What’s bad optics for the goose can be bad optics for the gander

Seddique Mateen sitting behind Hillary Clinton at campaign rally in Florida. (WPTV NBC)

Former congressman Mark Foley sits behind Donald Trump during a rally in Florida. (CNN)

I’ll see your father of a mass murderer and raise you a disgraced former congressman.

The gamesmanship is getting penny-ante.

Earlier, Hillary Clinton spoke in Kissimmee, Fla., about the shooting at an Orlando gay nightclub that left 49 dead and more than 50 wounded.”I know how many people, family members, loved ones and friends are still grieving,” Clinton said.

Sitting behind her, clearly visible on camera, was Seddique Mateen, the father of the man who did the shooting.


While Donald Trump’s remarks about how “Second Amendment people” might behave warranted three stories in the morning paper, the bad Clinton optics warranted a brief.

Perhaps, the latest turn of events will get better play in the paper.

It seems Trump took the stage in a rally in Florida and made remarks about the people on the stage behind him. “The people behind me, they’re all on television, they’re gonna be famous,” Trump said. “They’re gonna be famous.”

He used this as a set up for this zinger: “And by the way, speaking of that, wasn’t it terrible when the father of the animal who killed the wonderful people in Orlando was sitting with a big smile on his face right behind Hillary Clinton?”

Sitting behind him was former Florida Rep. Mark Foley, who resigned in 2006 after being accused of sending sexually suggestive emails to congressional pages.


What comes around, goes around.


65 comments on “What’s bad optics for the goose can be bad optics for the gander

  1. A former congressman who sent inappropriate & sexually suggestive emails to teenage male pages in the house of representatives…versus a man whose terrorist son killed 49 people and wounded 53 inside of a gay nightclub? Not exactly a stellar example of moral equivalency if you ask me…but hey, it’s another diversion and distraction for the lapdog, leg humping media praetorian guard for Hillary.

  2. Rincon says:

    Clinton’s statement on the Orlando shooter attending her rally: “The rally was a 3,000-person, open-door event for the public. This individual wasn’t invited as a guest, and the campaign was unaware of his attendance until after the event.”

    I would be suspicious of the so called coincidence except for two factors:

    1) The number of people siting in audiences for Clinton’s rallies has to number in the tens of thousands. Maybe we’ll see Elvis in the next one.

    2) What could Hillary’s purpose have been to have this guy sit where he sat? If no one can specify a realistic motive, then it would be foolish to assert anything underhanded.

  3. Rincon says:

    Come to think of it, since Trump is the biggest beneficiary of this event, why not suspect that he paid the shooter’s father in small, unmarked bills to attend so that he could smear her?

    Another possibility is that he is against Clinton and knew that his presence at the rally would cost her.

    I don’t believe either of these, but they are theories as good as any others.

  4. Careful…you’re beginning to sound like Alex Jones.

  5. Vernon Clayson says:

    Let’s see, liberals love LGBTs so they must have been conflicted, dozens of gays were killed by a gay while the congressman was a more or less closeted gay that lost his job for pursuing boys, what a quandary, which way to go?? I don’t imagine “penis envy” has been a factor in any other election, outside of celebrity award campaigns.

  6. nyp says:

    today both the Dow, the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ hit record highs — the first time that has happened since Bill Clinton was President.

    I blame ObamaCare.

  7. Steve says:

    I blame it too, nyp.
    Shoulda hit those highs 5 years ago. Meanwhile many government bonds actually have negative interest!

  8. Rincon says:

    What’s really amazing is that, you appear to think Obamacare affected foreign countries as well, since most of their economies are in worse shape than ours. Simplicity can be a virtue, but simplistic thinking is not.

  9. Steve says:

    The foreign countries you speak of are, truly, far more socialist than the US. Even with the bashing we have been giving ourselves these last 7 years.

  10. nyp says:

    those Socialist hell-holes Germany, Australia, Japan, UK, Ireland, Spain, France, ….

  11. Steve says:

    You call them “hellholes” nyp. Not me. I state they are more socialist than the US and they are paying for it now.

  12. Rincon says:

    The billionaires are better off here. The average citizen is better off there. While the earnings for the middle class have stagnated here, they have risen in many of these other countries, especially Australia.

  13. Steve says:

    If they have a job, right Rincon?

    EU unemployment is over 10%

  14. Rincon says:

    People on welfare in Europe often have it better than some of those here that have jobs. Besides, aren’t you one of those who says that our unemployment figures are seriously understated?

  15. Steve says:

    Me? I say our economy should have come back 5 years ago.
    It’s in all the financials that this recovery is the slowest in US history and our labor participation rate is at historic highs. But this country is still better off than the EU zone.

  16. nyp says:

    Yes, if only we had imposed drastic austerity and the fed had jacked up interest rates the economy would have taken off like a rocket.
    That, and repeal pollution controls.

  17. Patrick says:

    Don’t forget about letting the automakers go bankrupt. That would have created…lots of a….foreclosure notice jobs?

  18. Steve says:

    Sure, nyp….because that worked so well in the EU……except the pollution controls. They didn’t try it.
    Now I’ve given them back, swallow your own words.

    And Patrick must really dislike Ford.

  19. Rincon says:

    This is not the slowest recovery. It took us far longer to recover from the Depression. Interesting that the recovery from the greatest economic downturn was the slowest and that one could say the recovery from the second greatest downturn is the second slowest. Is there a pattern here? And of course, in the Conservative mind, only the Administration has any impact on the economy. All other factors are moot. Hedgehog thinking.

    To quote the Happy Hooker, it’s not speed that counts, it’s endurance. Until this recovery is over, no one can judge it. The seeds of the next recession are sown during the previous recovery. This one has lasted a very long time. Slow may be better.

  20. UCLA:

    “Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

    “After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

    “‘Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,’ said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. ‘We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.’

    “In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.”


    Anti-competition and pro-labor. Does that sound familiar?

  21. Steve says:

    Not longest, Rincon. Slowest.

    The Great Depression had a recovery then a relapse in the late 30’s. It depends on what economist you decide to read as to whether it was a continuance or another recession.

  22. Patrick says:

    So, Cole and Ohanian decided that those building the Hoover Dam, and others building other projects that have sustained this country’s economic growth for nearly a century, weren’t really “employed” and therefore shouldn’t be counted. In some right wing make believe world of “economics”. Sad.

    “That means, everyone who got a job during the Great Depression via the Works Progress Administration (WPA) or Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), or any other of Roosevelt’s popular New Deal workfare programs, doesn’t get counted as employed in the statistics used by Cole, Ohanian and Shlaes.

    Let us reflect, for a moment, on what the men and women employed by those programs achieved (aside from earning cash to buy food and pay for shelter, of course). In his paper, “Time for a New, New Deal,” Marshall Auerback (pointed to by economist James Galbraith) summarizes:

    The government hired about 60 per cent of the unemployed in public works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York’s Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown.

    It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country’s entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors and painters, including Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock.”


  23. Steve says:


    It’s not about what was built.

    It’s about what caused the length of the depression.

  24. Rincon says:

    So far as I have been able to gather, the 1937 relapse has been blamed mostly on the decision by the Federal Reserve to double the reserve rate requirements for banks in 1936, but I suspect that whether New Deal policies detracted from economic recovery is controversial. Tell you what I’ll do though. I’ll buy into your UCLA paper on the Depression if you’ll buy into a paper by a UCLA Professor about global warming. There are lots of them. They have a whole Emmett Institute on Climate Change & the Environment. Whaddya say?

  25. Steve says:

    Told ya before, as far as I’m concerned the climate is changing.
    Human activity is a portion of the drivers effecting that change.
    None of your papers show a consensus as to what proportion human activity is driving climate change.

    So, done deal. We already agree.

  26. Rincon says:

    What we disagree about is the stupidity of acting on the minority of the evidence instead of the strong majority

  27. Steve says:

    You can’t show any minority or majority.


  28. Rincon says:

    You have shown ZERO evidence that the warming is natural. Zero is a minority in this situation.

  29. Steve says:

    At the (again) risk of repeating myself;

    “Human activity is a portion of the drivers effecting that change.”

  30. Rincon says:

    Sigh. Let me try again. You have shown ZERO evidence that ANY of the warming is natural.

  31. Steve says:

    You funny, Rincon.

    All climate is natural. Even that change that happened when there weren’t any homo sapiens on the planet.
    Humans are natural, just as lions, tigers and bears (oh my!) are natural. And all our burps add to greenhouse gasses.

    To claim that human activity is the only driver of climate change is to show oneself as completely deluded.

  32. Patrick says:


    The problem you have here is treating Steve like a person interested, and capable, or having a reasoned discussion.

    It’s frustrating even watching it, but you’ve definitely demonstrated the patience of Job, even when the wisdom of Solomon would have made you see that it’s pointless.

  33. Rincon says:

    Good point, Patrick. Occasionally, things degenerate into games of rhetoric. It’s OK though. My point still stands. While the evidence for human driven warming is abundant, that for the recent warming being induced by nonhuman causes is scant to absent.

  34. Steve says:

    reasoned discussion?
    How can any discussion be considered reasoned when the insistence is that ALL climate change is attributable to human activity?

    So, Patrick and Rincon insist all human activity is not natural….in fact, you guys insist humans are not natural.

    That explains a lot.

  35. Steve says:

    The IPCC uses words like “likely” and “very” all through their assessments.
    Human activity is NOT the only driver of climate…according to the IPCC.

    Read and heed. Then put that in your pipes and smoke it.


  36. Rincon says:

    Still no evidence that the warming would have occurred without our influence. So Steve opts for the side with no evidence. Got it.

  37. Steve says:

    Rincon claims the IPPC is lying (about this part anyway), figures.

    There are none so blind as those who follow only their political beliefs.

  38. Steve says:



    Now you will claim NASA is lying…

    Thing is, even they don’t get into the proportionality of causes, but 1950 is a very short span of time and (as you found out previously) the effects are irreversible.

    Adapt, it’s the only way. Mitigation might only slow the issue and at that, not by much.

    But you peeps go right on believing your politics on the subject, I will take the science….and not the politics pushing it.
    As Judith Curry found, those political people are very powerful and they are silencing all the scientists who, otherwise, would be letting the world know a whole lot more about it.

    And (again) you have never show any source that spells out what portion of the drivers is attributable to human activity vs natural activity.
    Go ahead, tell us how NASA is lying.

  39. nyp says:

    July 2016 was the warmest month ever recorded.


  40. The key word is recorded.

  41. Steve says:

    Yeah, until Patrick changes the meaning of that word!

  42. nyp says:

    These comments make it so much easier to understand how Donald Trump took over the Republican party.

  43. Steve says:

    Yeah, he had support from the Clinton’s!
    After all, outside the social “campaign promises” Clintons ARE Republicans!

  44. nyp says:

    so much derp

  45. Steve says:

    I love it when one of nyp’s own peeps sides with me.

  46. Steve says:

    And for Mr. Sebelius….you are far from alone on this page with that opinion, Patrick whole heartedly agrees with both you and I on it!

    Suck on that, nyp.

  47. nyp says:

    I had no idea that Hillary Clinton wanted to slash capital gains taxes, eliminate corporate income taxes, cut back on pollution regulations, repeal the Dodd-Frank financial protections and renounced the nuclear deal with Iran.

    Don’t know how I could have missed all that.

  48. Steve says:

    Guess you just weren’t looking…maybe you should get with Patrick so he can splain it to you Lucy!

  49. Rincon says:

    Steve: It’s obvious that you haven’t carefully read the NASA links you posted. To quote from one:

    “The first piece of evidence that the warming over the past few decades isn’t part of a natural cycle is how fast the change is happening. The biggest temperature swings our planet has experienced in the past million years are the ice ages. Based on a combination of paleoclimate data and models, scientists estimate that when ice ages have ended in the past, it has taken about 5,000 years for the planet to warm between 4 and 7 degrees Celsius. The warming of the past century—0.7 degrees Celsius—is roughly eight times faster than the ice-age-recovery warming on average.”

    Eight times faster. So what is your explanation? I’ve made it multiple choice to save you time:

    1) The scientists are all engaged in a vast conspiracy, so don’t trust them.
    2) The scientists are all a bunch of dopes. I only believe them when they tell me what I want to hear.
    3) Only eight times. Only a million years. Must be a coincidence.
    4) It’s not in the Constitution, so it doesn’t matter.
    5) They said roughly eight times. If it isn’t exact, I refuse to acknowledge it (Steve’s choice).
    5) Huh?

    Also from the article: “There is no plausible explanation for why such high levels of carbon dioxide would not cause the planet to warm.” Conservatives don’t need a plausible explanation. They navigate by blind faith alone.

  50. Steve says:

    I read them beginning to end, it’s you ignoring portions while cherry picking the bits you wish were the only bits.

    Since you now allow that climate does change outside of human presence,
    my statement (question) remains, to what degree or portion is this current cycle attributable to human activity?

    Both NASA and the IPCC decline to offer any numbers and you cannot provide anything refuting this.
    But, as you have also been schooled on, according to the consensus of climate scientists, the current cycle is unchangeable for at least several hundred years or even irreversible.

    So is mitigation a “passive” attempt? Or is adaptation the active one? That is the other question to be posing to your political forces crying for “green” energy.

    Lets take paradise and put up solar plants! ( I bet Joanie Mitchel would be totally verklempt today)

  51. Patrick says:


    I for one have no doubt that Steve “read” the articles he linked to. Leastways if reading means seeing print on a page.

    Unfortunately, Steve has made it pretty clear that his issue is comprehension (and citing to an article that makes his claim that “natural” means whatever the heck he claimed it meant, obviously confused and laughable)

    I don’t know if anything short of a brain transfusion is going to change that.

  52. Steve says:

    Typical, content free crap, from the sham plea king.

    You don’t disappoint Patrick.

    Not only have I read these articles. I’ve read much from places like SkepticalScience, NOAA and others.
    You see, I like science. Though I really dislike politically driven science, it gives me heartache just watching it be today’s flat earther society.

    You, on the other hand, absolutely live for the politically driven fantasy science you spew on a regular basis, shammy.

  53. Rincon says:

    Cherry picking my butt! The only contents of the second article were explanations of why scientists believe the recent warming is almost entirely man made. Logic dictates that when NASA says that warming is occurring eight times faster than any time going back to the last ice age, there are only three possibilities: 1) That man is responsible for all or almost all of the warming, 2) That we are seeing an unimaginably massive coincidence or 3) That the scientists are in collusion to fool all of us or are incompetent. See my list of picks that I made for your convenience.

  54. Steve says:

    Nope…..the words in the articles are clear and unambiguous. The science is easily understood to mean human activity IS A PART of the force changing the climate THIS CYCLE.

    There is NOTHING indicating what percent or what portion human activity is forcing the change, only that human activity is a needed part in explaining the current change in climate. And then ONLY after 1950.


    The science is clear. Your POLITICS is muddy…at best.

  55. Rincon says:

    I listed your choices, Pick one.

  56. Steve says:

    You don’t get to make the limits, specially when you insist on limits based on your politically driven interpretations….read (don’t interpret) the reports.

    They are clear. I am saying what is in them, it’s you who insists on interpreting them to the point they don’t have any of their original meaning, Rincon.

  57. Rincon says:

    Do you know of any alternatives other than those I listed? I believe my list includes all reasonable possibilities.

  58. Steve says:

    Welllll……at the risk of repeating myself…again.

    You could try and read the reports instead of “interpreting” them.


    Adapt. That is the key.

  59. Patrick says:


    “Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

  60. Rincon says:

    Have to agree, Patrick. Ironic that Steve accuses others of deflection, yet he assiduously avoids addressing my question. Seems to meet the definition of deflection perfectly.

  61. Steve says:

    its not a question.
    you deflect by trying to force the subject into your limitations

    Patrick just attacks.
    You see, he has deflected by making it about me, rather than looking at my argument.
    This is because my arguments are valid and fully supportable.

    You have both figured that out by now and you both are trying to change my statement from “what portion of climate change is attributable to human activity” to something you are able to argue.

  62. Rincon says:

    OK, Steve. You win again.

  63. Steve says:


    Enjoy your echo chamber.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s