Quote of the day: Changing the rhetorical paradigm

Occupy changed the national dialogue. Willard Romney's surreptitiously taped comments about "the 47 percent" would not have had the resonance they did had the Occupy movement not gotten the country talking about the 99 percent and the one percent. It created a new rhetorical paradigm that simply would not have been there had it not been originally shouted at the correct buildings. And it was that new paradigm that triumphed Tuesday night.

- Charles Pierce, tallying up the influence of Occupy on the Massachusetts Senate race, the Wisconsin Senate the Ohio Senate race, the Ohio Senate race, the Obama victory in Ohio, and the defeat of Romney -- all by “shouting at the right buildings.”

Quote of the day: “Appealing to Hispanics” and “Appealing to women”

I am hearing a great deal of talk about "appealing to Hispanics" and "appealing to women." But I am not hearing much about endorsing actual policies. What happened last night is not a matter of cosmetics. This is not false consciousness. This a real response to real policies. Mitt Romney actually endorsed Arizona's immigration policies. You can't fix this by flashing more pictures of brown people.

This is not a "branding problem." This is a "problem problem." Latino voters didn't go crazy. Latino voters went voter.

- Ta-Nehisi Coates on the inability of white male voters to elect Mitt Romney in 2012.

What a lot of people are still getting wrong about the Romney “let Detroit go bankrupt” story

(And why it's worse than most people think. Updated at the bottom of the post.)

Mitt doesn't say he was “wrong on Detroit,” because he doesn't think he was. And the folks on my Facebook and Twitter feeds have been have a whooping old time with that.

If your browser won't display the embedded version, click here.

Letting Detroit go bankrupt! Detroit! The erstwhile symbol of American economic leadership (”What's good for GM is good for the world.”). Ground Zero of an American middle class that was once the envy of the world. The city where, in Mitt's childhood, his father was a merchant-prince.

And although that clip only catches a moment of it, he's been saying all along why he thought it was a good idea to let GM and Chrysler tank. In fact, in that clip, he said it twice. He's been as clear as a buttonhook in the well water about it for four years. It's one of his rare instances of non-self contradiction. But almost no one's really listening all the way through, because “Look! He wanted to let Detroit go bankrupt!” is the easier way to score points.

It's not that Romney's delusional (at least not any more so than usual). Or dishonest (at least not any more so than usual). It's just that no one's asked him precisely the right question in exactly the right way. And no one listens very closely to his answer. And most of the Democrats howling with glee about his bankruptcy “gaffe” don't appreciate how dangerous that oversight is.

Because what Romney wanted -- what he would have brought about had he been in the driver's seat -- was even worse. He wanted to see the auto companies go through bankruptcy and the resulting reorganization “to shed costs.” What “costs” are those?

Labor costs. Union contracts. Worker health care. Pensions. Step One of the Romney plan was to use bankruptcy to bust the unions connected with the automotive industry and break the fundamental promise embodied in their pension plans. And yes, as the governor took care to point out in the third presidential debate, some companies -- like Macy's and 7-Eleven -- do come through bankruptcy and survive. Others aren't so fortunate, though, especially if they have the bad luck to fall into the hands of chop shops like Bain Capital LLC. Romney's upset because, following the bankruptcy move, the Obama administration stepped in with bailout money which allowed the unions to keep a toe-hold in Detroit.

But, delightful as union-busting would no doubt to seem to the governor simply on its own merits, that's just Step One. Remember that part of the Obama administration's rationale for the bailout was that, even if the auto companies had gone through bankruptcy, no banks were then willing or able to step up with the money to help them rebuild. So even with court-enforced restructuring (and “shedding of costs”), where would the money come from?

I'm glad you asked. That's Step Two of the Romney plan. If the banks can't help and the federal government is prevented from helping, that just leaves the paper-manipulators (like Romney's own Bain Capital) to buy GM and Chrysler for pennies on the dollar, then strip 'em and flip em. In the third presidential debate, Romney denied his intention was to enable his vulture-capitalist cronies to gut GM and Chrysler, pay themselves off, and sell off the remaining assets. You've seen the short half-life of his stand on any issue. Do you believe him this time?

Laura Clawson at DailyKos Labor writes:

Romney may not have understood himself to be arguing for liquidation back in 2008. But it would have been the effect if his advice had carried the day. And to this day, regardless of how often and by whom the situation is explained to him, he cannot accept that he was wrong. His certainty that Mitt Romney, Businessman, is always right is too strong to allow for that possibility. And admitting he was wrong would drive home that if he had been president, the American auto industry would have gone under. Michigan and Ohio's economies would have been destroyed. A million jobs would have gone up in flames.

Yes, but that's a feature, not a bug. It's not that Romney wanted to save Detroit, but mistakenly advocated a plan that would inevitably have failed, and is now too vain to admit it. Romney never really wanted to save Detroit.^* Which is why he sees no point in backing down or changing his story.  The mistake is to think he's kidding.

^*(Update:) At least no more than he would presumably be interested in saving the East Coast this afternoon. As everyone is being reminded, and appropriately so, Romney's on record as saying that it would be "immoral" for the government to be involved in disaster relief, that this is more appropriately a state-level (or, ideally, a private-enterprise) function. Ironically, it's one of the rare moments in his political life where he's told the straight truth from the start and stuck to it without variation -- and no one seems to believe him.

Tough questions: A quick look back at the second presidential “town hall” “debate”

Last week I was going off on my issues with the (then-upcoming) second debate: The “town hall” format, combined with an audience stuffed with (and questioners restricted to) “undecideds” -- voters who've somehow made it to mid-October with not much information about the candidates and no decision about who they're voting for, meaning it's not much like any town I ever lived in -- seems like a waste of opportunity all around.

I wasn't able to tune in until the final question of the night and (although watching the whole thing later eased my concerns a little) that final question confirmed every bad feeling I'd had:

QUESTION: Hi, Governor. I think this is a tough question. To each of you. What do you believe is the biggest misperception that the American people have about you as a man and a candidate? Using specific examples, can you take this opportunity to debunk that misperception and set us straight?

You think it's a “tough question”? For two guys who've been campaigning for 2012 for at least four years, both prepped for a live debate that could help determine who'll be President of the United States in slightly under three months? You think they can't run out the clock on that one without managing to give us some blinding new insight into themselves and their candidacy? Seriously?

Does this no-doubt well-meaning voter (assuming he does vote next month) understand the difference between a presidential debate -- even a lame one -- and a game of “Truth or Dare” when the parents are gone?

Again: Ditch the “town hall” format.

Quote of the day: On the continuation of foreign policy by other means

Trade is foreign policy. The environment is foreign policy. Energy policy is foreign policy. Human rights are foreign policy. Drought is foreign policy. Starvation is foreign policy. War is generally only foreign policy when one of those other things I mentioned get completely out of control. However, as I suspect we will see argued enthusiastically from both sides tonight, war, and not its historic causes, has come to define foreign policy.

- Charles Pierce on his steadily-diminishing expectations for a “foreign policy presidential debate” in 2012.

This goes out to Charlie.

If your browser won't display the embedded version, click here.

Sunday morning toons: The smile versus the puppy-dog eyes

I still don't know why everyone's painting Biden with this “loose cannon”/”crazy uncle” paint, and still don't understand why Ryan is considered a “policy wonk”/”serious person.”

But I think all of America can agree that Jim Lehrer should have moderated his last debate.

In addition to the Veep debate, we've got Syria and lady parts -- all this, and rabbit stew! (You'll see.) So let's get cooking!

Today's toons were selected by an elaborate process involving blindfolds, darts, and root vegetables, from the week's pages at GoComics, McClatchyDC.com, Slate, Time, About.com, Daryl Cagle, and other fine sources.

p3 Picks of the Week: Mike Luckovich, Kevin Siers, Walt Handlesman, Clay Bennett, Nick Anderson, Adam Zyglis, Bob Englehart, Rob Tornoe, Matt Wuerker, Jen Sorenson, and Monte Wolverton.

p3 Best of Show: Jim Morin.

p3 Certificate of Harmonic Toon Convergence (Part I): Nick Anderson and Mike Luckovich.

p3 Certificate of Harmonic Toon Convergence (Part II): Pat Bagley and Glenn McCoy.

p3 Citation for Best Toon Obituary: Chip Bok.

p3 World Toon Review: Ingrid Rice (Canada), Petar Pismestrovic (Austria), Cam Cardow (Canada), and Osama Hajjaj (Jordan),


Ann Telnaes marks the arrival of International Girls' Day (Seriously? A day? Just one?) with an ugly truth.


Mark Fiore brings you “News In a Nutshell” -- revised.


Whether you watched the Veep debate or you didn't, Taiwan's Next Media Animation will make you feel like you didn't.


Tom Tomorrow presents the continuing adventures of Middleman, the superhero who fights for truth, justice, and Grand Bargains. This week's villain: The Plutocrat!


But on the up side, Keith Knight has a second li'l one on the way, so that's good news, right? Right?


Tom the Dancing Bug welcomes a new arrival to that place where the air is sweet.


Red Meat's Ted Johnson and Ted's wife explore the process of negotiation that keeps marriage afloat.


The Comics Curmudgeon notes that Judge Parker has taken a horrific turn. Also for some reason, devil dogs and the end of the universe seem to be recurring themes in other CC posts this week. Take whatever action seems appropriate.


The two greatest contributions of the 2012 election cycle to our national discourse: Newt Gingrich caused the resurrection of thrice, and Joe Biden reanimated malarkey. (For you youngsters, here's the story about the latter.)


”Live in a lamp, eh? Well, t'ings are tough all over, doc!” The Aladdin story gets the Bugs Bunny treatment in “A-Lad-In-His Lamp,” directed by Robert McKimson in 1948. You can always spot McKimson's Bugs Bunny: He's a little stouter of frame, you rarely see him in close-up, and he (and all the other characters) don't just move side-to-side in the frame, they make sweeping gestures that come straight toward the screen. The villain's name is Caliph Hassan Pheffer -- a play on hassenpfeffer, a German stew made with marinated rabbit (and which I can vouch for as delicious as long as you don't think too much about what's on the end of your fork). And while Portland's own Mel Blanc did the voices of Bugs and the Caliph, do you recognize the voice of the genie? It's a very funny early performance by Jim “Thurston Howell”/”Mister McGoo” Backus.

If your browser won't display the embedded version, click here.

The p3 Big Oregon Toon Block:

Jack Ohman listens in on a political tracking poll.

Matt Bors features the animated adventures of lady parts fighting for gender justice: The Avenging Uterus!

Jesse Springer bags his own p3 Award for Best Adaptation from Another Medium for his hilarious take on the unforced error committed by Oregon's senior senator last winter:

Test your toon-captioning powers at The New Yorker's weekly caption-the-cartoon contest. (Rules here.)

A quantum of umbrage: A town called Undecided

It's time -- it's past time -- to dump the town hall debate format from the calender of presidential campaign events.

On the eve of last night's VP debate, Lynn Vavreck reported, on the NYTimes blog:

After last week’s debate, the share of undecided voters in the electorate held constant at slightly less than 3%. You may be wondering how that is possible, given the dramatic and perhaps unexpected performances by both candidates. The answer? More than half the previously undecided voters failed to tune in to the debate at all.

While only 21 percent of voters who have made up their minds skipped the debate, 54 percent of undecided voters did something else with their time. Coupled with their low level of general interest in news (44 percent never or hardly ever pay attention to the news, compared to 12 percent of decided voters who opt out of news), this means word of the candidates’ performances probably never reached them directly.

Now here's some good news: The next presidential debate, on Tuesday the 16th is the so-called “town meeting” format, although I can report with some relief that it doesn't much resemble any town I ever lived in. Because it's become a bit of undisputed political wisdom that the average “town” is packed with “undecideds,” so they will make up the live audience and they will offer the questions the candidates will respond to. It will be an event held for, driven by, and dumbed down to the level of the people who aren't even paying attention.

The Times was even less kind than I'm being:

[. . . ] voters who are undecided are less well equipped in a political environment. It is as if they don’t have the skills or vocabulary to navigate the political scene or to fully comprehend it. Because they are not that interested in politics and pay little attention to news, they have no structure in place to organize political information as it comes across the transom. Many are simply not sure who won the debate – they’re not saying it was a tie. They are reporting that they cannot make an evaluation of any kind.

Heaven help us. If you thought Jim Lehrer's questions in last week's presidential debates were a bowl of strained peas and carrots, wait until you hear the questions that the “undecideds” are going to uncork next Tuesday night. As a reminder, here's the first question thrown out to John Kerry in the 2004 Town Hall Debate:

Senator Kerry, after talking to several co-workers and family and friends, I asked the ones who said they were not voting for you, why. They said that you were too wishy-washy. Do you have a reply for them?

The “undecideds” are the quintessential low-information voters. Asking them to devise questions for the candidates for President of the United States is an extreme-sport version of asking replacement referees to officiate an NFL game.

The Town Hall debate format, featuring the “undecideds,” is a gimmick that does more harm than good -- and in a post-truth, post-Citizens United presidential campaign like this, that's no mean distinction.

It panders to the sensibilities of 3% of the electorate -- and from available evidence, they won't even be watching to know they're being pandered to.

Dump the town hall debates.

Quote of the day: Convictions

Romney has no ideological convictions, but -- as I've said many times -- he has a deep reserve of free-floating anger. In this he's like Nixon, except that Nixon resented certain fixed groups (economic elites, blacks, Jews), while Romney seems to despise ... well, anyone who gets in his way.

That's Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog, making a pretty damned hard-to-argue with case that the Mother Jones video doesn't reveal the “real Romney” any more than his campaign speeches, television ads, or convention addresses, etc.

A quantum of umbrage: Terminological precision

For the record, it is incorrect to refer to Romney's recent remarks to his top-dollar donors as "dog-whistling."

There was nothing "dog-whistle” about it. It was pitched right down there in the comfortable range of human hearing.

What it was, in fact, was a big old compressed-air boat horn, set off in a room that was supposed to be sound-proofed.

A quantum of umbrage: Oh, the shark has pretty teeth, dear

From today's NYTimes (emphasis added):

One of the biggest challenges Mr. Romney must overcome in the last two months of the campaign is to connect more with voters, as polls show that many of them think he lacks empathy and warmth. And a trip to the ransacked bayou — complete with images that seem tailor made for the evening news, like Mr. Romney visiting a town hall surrounded by water so deep one resident was canoeing through it — could help counter those perceptions.

“The decision to go to New Orleans shows how much Mitt Romney is making the effort to show he understands people’s needs and concerns,” said Ari Fleischer, a former press secretary to President George W. Bush. “It’s a side of Mitt Romney that people don’t give him credit for.”

Ah yes. Ari Fleischer. This guy. A man who could tell more lies to the press before breakfast than Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have cranked out this whole week. The Master of Mendacity. The Dean of Dishonesty. The Prince of Prevarication. The man who singlehandedly elevated lying though his pearly whites to an Olympic-class event -- and loved every minute of it.

The man who, if presented with the choice between uttering an innocuous truth or telling an unnecessary lie, would immediately opt for the latter simply for the joie du jeu.

If I were Mitt Romney, and I wanted Americans to believe that I actually cared about the people of New Orleans -- as opposed to wanting them to believe that I wanted them to believe that I actually cared -- if I wanted them to feel that there was even a smidgen of genuineness, honesty, empathy, or spontaneity in my actions, the first thought through my head should be, For Pete's sake, don't get Fleischer involved!

And if I were a NYTimes reporter like -- to pick a name out of a hat -- Jeremy W. Peters, and I wanted to be sure I included one comment in my story that, regardless of how high or low the stakes were, could be counted on to be a complete line of crap, I would go straight to Ari.

Pity the fellow whose clothes are on fire and hears about it from Ari Fleischer: His last thought in this life would probably be, Hm. I wonder why Fleischer told me that?

Two countries separated by a boorish candidate

H. L. Mencken was certainly no Anglophile. So it's no coincidence that he disliked the puritainism they bequeathed to America, which ranked high on the list of “uplift” or “improvement” schemes he so thoroughly despised. And so it is with his magnum opus The American Language, in which the Sage of Baltimore celebrates the robust and evergreen American English against its British counterpart, captive of the dead hand of tradition, prescriptive grammarians, and schoolmarmism.

The first several chapters document with some glee the alarm (or alarum) with which most British and some American eighteenth- and nineteenth-century scholars and philologists viewed the steadily-lengthening list of differences in vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, and idiom between the King's English and whatever-it-was being spoken those uppity former colonists. This item by Adam Seybert in the Edinburgh Review of 1820 captures much of the attitude in the UK of its time:

In the four quarters of the globe, who reads an American book? or goes to an American play? or looks at an American picture or statue? What does the world yet owe to American physicians or surgeons? What new substances have their chemists discovered? or what old ones have they analyzed? What new constellations have been discovered by the telescopes of Americans? What have they done in mathematics? Who drinks out of American glasses? or eats from American plates? or wears American coats or gowns? or sleeps in American blankets? Finally, under which of the old tyrannical governments of Europe is every sixth man a slave, whom his fellow-creatures may buy, and sell and torture.

Well, as far as the institution of slavery was concerned, lord knows we had that one coming.

But as I read that passage a couple of days ago, amused by its condescension, its political and cultural chauvinism, its smug historical cluelessness, I still found myself thinking: Why does this feel so familiar? Where have I heard this before?

Then I remembered:

England [sic] is just a small island. Its roads and houses are small. With few exceptions, it doesn't make things that people in the rest of the world want to buy. And if it hadn't been separated from the continent by water, it almost certainly would have been lost to Hitler's ambitions.

Excerpt from Mitt Romney, No Apology:

The Case for American Greatness” (2010)

Oh, yes. That's where. Now our cousins across the ocean know how it feels to be dissed (Americanism, absorbed from hip-hop in the 1980s) by a foreign nitwit (Americanism, absorbed from German in the 1920s).

Hey, Great Britain: Payback's a bitch, isn't it? (Pretty sure that's an Americanism too.)

Quote of the day: Talkin' 'bout my own religion

When a politician talks about "faith," it means he doesn't have the political courage to talk about his religion.

Charlie Pierce summarizing the challenge for Mitt Romney, the Mormon (and now Paul Ryan, the Roman Catholic) to keep the Christian fundamentalist base of the GOP from turning on them (especially if things don't work out in November).

Readings: Pierce on the half-forgotten notion of commonwealth

p3 favorite Charlie Pierce makes a pilgrimage to the home of one of the most quintessentially American public policies, and shakes his head in sorrow at the “I built it myself!” chatterboxes who, a century and a half later, still subscribe to the opinion that it must have been a mistake.

[S]peaking in the Strafford Town Hall, which has been in continuous use as a public meeting space since 1809, Dr. Clement Price made the point that the Morrill Act was in keeping with what he called "the revolutionary age" in which it was signed. He listed it along with the Emancipation Act, the Homestead Act, and the Pacific Railroad Act as that age writ large in public policy, and he noted that none of them would have been possible had the Southern states not seceded and taken their insular vision of what the country meant with them.

Pierce's article is joining the rest of the Readings list in the sidebar.

A quantum of umbrage: The worst thing about the Paul Ryan VP pick

The worst thing about Romney's choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate is the likelihood that now we'll spend the next three months listening to two competing approaches to the deficit:

1. The deficit means we have to to eliminate all social programs.

and

2. The deficit means we have to eliminate some social programs and cripple the rest. (This is known as the compromise position.)

Jobs? Or the idea that putting Americans back to work is the most important single step we can take toward cutting the deficit?

Off the agenda.

Quote of the day: Underperformance

A cautious observation from Silly Rabbit at DailyKos:

I'm not saying that Rafalca Romney's failure to win a medal in the Olympics has put his life in danger; I'm just pointing out that Mitt's investments which underperform don't have a very good track record of survival.

Saturday morning tunes: Sixes and sevens and nines

In honor of Romney's choice of zombie-eyed Granny-starver Paul Ryan as his GOP running mate, here's a song about crap shooting, low-down bitchin', and burnin' the candle right down.

If your browser won't display the embedded version, click here.

The Sweet One as Veep? Please.

Two of America's least reliable, most in-the-tank political sources -- I refer to Matt Drudge and Ann Romney -- have been predicting for a couple of weeks that the frontrunner in the transdimensional race to be Mitt Romney's vice presidential nominee will be Condi Rice.

Oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please!

It's a fabrication, of course, but that's hardly a mark of distinction when we're considering Campaign Romney. Nevertheless:

First of all, we have The Sweet One's fervent assurance, repeated again and again, that she has no interest in leaving private/corporate life for public/politlcal life -- and which I believe, although not for the reasons that she offers.

Second, no matter how much of politlcal triple-bank shot of reverse-political correctness desperate Republicans might like to fantasize about, Romney is a man who -- let's be delicate -- is more comfortable around white men with power than around any sort of person of color or any sort of woman in a position of power.

Third, she knows she'd have to spend her entire waking time from the last week in August until the first week in November distancing herself all over again from the now-forgotten August 2001 National Intelligence Estimate titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in the US."

Fourth, Romney's turbulent Tea Party base, upon whom he slavishly depends, will never, ever accept her as his VP nominee, because she's a (a) black (b) woman (c) with prominent connections to the now-anathema Bush Administration and who is, as if it really matters at this point, (d) on record as being more or less pro-choice.

Finally, the primary duty of the Vice President, should the Romney-Rice ticket by some fluke be elected, would, as always, be to attend the funerals of foreign heads of state. Even if the CEO President decided to hand the whole foreign policy basket over to The Sweet One, not unlike Junior handing the Prime Minister's role over to Cheney, she can't really do this if she can't safely leave the country without the risk of being whisked off to The Hague on war crimes charges.

Odds

Here's Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog on the prospects for the country over the next four years:

I think Obama's second term will be gridlocked. I also think that's a hell of a lot better outcome than a Romney term, which will result in the continued (in fact, accelerated) dismantling of the twentieth century, a nationalization of what's been done by governors such as Scott Walker and Rick Scott. And don't get me started on the Supreme Court.

(Unfortunately, any short-range plan to address this situation involving phrases like “coming to their senses” is simply based on some combination of inattentiveness and wishful thinking.)

I think that the argument we'll hear a lot from the Sensible People as the summer drags on is that we should elect Romney because "he deserves a chance." (I fully expect to find that rationale prominently featured in the inevitable Romney endorsement by the ever more right-wing Newspaper of Record for Oregon.)

But Obama's dodgy record on the economy, for example, doesn't simply float out there, without the political context of a four-year Republican campaign of intransigence, sabotage, and shameless dishonesty. To say that Romney "deserves a chance" is to treat political consequence as if it were a coin toss. It's the logic of the innumerate bettor who figures that, after a long string of "heads," it's time to double down on "tails." It must be due. What the hell. The next toss could be the jackpot. Even if it's a double-headed nickel.

Charlie Pierce also has a bit to say on that subject today -- about the increasingly American conviction that doing something must be better than doing nothing. Or, if you prefer, that even a sucker bet is preferable to standing pat. Or, to bring it full circle, that even wiping out the achievements of a century would still be better than gridlock.

CP also has a thing or two to say about the inner rot of the American Dream that has brought it down from "working hard, making a decent living, and providing a better life for your kids" to "winning Powerball."

Omit Mitt

So it's official--sad, but official--Romeny's out. I was hoping he would drag it out longer, but apparently I hoped in vain.

Is Romney bailing because his "say anything" campaign has generated nothing but the deep and well-earned distrust of the voters? Is it because--despite his barely-coded assurances to the Christian fundamentalists not to worry, since they both wanted to trample the rights of the same enemies--it was clear that the fundamentalists were going to not-vote for him in droves?

Is it because his five military-service aged sons convinced him not to squander every last dime of their inheritance on his vanity campaign?

No, no, and no. Romney's still a Republican, and that means there's really only one reason for doing anything:

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney will say at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

As Governor Tarkin said to Princess Leia: Charming to the last.

Ironically, the election of McCain--who has basically staked out "Bush's third term" as his campaign rationale--would probably do more to recruit for bin Laden than anything the Democrats could do on their worst days, but of course, that's not what Romney means here. It's been quite a while since anyone floated that "Osama votes Democratic" smear outside of the fever swamps of right-wing radio and Dick Cheney's office. Congratulations to Governor Romney for bringing it to C-SPAN2.

And take this with you:

Romney made his announcement at C-PAC, where Cheney assured the rapturous throng that "you're damned right" he'd invade Iraq again if he had it to do over. And according to one account, the audience at C-PAC actually booed McCain when he spoke a little earlier.

Hard to believe a guy who promised to "double Guantanamo" couldn't find a home there, isn't it?