Rush to Shadenfreude

2003 statue of Humpty Dumpty,
by Minnesota artist Fiebirgir,
on display in Arizona

Almost 7 years ago today, back in June of 2009, I wrote about the resemblance between Rush Limbaugh and Humpty Dumpty.  Not only was there a distinct visual similarity, but the content spewed by Limbaugh was reminiscent of the earlier iteration of Humpty Dumpty, an exploding canon.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

Used to be, in previous election cycles, anyone who crossed Rush Limbaugh (no matter how well deserved) sooner or later would kiss his ring (or his rear end).  Limbaugh was a king maker.  The majority of references to Limbaugh these days are not about deference to his political influence, but rather like Humpty Dumpty, about his "great fall".

Limbaugh is in professional trouble, trouble in part caused by 2012 candidate Mitt Romney's Bain Capital.  From March 2015:

Today, IHeart CEO Bob Pittman announced the company is closing its San Antonio headquarters. Pittman may never admit the company’s financial problems have anything to do Rush Limbaugh, even though Time Magazine, Wall Street Journal, and a Sponsor Boycott Petition which contains 125,000 signatures, confirm social media campaigns are working. It should be noted iHeart/Clear Channel picked up quite a bit of their debt via Bain ‘Mitt Romney’ Capitol.

Remember when conservatives wanted us to trust in the wisdom of Romney and his business acumen?  Where did THAT get anyone -- anyone other than those who profited at Bain?  The same claim is made for Trump and HIS business expertise; Trump of course, given his spotty track record of failures and bankruptcies, would be even WORSE than Romney and his Bain cronies for the nation and our economy, both domestic and global.

And from Politico, last month:

...there are signs that all is not well in the Limbaugh radio empire. Because even as his influence is sky high and his dominance at the top of talk radio remains unchallenged, as a business proposition, Limbaugh’s show is on shaky ground. In recent years, Limbaugh has been dropped by several of his long-time affiliates, including some very powerful ones: He’s gone from WABC in New York, WRKO in Boston and KFI in Los Angeles, for example, and has in many cases been moved onto smaller stations with much weaker signals that cover smaller areas.

And from Media Matters this week:

The former Clear Channel network owns 850 radio stations across the country and the syndication rights to right-wing stars such as Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.
During the late 1990s and early 2000s the company, feasting on the fruits of media deregulation, gorged itself with profits. (It also bullied the music business for years.)
Since then, not so much. And what a brutal ride it’s been for investors:
Clear Channel stock price, January 2000: $90.
Clear Channel stock value, April 2007: $39.
iHeartMedia stock price, July 2011: $8.30.
iHeartMedia stock price at close of yesterday: $1.15.
The company hasn’t reported a profit since 2007. Today, iHeartMedia is busy selling off assets in an effort to shore up its bottom line. “It’s a case of burning your sofa to heat up the house,” Philip Brendel, a credit analyst recently told Bloomberg. “It’s not necessarily a good idea but you’re running out of options.”
The company’s woes date back to the Clear Channel leveraged buyout deal in 2008. It was overseen by private equity giants Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital, once headed by Mitt Romney. Coming just months before the U.S. financial crisis of September 2008, the Clear Channel deal couldn’t have been hatched at a worse time.

That influence appears to have changed, significantly if not suddenly.  Limbaugh is insignificant this election cycle, while conservatives, one after the other - most recently, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida - are sucking up instead to presumptive candidate Donald Trump the way they used to do to Limbaugh.  Limbaugh has conspicuously NOT come out either for OR against Trump, with speculation putting the reason for this as a fear on the part of Limbaugh that he will antagonize his listening audience, who appear split strongly for and against Trump.

We can only presume that the perennially financially strapped Rubio was bought off the way others have been by Trump.   Trump paid off the campaign debt of former rivals Christie and Carson; if not campaign debt, Rubio has been notorious for his perpetual person debt.  Although speculation, it is probable (imho) that money changed hands preceding the change of heart and position by Rubio.

However I can't find any mention of Rubio's capitulation, in spite of the fact that Limbaugh had referred to liking Rubio, and to Marco Rubio as recently as February 2016 with the following, after the Iowa primary: 

"I don’t see Marco Rubio as anything other than a legitimate, full-throated conservative,"

And Limbaugh has been an apologist for Rubio when the Florida senator was taking flak for debate comments.  It has become conspicuous when contrasting Limbaugh's promotion of Rubio and his absence of support for 'the Donald'.  From May of this year:

Pushed by a caller Monday to endorse the presumptive GOP nominee, Limbaugh said: “I think it’s a moot point now. … In the words of a famous and well-known politician: What difference does it make now?”

...The caller wouldn’t let up, saying: “He needs your endorsement! It’s that important! And it’s about time you did it!”
“It’s not what I do,” said the conservative talk-show host, who praised Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio in this primary season.

Apparently, like Humpty Dumpty, words mean whatever you want them to mean, and moot actually means self-serving and cowardly.  Or does moot mean it's usual meaning (to the rest of us)?

In United States law, a matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law. Thereby the matter has been deprived of practical significance or rendered purely academic.

Trump, left; Limbaugh, right

But is it moot, because the candidacy is settled.............or moot because it doesn't matter any more in the slightest if Rush Limbaugh is pro or anti-Trump?

Loss of influence, loss of platform to spew toxic opinions, loss of money; it couldn't happen to two more deserving men.  We can indulge in a little shadenfreude over Rush, and look forward to the same thing happening to Trump.

Adios, Rubio! Another one bites the dust! Will Kasich be far behind? GOP candidates running on suckers money?

So far, Cruz carried Texas, his home state, and in spite of trailing is at least still in the race.  Kasich is still in the race after winning Ohio, but he can't win nationally.

Rubio is out; he couldn't win his home state of Florida.

Neither could the other Republicans who are out so far.  Not only Rubio couldn't carry Florida, where he was born and raised, but Jeb Bush couldn't carry it either. Ben Carson couldn't carry Florida  (he lives there) OR his native state of Michigan.  Chris Christie couldn't carry his home state of New Jersey, not after his handling of Hurricane Sandy, Bridge-gate, the pension fund fiasco, and the nine drops of the state credit rating.  Scott Walker couldn't carry his home state of Wisconsin, with his corrupt governance, notably his campaign manager getting millions of state $ for his sports facility; last election cycle, Paul Ryan lost Wisconsin, and is unlikely to be able to carry it this time if he is drafted in a brokered convention.  Bobby Jindal couldn't carry his home state of Louisiana - and was so unpopular, it is possible he ran for office only as a graceful out from his badly failed state office.  Rick Santorum has never been able to carry Pennsylvania in his runs for president. I doubt from the polls that Mike Huckster-bee could carry Arkansas either.  In the previous election cycle, neither Tim Pawlenty or Michele Bachmann could win Minnesota either.

And it looks as if Donald Trump, in spite of his winning elsewhere, can't win in New York.

Hillary Clinton would crush Donald Trump in a New York State general election matchup: poll

It is pretty much a given that a candidate, any serious candidate, has to be able to win their own home state.  And ALL of those candidates KNEW going into the race, that they were unlikely to change their popularity sufficiently to carry their home states.  Which raises the question, were they ever REALLY seriously candidates, or were they just in it to make money in some way, using election law?

Pretty much the situation is that NONE of the other candidates who were even nominally in the race on the right could have carried their own states, if you go down the entire list.  Which is a short way of saying that where they know you, REALLY know you, they don't like you.

The Week summed it up:

Is Ben Carson's campaign one big con?

Ben Carson's presidential campaign is many things. A curiosity, an oddity, a fascinating yet disturbing commentary on today's Republican Party? Absolutely. But there's also some reason to believe that it's a giant confidence game.
That isn't to say that Carson isn't genuinely trying to become president. He has even moved into the lead in a couple of recent national polls. But the inner workings of his campaign will look awfully familiar to those who understand how one right-wing movement has been bilking gullible conservatives over the last half-century.
...As conservative radio host Erick Erickson says, "Carson's actual expenditure list reads like a wealthy Republican getting played by consultants."

While Donald Trump keeps claiming he is funding his own campaign, the reality is that he is also seeking donors.  He isn't paying for his own campaign out of his pocket, he is LOANING his campaign funds, which are repaid out of donations.  Trump is running on suckers' money.  In different ways that might be the case for the majority of the rest of the GOP candidates, and has been for some time now, given the reality of their unfavorables.

Conservatives, with their opposition to campaign finance laws, such as their support for Citizens United, have made democracy into one big con game to fleece conservative donors and to sell out the country to special interests, all while patting themselves on the back for their piety and rectitude.

CANADA for President 2016; or the US of "Eh?"

Not a serous possibility, sadly, given our constitutional limitation to natural born citizens (even if we can reasonably assume we know what that means, absent a SCOTUS decision on it).  

On the other hand.....Rubio is shooting his ads for president in Canada. While far too many Americans are weak on geography, as we see here, and especially conservatives as we see here, I think we can safely argue that we don't want a president who is weak on which side of the border is Canada and which side is the old US of eh?, er A. But it is conservatives who are the weakest on geography :  

Worryingly, but hardly surprisingly, the poll also found that the further a poll respondent thought Ukraine was from its real location, the more likely he was to support US military intervention in Ukraine. Few Americans could find Iraq (Eye-raq to most), Afghanistan, or Iran (Eye-ran) on the map. “Let’s get those dirty Commies,” goes the latest wave of war fever to sweep the US, “if we can only find them!” Some respondents put Ukraine in Australia, or South America. Interestingly, the poll found that the group least able to locate Ukraine was +65 year olds – core Republican voters.

From the STrib:

OOPS — RUBIO AD IS SET IN CANADA The scenes and narration mimic Ronald Reagan’s legendary ad “Morning Again in America.” But Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio’s new ad of the same name opens with a shot of Vancouver, Canada. “It’s morning again in America,” the ad begins with shots of a harbor, city street and suburban neighborhood. “Today, more men and women are out of work than ever before in our nation’s history.”

Well, if they can't run in our elections, then at least those enterprising Canuks have an alternative to our more toxic politics (from facebook):

Cape Breton Island: Website Invites Americans to Move to Canadian Island if Donald Trump Is Elected

The website, cbiftrumpwins.com, was created by radio host Rob Calabrese of Sydney, Nova Scotia. He says he has gotten serious inquiries since launching the site, news outlets reported.