Or it could just be that he's appealing to racists, of which there are many.

There is that.

True.

Did anyone else catch Ted Cruz's appearance on Colbert Tonight a couple of days ago?

As articulate as he is, I thought he struggled with Stephen's fairly benign line of questioning, especially when challenged with his assertions on Reagan.

I'd like to see the candidates take a Paxman-style grilling. Too many softball interviews.

Diamond Joe up to 25% of Dem support in latest poll, only 8 points behind Hillary and he's not announced yet. Time's running out for him, but this could get interesting. He is an appealing figure compared with the front runner and not at all as controversial.
Bloomberg Politics

Lesser of 2 evils?

Yes, if it must be one or the other.

Joe would probably get along much better with the Republican-controlled Senate and House (assuming they keep both) and probably a lot more would get done. There is a trust relationship there that Hillary will never come close to matching. Although he might be just as liberal as Hillary, he's not a hard ideologue like her, and doesn't give the impression he's only in it to sell influence and make a ton of money out of "government service." Jill Biden won't be going to Kazakhstan looking for $500,000 to give a speech if he becomes President.

(Devil's advocate)

Concerns about immigration and economics are one in the same.

Trump is also protesting free trade, which is an issue that crosses party lines. The common thread is that immigration and free-but-unfair trade lead to higher unemployment and lower wages, which means less prosperity for those who were here in the first place.

The irony is that this issue most greatly effects minority groups who used to hold many of these jobs; the Democrats are winning black votes while their immigration policies lead to higher black unemployment.

To be fair quite a few Black commentators have made that comment, obviously racist.

I caught up on both the Cruz and 'The Donald' appearances on the 'Late Show with Stephen Colbert' last night. It was great to see someone push the 'Reagan' question. Finally, after realizing he couldn't just ignore the question, he let out a weak 'of course not' to the question and moved on quickly. Colbert was very accurate and persistent ... something like, "Yes, Reagan implemented a large tax cut, but - when the revenues fell and it became necessary, he raised taxes ... would you be willing to do what Reagan did?". His "Donald" interview was pretty good too. Loved the birther question!


Overall, I'm VERY pleased with how Colbert is doing on his late show. His 'Hunger Games' treatment of the current Republican field was genius.

Has Hillary signed up yet to appear? Apparently all the politicians are uncomfortable with appearances on Colbert because he's too quick witted and persistent for them.

Noam Chomsky's comments on the 'US Republican Insurgency'.

Noam Chomsky: The GOP is a radical insurgency; it’s not a political party - Salon.com

Chomsky continues to be well known as a political activist, and a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, neoliberal capitalism, and the mainstream news media. Ideologically, he aligns himself with anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism. (Wikipedia)

Without any doubt a brilliant guy, but his comments on Republicans? - taken with a grain of salt.

Why don't you provide a rebuttal to his analysis rather than "shooting the messenger"?

Because there's no point. He's expressing an opinion regarding a political party with which he has serious philosophical disagreements and he's entitled to that.

Take this point from the article:Precisely the same thing could be said about the Democratic Party when the Senate Democratic caucus voted unanimously to approve the Affordable Care Act. Did Chomsky jump on his soapbox and denounce that party for not having any diversity of opinion and state that he knew one was not dealing with a political party? No! Why not? Because they did something he wanted them to do.

So, without shooting the messenger, I still value his opinion according to how much it cost me - nada.

(Playing devil's advocate)

Chomsky didn't analyze the Republicans, he just offered an ad hominem attack.

-He presumes that opposition to an unacceptable presidential foreign policy initiative is inherently "astonishing." Citizens in a democracy are not obliged to toe the line of the president just because -- he is an elected official, not a king -- and the president should take responsibility for his failure to build consensus in a system built on checks and balances.

-Was Chomsky equally critical of party-line votes on the Democratic side of the aisle, as was the case with Obamacare? The GOP leadership should not be faulted for leading an effective coalition.

Chomsky slams the Southern vote by default, dismissing it as "remnants of the former slave-holding States." Last I checked, those states had electoral votes that are as legitimate as any other, and much of the population of those states consists of former Northeasterners who have relocated to the Sun Belt.