorsements of Mr. Trump’s candidacy, flatly calling him “unfit to serve” as the nation’s 45th president.” Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian, called Mr. Obama’s comments “a highly unusual and almost unprecedented moment…It’s a reflection of just how radical and dangerous President Obama feels that Trump is.” Mr. Obama suggested that Mr. Trump wound not abide by “norms and rules and common sense.”

Before delving into the nitty gritty of psychopathology, it is illuminating and fascinating to read the recent article in the New Yorker about Tony Schwartz’s experiences with Trump. Schwartz was the ghostwriter of Trump’s breakthrough memoir, Art of the Deal. He spent a great deal of time with Trump and his insights are highly disturbing. Schwartz said that he should have titled the book The Sociopath. These are some excerpts:

The Art of the Deal made America see Trump as a charmer with an unfailing knack for business. Tony Schwartz helped create that myth-- and regrets it.

“I put lipstick on a pig,” he said. “I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is.” He went on, “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”

(As) Trump defied predictions by establishing himself as the front-runner for the Republican nomination, Schwartz’s desire to set the record straight grew…The prospect of Trump terrified him. It wasn’t because of Trump’s ideology-- Schwartz doubted that he had one. The problem was Trump’s personality, which he considered pathologically impulsive and self-centered.

After sitting for only a few minutes in his suit and tie, Trump became impatient and irritable. He looked fidgety, Schwartz recalls, “like a kindergartner who can’t sit still in a classroom.” Even when Schwartz pressed him, Trump seemed to remember almost nothing of his youth, and made it clear that he was bored…Week after week, the pattern repeated itself…Trump’s comments remained oddly truncated and superficial...it (was) impossible to keep him focused on any topic, other than his own self-aggrandizement, for more than a few minutes…

He regards Trump’s inability to concentrate as alarming in a Presidential candidate. “If he had to be briefed on a crisis in the Situation Room, it’s impossible to imagine him paying attention over a long period of time.”

…Schwartz believes that Trump’s short attention span has left him with “a stunning level of superficial knowledge and plain ignorance… I seriously doubt that Trump has ever read a book straight through in his adult life.”

(Schwartz) would propose eavesdropping on Trump’s life by following him around on the job…and by listening to his office phone calls. That way, extracting extended reflections from Trump would not be required… “He was playing people...” He would flatter, bully, and occasionally get mad, but always in a calculated way.

…Schwartz has heard some argue that there must be a more thoughtful and nuanced version of Donald Trump that he is keeping in reserve for after the campaign. There isn’t,” Schwartz insists. “There is no private Trump…” He kept a journal in which he expressed amazement at Trump’s personality, writing that Trump seemed driven entirely by a need for attention…”Lying is second nature to him…More than anyone else I have ever met, Trump has the ability to convince himself that whatever he is saying at any given moment is true, or sort of true, or at least ought to be true...He lied strategically. He had a complete lack of conscience about it”... “Truthful hyperbole” is a contradiction in terms. It’s a way of saying, “It’s a lie, but who cares?”

“Trump stands for many of the things I abhor: his willingness to run over people, the gaudy, tacky, gigantic obsessions, the absolute lack of interest in anything beyond power and money.”

“If Trump is elected President,“ he warned, “the millions of people who voted for him and believe that he represents their interests will learn what anyone who deals closely with him already knows-- that he couldn’t care less about them.”

ASSESSMENT OF TRUMP’S MENTAL HEALTH

With the assistance of a professional psychologist, Keith Olbermann took on an amateur’s analysis of Trump’s mental health. The above video for Vanity Fair, entitled, “Could Donald Trump Pass a Sanity Test?” is quite revealing and even amusing, if only this scenario were actually funny.

Olbermann utilized The Psychopathy Checklist, an assessment tool developed in the 1970’s by Canadian psychologist, Robert D. Hare. It is a 20-point inventory of perceived personality traits used to assess the presence of psychopathy. Each item is scored 0-2, with the highest possible total of 40. A score of 30 or above is considered indicative of pathology. For each item, Olbermann describes examples to justify his scoring. His assessment of Trump yields a score of 32. Yes, according to this scale, Trump reaches the heights of bona fide mental disturbance. Olbermann concludes, “Donald Trump could not pass a sanity test.”

Here are the items and scores:

1. Glibness/superficial charm 2
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth 2
3. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom 2
4. Pathological lying 2
5. Conning/manipulation 2
6. Lack or remorse or guilt 2
7. Shallow affect 2
8. Callous/lack of empathy 2
9. Parasitic lifestyle (taking credit from others) 2
10. Poor behavior controls 2
11. Promiscuous sexual behavior 2
12. Early behavior problems 2
13. Lack of realistic long term goals 1
14. Impulsivity 2
15. Irresponsibility 1
16. Failure to accept responsibility 2
17. Many short term marital relationships 0
18. Juvenile delinquency 2
19. Revocation of conditional release (from parole) 0
20. Criminal versatility* 0
*Olbermann notes that he was generous to Trump by taking the word “criminal” literally. The psychologist assisting him debated this and would have given Trump a 1 or 2 for this item.

The Real Deal

Now let’s take a look at the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-- Fifth Edition (DSM-5). This is the “bible” used by practicing psychiatrists and psychologists to diagnose individuals.

What is a personality disorder?

A personality disorder is an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in early adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress and impairment.

The personality disorders (twelve are listed) are grouped into three clusters… Moreover, individuals frequently present with co-occurring personality disorders from different clusters.

First, let’s take a look at Narcissistic Personality Disorder, since narcissism is a trait frequently mentioned in relation to Trump. Here is the description and diagnostic features.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and presented in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

• Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).
• Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
• Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).
• Requires excessive admiration.
• Has a sense of entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations).
• Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends).
• Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings or needs of others.
• Shows arrogant or haughty behaviors.

Impressions anyone? Slam dunk?

Another term that has been thrown about for Trump is sociopath. This term is not a diagnostic category per se in the DSM-V; however, the diagnostic category of Anti-Social Personality Disorder has also been referred to as sociopathy.

Anti-Social Personality Disorder:

The essential feature of Anti-Social Personality Disorder is a pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

• Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
• Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure. • Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.
• Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.
• Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.
• Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.
• Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated or stolen from another.

Deceit and manipulation are central features of anti-social personality disorder…The individual…must have a history of some symptoms of conduct disorder…The specific characteristics of conduct disorder fall into one of four categories: aggression to people and animals, destruction of property, deceitfulness or theft, or serious violation of rules.

Impressions anyone? Pretty good?

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder:

Another diagnostic category is also a possibility: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. While the implications of this disorder may not be as serious as the personality disorders, features would surely affect the functioning of a President. There are two aspects: Inattention and Hyperactivity-Impulsivity. The focus below is on Inattention, as this realm may be most relevant regarding Trump, especially in light of Tony Schwartz’s descriptions of him.

Inattention: Six (or more) of the following symptoms have persisted for at least 6 months to a degree that is inconsistent with developmental level and that negatively impacts directly on social and academic/occupational activities:

• Often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes…
• Often has difficulty sustaining attention to tasks…(e.g., has difficulty remaining focused during lectures, conversations or lengthy reading).
• Often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly (e.g., mind seems else where, even in the absence of obvious distraction).
• Often does not follow through on instructions…(starts tasks but quickly loses focus and is easily sidetracked).
• Often has difficulty organizing tasks or activities…
• Often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks that require sustained mental effort…
• Often loses things necessary for activities.
• Is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli…
• Is often forgetful in daily activities…

Impressions? A good bet?

In light of all of the above, there are very clearly extremely serious concerns about Trump’s psychological makeup for President. It is critical for all Americans to recognize his tremendous shortcomings and ensure that he does not get into office. The potential damage such an individual could do to the American people, our country and the world is monumental. No Armageddon, please!

A Nation of Sociopaths?

What would America see if it looked in a mirror? (source)

by Gaius Publius

While many of us have been enjoying the Trump Show, live on a news clip near you, a small stream of writers has considered what this all means — not only what it means for our electoral and political future, but what it means for us as a nation, that we're as captured as we are by the Donald Trump candidacy. Even his opponents are fascinated.

Is it the showmanship? The racism? The economic populism? All of that? Something else?

Or is it something in us — in many of us, at least — that draws so many like flies to his brand of honey?

What is the Trump phenomenon about, and who is it about?

I can't say I've decided on the answer, but I can say the following needs considering. After all, I'm the one who wrote that elections are a test of the electorate, not the candidates, or to put that more playfully, in an election you "vote for the public of your choice." Now Adele Stan, writing at The American Prospect, takes up the same question.

Stan starts by considering what Trump means for the near future, the electoral future:

A Nation of Sociopaths? What the Trump Phenomenon Says About America

To ask if the rogue Republican’s surge is good for Democrats is the wrong question.

The Republican Party has a Donald Trump problem—and that has some Democrats thanking Lady Luck for apparently blowing on their dice. The casino mogul, after all, has thrown the GOP into a disarray even greater than that wrought by the Koch brothers and the Tea Party, dashing the hopes of Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, to launch a nominee who could reach out to racial and ethnic minorities, or one who at least would not say terrible things about women.

With his continued antagonism of Spanish-speakers, his incendiary denouncement of the Black Lives Matter movement, and his base comments about actor Rosie O’Donnell and Fox News host Megyn Kelly, as Trump continues to surge in polls of Republican primary voters, he threatens to lay Priebus’s plans to waste.

This is no way to win a general election, the thinking goes. And so in some corners of Democratland, there is happy dancing in the streets.

Trump offers other benefits, as well, to liberals and progressives in the form of the monkey wrench he could throw into the works of Charles and David Koch, who have been positioning their organizational network as the party within the party, replete with resources for candidates who would run on their platform of smashing unions and coddling private capital.

I too find this aspect fascinating, especially the way the (apparently) pro–"Tax the Rich" Trump is threatening the Kochs' hostile takeover of the Republican Party, which was, until recently, almost a done deal. Stan looks at other Trump-centered considerations, such as, "Beyond the question, though, of whether Trump is good for Democrats lies the question of whether his candidacy is good for America."

All good and important thoughts. But then she pivots to the key question — Is the Trump phenomenon a statement about Trump or about us? And if the latter, what is that statement?

What is wrong with America that this racist, misogynist, money-cheating clown should be the frontrunner for the presidential nomination of one of its two major parties? ...

Donald Trump is a rich man despite having driven several businesses into the ground, resurrecting himself through the bankruptcy process—meaning that he essentially cheated his creditors out of what they were owed. According to CNN, “no major U.S. company has filed for Chapter 11 more than Trump's casino empire in the last 30 years.” ...

[Yet it's] not just the wing-nuts who are watching. America just can’t get enough of this guy!

It’s time to put down the mesmerizing kaleidoscope of the Trump media spectacle, and examine the Trump phenomenon through a more penetrating lens. Revealed is America as a deeply troubled, even sociopathic, nation.

But, damn, it’s one heck of a show.

She asks really tough questions, and offers tougher answers. But even if we decide not to agree, quite, it's as important a set of questions as any we will ask. It's tough for a nation to look in the mirror, knowing that if it does, the Trump may be what looks back.

Here's part of how I put that back in 2003, when George W. Bush, fully revealed as his brutal awful self, was running for a second term:

Vote for the Public of Your Choice

I’ve written in an earlier article that the 2004 election will be a referendum, not on the candidates, but on the voters, on the American people. After watching the seemingly inexplicable poll results of the last few weeks, I believe this even more strongly.

The current round of Republicans has made the obvious blatant. The ground cover, the plausible-sounding explanation, has eroded laughably; we’ve blown right past plausible headed toward childish and desperate.

Even a fool must understand the choices by now. Do we torture the non-white races or don’t we? Do we imprison dissent or don’t we? Do we bomb Moslems or don’t we? Do we rake to our Reaganesque selves the goods of the earth, or don’t we?

Do we fight with the whole rest of the world?

As a people, a nation, who are we?

The current crew has made these questions more explicit than any in a lifetime. It’s an excellent time to take a vote. If Bush is indeed elected in 2004, the people will truly have spoken.

What goes around ... apparently never leaves. Until we force it out. I think Stan's point is larger than mine, however, and frankly, more concerning if true. After all, she's asking why Democrats can't keep their eyes off him either.

And on a lighter note, here's yet another perfectly decent person for whom the Trump is a guilty pleasure.

"Damn, it's one heck of a show" indeed.

GP

Will it matter to the anti-Planned Parenthood witch hunters that the frame job is even crookeder than we knew?

It turns out that the "original" versions of the Planned Parenthood sting videos are already tampered with. What a surprise!

by Ken

The good news is that Planned Parenthood is fighting back against the crusade of lies being waged against it. The bad news is that the anti-Planned Parenthood witch hunters are the kind of people who not only don't care about but actively despise the truth when it comes in conflict with their ideological psychoses. And right now the right-wing sociopaths see an opportunity to destroy their enemy. Why should the truth matter to them more here than it does in any other aspect of their lie-based lives?

The startling disclosure here is that, according to the independent investigator hired by Planned Parenthood, the supposedly "full" versions of the videos that were so deceptively edited down to produce the bogus videos circulated by the witch hunters are themselves edited.  When you consider that the people who produced these videos are confirmed, dyed-in-the-wool liars, the discovery that the theoretically "unedited" versions are in fact edited leads inescapably to the conclusion that they're already bogus -- that what we're in fact dealing with here is literally lies upon lies. (And, oh yes, some of the "transcripts" circulated by the sting perpetrators are doctored. Ho-hum.)

But again, will it matter? It might if these people had any interest in the truth. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.

Videos deceptively edited, Planned Parenthood tells Congress


Antiabortion activists rally on the steps of the Texas Capitol in Austin, Tex., to condemn the use of tissue samples from aborted fetuses in medical research. (Eric Gay/AP)

By Sandhya Somashekhar | August 27 at 10:12 PM

Officials at Planned Parenthood mounted an aggressive defense in a letter to Congress on Thursday, offering evidence from an outside investigator that undercover videos targeting the women’s health organization were heavily edited and should be considered unreliable.

The letter, written by the ­organization’s president, Cecile Richards, comes as four congressional committees are pursuing investigations into allegations that Planned Parenthood sells ­fetal tissue for profit, which is prohibited by law, and that it has changed its abortion procedures to extract better specimens. The accusations stem from an elaborate undercover investigation by antiabortion activists, who recorded Planned Parenthood employees while posing as representatives of a tissue procurement company.

Planned Parenthood has repeatedly denied the allegations. On Thursday, the group attempted to go on the offense, with Richards accusing the activists from the Center for Medical Progress of acting “fraudulently and unethically — and perhaps illegally.”

Her letter was accompanied by a 10-page report commissioned by Planned Parenthood and penned by an independent investigator, former Wall Street Journal reporter Glenn Simpson. Through his firm Fusion GPS, Simpson enlisted experts who analyzed both the short, highly produced videos publicized by the antiabortion group, as well as hours of “full” footage the group posted on YouTube.

The implication is that the longer footage was unedited. But Simpson said he found significant gaps.

“Anytime someone removes a piece of audio or video tape . . . that renders the file unreliable,” Simpson said during a teleconference for reporters.

Simpson said he also discovered discrepancies between transcripts posted by the antiabortion group and dialogue in the video. And he said he found instances in which the undercover actors goaded Planned Parenthood officials into making flippant remarks, and where inaudible dialogue was transcribed in a way that represented “wishful thinking” — for example, when a lab technician is said to have looked at a fetus and said, “It’s a baby.”

David Daleiden, project leader at the Center for Medical Progress, said the gaps in the longer video were bathroom breaks taken by the actors wearing hidden cameras, or long periods during which an actor sat silently in a waiting room.

He said the group has made that fuller raw footage available to law enforcement authorities as well as congressional investigators. A judge’s order in California, however, has restricted the release of some footage, he said.

Daleiden accused Planned Parenthood of skirting the heart of the issue: whether it is selling fetal tissue or participating in other illegal activities, such as employing an abortion procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion, which is outlawed in most circumstances.

“We’re now seven weeks into this news story. They spent 11 pages now talking about camera Number One or camera Number Two,” Daleiden said. “What they still haven’t spent any time addressing is the questions over their use of partial-birth abortion or giving any type of detailed accounting of the costs and how much they’re actually getting paid.”

In the letter, Planned Parenthood officials write that only two affiliates still participate in tissue donation, a service provided to women who decide to donate fetal material for medical research. Before the video sting, four other affiliates — all in California — participated in tissue donation but stopped because of threats or other issues.

The letter says the lone California affiliate that still donates tissue receives $60 per specimen, a “modest reimbursement” to recover costs. Such a charge is permitted under state and federal law.

Planned Parenthood officials acknowledge that doctors sometimes make minor adjustments to abortion procedures to extract specimens. However, Richards contends in the letter that the adjustments do not make the procedure more risky. Moreover, she said, there is no federal prohibition against making these adjustments as long as the research is not federally funded.

Still, she wrote, Planned Parenthood has adopted voluntary guidelines against any “substantive alteration in the timing of terminating the pregnancy or of the method used . . . for the purpose of obtaining the blood
and/or tissue.”

“Mr. Daleiden and his associates have sought to infiltrate Planned Parenthood affiliates and unsuccessfully to entrap Planned Parenthood physicians and staff for nearly three years,” Richards wrote. “Yet it is Planned Parenthood, not Mr. Daleiden, that is currently subject to four separate congressional investigations.”

This Daleiden thug apparently can't draw breath without lying. Planned Parenthood has repeatedly addressed its tissue-selling practices, which were not, in fact, illegal, and which don't appear to have been in any way unethical either, but simply reflect standard scientific research practice. But Daleiden is a lying sack of garbage, whose life is devoted to lies. Why would he be in any way embarrassed about conducting a crusade of lies?

#

How Ted Cruz Became The Rhoda Penmark Of The U.S. Senate

While I was researching this morning's lesbian piece, I saw how, in 1997, ambitious Buffalo closet case Bill Paxon used the power position Speaker Newt Gingrich had appointed him to, chair of the NRCC, to attempt a coup against Gingrich. Paxon plotted with House Republican power brokers Dick Armey, Tom DeLay and John Boehner to oust Gingrich, whose bizarre behavior had become a drag on Republican election prospects. However, each of the plotters saw himself as the next Speaker and when Armey sensed the plum was falling into Paxon's gay lap, he snitched to Gingrich. Gingrich forced Paxon to end his congressional career and, rather gratuitously, had Armey-- a real sleaze ball-- out his lover, Sandy Hume (Brit's son, a 28 year old journalist who committed suicide). The night before shooting himself with a hunting rifle, Hume had been jailed for drunk driving and tried to hang himself with a shoelace. (Joe Scarborough, who was a Republican congressman at the time and hadn't yet been implicated in the death of a young female staffer, included the ugly incident about the coup and the suicide in his book, Rome Wasn't Burnt In A Day.)

According to Scarborough, Armey was bereft of common decency, a shameless liar who betrayed his colleagues. Armey worked hard to destroy the career of a young reporter. After that reporter's suicide, Armey helped spread rumors about a gay affair between the reporter and Bill Paxon, a congressman who angled to replace Armey as House Leader. Paxon immediately retired from politics, while Armey stayed on.

…Sandy Hume's career seemed to be thriving. He specialized in "the juicy inside stuff" as he described it to the New York Times. "I can spend all day on the Hill and not know what a single vote is about… Almost everything they vote on is irrelevant to our mission.'" The son of Fox News anchorman Brit Hume was going places. On February 21, 1998, he accepted an offer to join U.S. News & World Report. "He seemed very well connected on a workaday level with the GOP power structure," U.S. News editor James Fallows told the Village Voice, "and for the foreseeable future that was going to be an important story."Later that same evening, according to reporter Andy Humm, Hume showed up at a Republican fundraiser, also attended by Bill Paxon.

But then, writes Scarborough, "Sandy passed away on February 22, 1998, at the age of twenty-eight." The Village Voice reported the details of on Sandy's "passing." At 2:20 a.m. on February 22, 1998, in Bethesda, Maryland, Sandy Hume's BMW was stopped for going 75 mph on a 45 mph zone. Hume was drunk and taken to a police station, where, in a holding cell, he was caught trying to choke himself with a shoelace. At 9:30 a.m., Hume was admitted to the city mental health clinic for psychiatric evaluation. Hume was released later that day, and he returned home, where he shot himself in the head.

"Hume's death represented an opportunity for revenge for some in the Armey camp," writes Scarborough, who recounted a phone inquiry from a Wall Street Journal reporter. "Someone in Dick Armey's office just told me that Sandy got the coup story by having a gay affair with Bill Paxon. Both knew the story was coming out and that's why Paxon resigned and why Sandy killed himself," said the reporter.

The obvious insinuation was that Sandy Hume killed himself because he was mortified at suffering the kind of fate borne by Monica Lewinsky, whose affair with Bill Clinton had been first reported one month earlier. Hume frequently appeared on Fox News, an outfit obsessed with the politics of personal destruction.

Two days before Hume's suicide, Bill Paxon contacted dozens of members to prepare a bid to oust Armey as Majority Leader. "House Republican renegades have issued a stern warning to Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) about influencing leadership elections: Fight for Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) at your own risk," wrote Sandy Hume in The Hill just before Paxon started calling. George magazine had commissioned a lengthy profile on Paxon, written by Sandy Hume.

Two days after Hume's death, Paxon, 44, retired from politics. He announced, "I will never run for office again. Never. Not even for dog warden."

Paxon was hardly the first ambitious congressman looking to displace a party leader. Even today, another young Republican, Ted Cruz, still a freshman, is working to accrew as much naked power as he can grab. Most Republican staffers see him as the kind of narcisistic personality type who will stop at nothing to get to the top. I've never heard any contemporary American politician compared to Hitler as much as Cruz-- and not just because they are both right-wing extremists. It's all about the sociopathic behavior. Cruz is the Rhoda Penmark of the U.S. Senate.



Yesterday, Cameron Joseph, reporting for The Hill, looked into Cruz's refusal to play nice with his GOP colleagues. "The defiant Republican’s brutal criticism of Sen. Thad Cochran’s (R-Miss.) reelection campaign on Tuesday-- and the involvement of a group he is technically a vice chairman of, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC)-- is just the latest example of the Tea Party hero refusing to play nice," he wrote.

That brazen approach has exacerbated already fragile relations with establishment Republicans, who believe the freshman senator is intentionally undercutting them for no reason other than furthering his own political career.

Meanwhile, his conservative base is rejoicing that he’s refusing to be cowed.

…National Republicans hoped they could tame Cruz when they gave him the NRSC position. But he officially took a hiatus from the group earlier this year when it became clear that it would be involved in helping incumbents win against Tea Party challengers.

But Cruz still remains vice chairman, and reiterated he won’t resign.

“It was unfortunate to see the D.C. political machine spending substantial money to urge 30,000 to 40,000 Democrats to vote in a Republican primary. And they did not do so in an effort to grow the party, to attract their support substantively on ideas. Rather the ads that were run made false racial charges and made no effort to secure those votes in the general election,” Cruz told reporters Tuesday, echoing comments he’d made the night before to conservative radio host Mark Levin.

He went on to criticize the Senate GOP campaign arm’s involvement specifically.

“When I signed on as vice-chair of the NRSC it was based upon an explicit commitment from leadership that the NRSC was going to stay out of primaries. Had they not made that commitment I would not have taken on that role,” he said.

“I participated in the NRSC early on as long as they honored that commitment, and when the decision was made for them to do otherwise I stopped participating because I think Washington insiders are notoriously poor at picking winners and losers in primaries. And indeed the Mississippi primary is Exhibit A for why the NRSC should stay out of primaries.”

…This is far from the first time Cruz has antagonized the GOP establishment by intentionally bucking its members to grab big headlines. He led the charge to defund ObamaCare that shut down the government last fall, which badly damaged Republicans’ poll numbers. Cruz has also pointedly refused to endorse his GOP colleagues in many races-- even those without serious challengers, like former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, who’d backed him in his own race.

…[N]ational Republicans privately say Cruz did almost nothing to help the NRSC even before they started getting involved in primaries.

“He’s a VINO, he’s a vice chairman in name only,” said one national Republican. “I’m not sure what the alternative is. Should we strip him of his vice chairmanship that he doesn’t actually do anything with? The hope is judging by his own words he’ll be helpful in the general election.”

But not everyone is so optimistic he’ll come around.

“Senator Cruz has every right to express himself,” said GOP strategist Ron Bonjean, a onetime leadership aide to former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.).

“But does it make any sense to have a vice chairman of the NRSC dispute the certification of the Mississippi Senate election in favor of a sitting Republican incumbent?”

Some Republicans are plotting to get rid of Cruz by pushing him to run for president against Hillary Clinton, knowing he will lose-- lose humiliatingly-- and be gone from the Senate. The problem with that scenario is that the kind of landslide defeat outside the South that Cruz would engender for the GOP could result in Senate losses in 9 states, Arizona (McCain), Florida (Rubio), Illinois (Kirk), Iowa (Grassley), New Hampshire (Ayotte), North Carolina (Burr), Ohio (Portman), Pennsylvania (Toomey) and Wisconsin (Johnson) and possibly even Kentucky (Paul) and Missouri (Blunt). If Hillary has any kind of coattails-- and if Israel has been removed as DCCC chair-- a Cruz presidential run would almost surely take back the House for the Democrats as well. Little Rhoda is bad news-- a lot of bad news.