Happy April Fools day! No tricks here, just the usual Friday LinkSwarm:
(Screen shot has been included because the article has been edited and no notice made of the deleted error.)
It couldn’t happen to a nicer “news outlet“:
A jury sided with ex-pro wrestler Hulk Hogan on Friday and awarded him $115 million in his sex tape lawsuit against Gawker Media.
The jurors reached the decision Friday evening, less than six hours after they began deliberations. The trial lasted two weeks.
Earlier Friday, in spirited closing arguments, lawyers for Hogan and Gawker discussed themes of personal life versus celebrity, and freedom of speech versus the right to privacy.
Hogan, whose given name is Terry Bollea, sued Gawker for $100 million for posting a video of him having sex with his former best friend’s wife. Hogan contended the 2012 post violated his privacy.
Hogan’s attorneys told jurors this is the core of the case: “Gawker took a secretly recorded sex tape and put it on the Internet.”
Are there circumstances where a secretly recorded sex tape is of legitimate news interest? Sure! Say, if it’s a President sleeping with his intern, a famous anti-gay crusader having sex with a man, or a Department of Defense official in bed with a member of the KGB. The Hulk Hogan sex tape did not even remotely rise to that level of newsworthiness.
The problem with Gawker proving an absence of malice is that Gawker is malice all the way down…
Conservatives have had difficulty choosing a champion in the presidential race in part because it has featured so many candidates with very good claims on our support. As their number has dwindled, the right choice has become clear: Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.
We supported Cruz’s campaign in 2012 because we saw in him what conservatives nationwide have come to see as well. Cruz is a brilliant and articulate exponent of our views on the full spectrum of issues. Other Republicans say we should protect the Constitution. Cruz has actually done it; indeed, it has been the animating passion of his career. He is a strong believer in the liberating power of free markets, including free trade (notwithstanding the usual rhetorical hedges). His skepticism about “comprehensive immigration reform” is leading him to a realism about the impact of immigration that has been missing from our policymaking and debate. He favors a foreign policy based on a hard-headed assessment of American interests, one that seeks to strengthen our power but is mindful of its limits. He forthrightly defends religious liberty, the right to life of unborn children, and the role of marriage in connecting children to their parents — causes that reduce too many other Republicans to mumbling.
That forthrightness is worth emphasizing. Conservatism should not be merely combative; but especially in our political culture, it must be willing to be controversial. Too many Republicans shrink from this implication of our creed. Not Cruz. And this virtue is connected to others that primary voters should keep in mind. Conservatives need not worry that Cruz will be tripped up by an interview question, or answer it with mindless conventional wisdom when a better answer is available. We need rarely worry, either, that his stumbling words will have to be recast by aides and supporters later. Neither of those things could be said about a lot of Republican nominees over the years.
Not sure it moves the needle much, since National Review has made its preference for Cruz over Donald Trump clear over the last year, but maybe it will help some of Marco Rubio’s wavering backers push him more strongly to get out of the race.
That’s the actual, no kidding headline on this Washington Post piece by Chris Cillizza.
Well, the full headline is “Hillary Clinton has a major honesty problem after New Hampshire,” which is true, but it works either way. Indeed, “Hillary Clinton has a major honesty problem” is a demonstrably true statement anytime after 1991 or so, but the fact that the Washington Post has put it so bluntly is the story here.
Yes, Hillary Clinton has “a major honesty problem” in much the same way the late Amy Winehouse had a “major drinking problem.”
Hillary Clinton has “a major honesty problem” the same way Adolf Hitler had a “killing people” problem.
You get the idea.
Let’s quote some specifics, shall we?
Hillary Clinton has an honesty problem.
That point is driven home hard in the exit poll following Clinton’s 22-point drubbing at the hands of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. More than one in three (34 percent) of all New Hampshire Democratic primary voters said that honesty was the most important trait in their decision on which candidate to support. Of that bloc, Sanders won 92 percent of their votes as compared to just 6 percent for Clinton.
Ninety-two to six. That is absolutely unbelievable — even given the size of Sanders’s overall victory in the state. And it should be deeply concerning to a Clinton campaign that has been resistant to acknowledging the idea that the ongoing controversy over Clinton’s private email server while at the State Department is a problem for her.
Of course, the email scandal is just one of the most recent examples of Clinton’s long, storied career of serial dishonesty, stretching back past phantom sniper fire, stolen china, bimbo eruptions and cattle futures to the the Watergate hearings.
Her life is a rich tapestry of unbridled deceit.
But evidently it took the rise of Bernie Sanders before many liberals were finally willing to say what Republicans following her career have said for close to a quarter century.
“Hillary Clinton has an honesty problem.”
Glad the MSM has finally gotten around to noticing it…
“…I’m a woman of wealth and taste…”
Hillary, you don’t need to reintroduce yourself. The problem isn’t that we don’t know who you are. The problem is that we do know who you are, and entirely too well…
Another installment on the battle between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Many of these links come from http://conservatives4tedcruz.blogspot.com/ (no #CruzCrew email briefing today).
Cruz doesn’t want or need approval from the political elite. He isn’t seeking to be well-liked among the electorate, probably because he knows he just isn’t likable. Cruz will never be Joe Biden or Marco Rubio. He doesn’t have a beaming smile or endearing anecdotes or a twinkle in his eye. But his shrewdness, calculation, and disregard for elite approval can make him a winning candidate—and, what’s more, a pretty good conservative president.
Here’s the thing: I’ve met Ted Cruz, and I find him quite likable in person. Yes, Cruz does a very polished oratorical style and a laser-like focus on message that can make him seem overly scripted at the podium (though he’s gotten a lot better in this regard). But get past that he’s a smart, likable guy. What he doesn’t have is the almost pathological neediness to be liked that drove (for example) Bill Clinton to become so adept at emotional projection.
With the Iowa Caucuses happening next week, I thought I’d finally concentrate on the big contest shaping up between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. I’m backing Cruz, but this election year has been so odd I couldn’t possibly predict the outcome.
A lot (but not all) of the links below come from the #CruzCrew daily briefings I get via email, and from http://conservatives4tedcruz.blogspot.com/.
Cruz was elected, as were so many other TEA Party candidates, to go to Washington and to stand for conservative principles in the face of opposition from both sides of the aisle, and unlike so many others, he did what he said he would do. He didn’t sell out, he didn’t jump on the DC gravy train, and he didn’t turn his back on his grassroots supporters or on his stated ideals and principles.
Going to try to do one of these a day between now and Iowa. Keep in mind that I’ve been reporting on Ted Cruz here since he announced his senate run, for which I endorsed Cruz. If you’re just tuning into the election now, there’s a lot of information there on just how hard Cruz has been fighting for conservative causes…
We’ll start with a couple by Mark Steyn:
The annual State of the Union pageant is a hideous, dispiriting, ugly, monotonous, un-American, un-republican, anti-democratic, dreary, backward, monarchical, retch-inducing, depressing, shameful, crypto-imperial display of official self-aggrandizement and piteous toadying, a black Mass during which every unholy order of teacup totalitarian and cringing courtier gathers under the towering dome of a faux-Roman temple to listen to a speech with no content given by a man with no content, to rise and to be seated as is called for by the order of worship — it is a wonder they have not started genuflecting — with one wretched representative of their number squirreled away in some well-upholstered Washington hidey-hole in order to preserve the illusion that those gathered constitute a special class of humanity without whom we could not live.