New York Times calls out four Trump lies in one day

There seems to be a common thread in the New York Times' campaign coverage today. First, the lead story:

Donald Trump Clung to ‘Birther’ Lie for Years, and Still Isn’t Apologetic

It was not true in 2011, when Donald J. Trump mischievously began to question President Obama’s birthplace aloud in television interviews. “I’m starting to think that he was not born here,” he said at the time.

It was not true in 2012, when he took to Twitter to declare that “an ‘extremely credible source’” had called his office to inform him that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate was “a fraud.”

 It was not true in 2014, when Mr. Trump invited hackers to “please hack Obama’s college records (destroyed?) and check ‘place of birth.’” It was never true, any of it. Mr. Obama’s citizenship was never in question. No credible evidence ever suggested otherwise.

By Trump's edits shall you know him

Josh Marshall details various ways that Trump's current business is dependent on funding from Russian oligarchs and operatives dependent on Putin, then notes Putin's hand in the GOP platform:

The Trump Camp was totally indifferent to the platform. So party activists were able to write one of the most conservative platforms in history. Not with Trump's backing but because he simply didn't care. With one big exception: Trump's team mobilized the nominee's traditional mix of cajoling and strong-arming on one point: changing the party platform on assistance to Ukraine against Russian military operations in eastern Ukraine. For what it's worth (and it's not worth much) I am quite skeptical of most Republicans call for aggressively arming Ukraine to resist Russian aggression. But the single-mindedness of this focus on this one issue - in the context of total indifference to everything else in the platform - speaks volumes.

This sparked a recent memory.  Tony Schwartz, Trump's "co-author" of The Art of the Deal (actually its sole author, as the publisher verifies), recounts the sum of Trump's input:

Webb drops a bomb on his putative party

What kind of unspeakable crap is this from Jim Webb just minutes after Brown's victory was called?

"In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated."

What kind of game is Webb playing?  The HCR bill-creation process has been open ad nauseaum. Anyone interested has been able to follow every permutation of negotiation on every key permutation through a host of news sources. The whole of both Senate and House bills have been sitting on the web for weeks and months. The Senate has passed its bill, and the House is perfectly within its rights to pass it.

 Ezra Klein, Jonathan Cohn, Jonathan Chait, Josh Marshall have said it all. What is the point of taking office as a Democrat if you will not pass one of these both-more-than-credible health care reform bills  -- and put insurance in reach of tens of millions who currently can't get it while making a host of concerted, serious efforts to get costs under control? Who would not rather have a hand in passing it as a one-term representative or senator than rusticate for decades in either chamber after letting it die?

To state the obvious: Webb has no actual say on what the House votes on.  But it would seem that he's lending cover to those in the House who want to pause, and curl up, and die. Why is he undercutting the White House like this? What's the calculation? Motive?

We have one party that has not got the brains to govern. Will we now learn for certain that we have another party that hasn't got the guts?

Next post: Frank-ly disgusting