Piling it on for the election

To its regularly scheduled shows encouraging blacks to see racism in the clouds, on slices of toast, and in tree rings CNN will add regularly scheduled programming to encourage women to see sexism in all the same places.

In both cases, of course, it will go with much saying that the solution - the only solution - is to vote to put Democrats in power.

Update 8/22/20.

BBC News is running a beautifully photographed, brilliantly produced series on African history emphasizing the achievements of sub-Saharan civilization and the beastly horrors of the transatlantic slave trade and European imperialism/colonialism.

BBC's 1619 project.

Deeply biased history as justification for racism against whites and a deeply racist political agenda.

A bad idea and a worse idea. Quite apart from the constitution.

Drafting men is the bad idea for any but the military purpose of pretty clearly true blue and honest to gosh national defense.

Does that include drafting men to participate in any mess we might get into because of our far flung Cold War alliances like Article 5 of NATO?

I hesitate to say aye or nay to drafting men to save Riga from the dreaded Russkies.

Yes, I suppose, given the alliance. But that is another argument against that alliance.

The even worse idea is drafting women.

Male-Only Military Draft Is Constitutional, Federal Appeals Court Rules

A federal appeals court upheld the constitutionality of the male-only military draft system on Thursday, overturning a lower court ruling.

In an opinion issued Thursday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans noted that the Supreme Court upheld the male-only draft in 1981 and said the 5th Circuit is a “strict stare decisis” court and “cannot ignore a decision from the Supreme Court,” adding that only the Supreme Court may revise its precedent.

. . . .

After arguments before the 5th Circuit in March, a federal commission recommended extending the draft to include women as well.

“The Commission concluded that the time is right to extend Selective Service System registration to include men and women, between the ages of 18 and 26. 

"This is a necessary and fair step, making it possible to draw on the talent of a unified Nation in a time of national emergency,” a summary to the commission’s final report said.

More full of shit activists

Biden campaign says 36% of senior staff are people of color

Joe Biden’s campaign says a little more than a third of its senior staff are people of color, sharing staff diversity data after facing pressure to answer questions on the issue.

The campaign said that 36% of its senior staff are people of color, but did not disclose how much of its overall campaign staff are people of color. 

The campaign also noted that women are in the majority of both the campaign’s senior staff and its full staff.

The candidate has faced warnings from activists that he must be careful not to take the Black community for granted. 

Right.

They might stay home, or vote for the Great Fat Orange Klansman, if he doesn't watch it.

I had a feeling they might.

Black voters helped deliver him the nomination, and will be key to his White House hopes this fall.

They and just under half the whites who vote this time.

Two or three times as many as the blacks who will vote for him.

Betty Crocker, you're next

Right after Mrs. Butterworth and Sarah Lee, but before Duncan Hines and Mr. Peanut.

Quaker has bent the knee.

Aunt Jemima brand to change name, remove image that Quaker says is 'based on a racial stereotype'

The Floyd demonstrations have mutated into a rebellion of the racial left that has so far left behind the sexual left.

That won't last.

PC eats itself?

The PC insist that gender or gender identity is different from sex, the former being a personality and character thing and the latter a physical thing.

You know, to put it very, very simply, you can be girly or butch with lady-parts or guy-junk.

It seems Rowling is being attacked for herself insisting on that distinction.

But maybe not.

If you insist the designations of male and female, man and woman, and the associated pronouns - not to mention use of the rest rooms or shower rooms - reflect sex you've decided gender, when opposed to sex, is merely a misfortune.

Or perhaps a joke in bad taste.

Red Guards in the UK try to take over higher education

Only fifth of UK universities have said they will 'decolonise' curriculum

And evident approval of these demands by The Guardian is part of why I never contributed money to The Guardian.

The Guardian is too far left for me on race issues.

Well, identity issues in general, actually.

Didn't like their stand on the Elgin Marbles, either.

Sanders supporters want to dump Biden over Reade.

Biden sexual assault claim divides Democrats as Republicans pounce

While high-profile Democrats voice support for the presumptive presidential nominee, some progressives call for a closer look at Tara Reade’s allegations

What?

Some progressives?

The allegations of sexual misconduct by Tara Reade against the former vice-president Joe Biden have caused new fault lines within the Democratic party, especially between its left wing and the establishment.

. . . .

Peter Daou, a Democratic strategist who has argued that the “Democratic establishment” has moved to undercut Reade’s allegations, said three basic factions had emerged.

“You have Biden’s opponents on the Republican side and they’re going to seize on this,” Daou said, adding that there was also “the left – progressives and leftists” who want to see Reade’s allegations taken more seriously, and then the Democratic party establishment figures who are trying to undermine Reade. 

The latter group, Daou said, is “just absolutely wedded to Biden right now, will not let go, so they’ll defend him at all costs – even if that means completely destroying the #MeToo movement”.

Does Daou, a Bernie fan this cycle,  mean to suggest it isn't too late to switch to his guy?

Is there a pattern here?

Similar questions are being asked by progressives and some more moderate Democratic party leaders. 

David Sirota, a former speechwriter and senior strategist for Bernie Sanders, has argued that Democrats have been too eager to discount Reade’s allegations.

Some are quite frank they want Biden out.

And they look to me like people who never really wanted him in.

Rebecca Parson, a liberal Democrat challenging the Washington state congressman Derek Kilmer, said in an interview on Friday that Biden should step down over Reade’s allegations. 

Parson said she believes Reade and thinks the charges create too much of a vulnerability for Biden in the 2020 presidential election.

. . . .

Parson added: “I think that Biden should withdraw and any one or more of the candidates who aren’t running should restart their campaign because the Democratic primary isn’t over yet.”

. . . .

A Politico/Morning Consult poll found that over a third of Democratic voters surveyed say the party should switch out Biden as their presumptive nominee because of the allegations.

Is that by any chance the third that were all in for Bernie?

Any guesses who they think should be the nominee, instead?

Bernie, himself, is still on board with Biden.

So far, he seems to really mean it that the top priority is to get Trump out of the White House.

Even if his own supporters don't, or are truly delusional about what that requires.

Biden should create his own Task Force of public health experts to give briefings on the virus, what's happening and what's wrong and what's needed

It's never too early to start up Radio Free Europe, is it?

The more Bozo tries to keep his public health people off stage the more chance Biden's own Task Force will have to steal the issue and the pulpit.

And all the better if Fauci and Birx jump ship, or at least publicly echo crucial points made by Biden's team.

Trump will keep them on only to keep them quiet, anyway.

They haven't been seen in public in nearly two weeks, says Chuck Todd.

But then Chuck just now said Montana is, among the lower 48, the state with largest land mass.

No doubt he meant area and somehow forgot both Texas and California.

But that's our source.

Biden demands justice for Georgia killing of black jogger

Sure, the virus can't be the only issue.

But it needs to be the leading issue.

And for the sake of the Democrats self-presentation as the sane party looking out for all Americans their supporters must avoid seeming to see this as mostly a minorities victimization issue.

So why did the losers lose?

Mayor Pete can't blame sexism and nobody much seems to blame homophobia, so everybody settles that he just never got support from black voters.

Nor, of course, did he ever get a sufficient slice of the rest of the vote.

And nor did Senators Warren or Harris or Klobuchar, but that's not stopping them and the Ladies' Grievance Chorus behind them screaming about sexism and glass ceilings and the like.

Several writers in The Guardian have played a big role in that chorus.

Do they realize this is an attack on Democratic primary voters?

Have they forgotten that Hillary beat Bernie and actually won the popular vote in 2016?

Meanwhile, pundits on Morning Joe like Eugene Robinson are joining the host in scratching their heads about Bernie's continuing viability in the face of his impending losses in the South, thanks to his failure to tap into any significant part of the black vote.

Warren quits, endorses nobody, blames sexism, men, glass ceiling

Elizabeth Warren quitting 2020 Democratic presidential race

Dale Peck's suppressed piece on Mayor Pete

My Mayor Pete Problem

His problem is that Pete is way too centrist (he refuses to reject capitalism, for instance) and not bursting into flames.

That seems to be about it.

Oh, and the tone is snarky and pissy and, uh, fagotty.

So (1) why did anybody want to force TNR to take this down from their website and (2) why did they do it?

Mary Pete and I are just not the same kind of gay. 

(For those of you wondering about “Mary Pete”: a couple of months ago I asked Facebook what the gay equivalent of Uncle Tom was, and this was the answer at which we collectively arrived.) 

. . . .

Mary Pete and I have a lot in common, but at a certain point we came to a fork in the road and I took the one less traveled and he took the one that was freshly paved and bordered by flowers and white picket fences and every house had a hybrid in the driveway and some solar panels on the ceiling, but discrete ones, nothing garish, nothing that would interfere with the traditional look of the neighborhood or the resale value of your home.

By which I mean: Mary Pete is a neoliberal and a Jeffersonian meritocrat, which is to say he’s just another unrepentant or at least unexamined beneficiary of white male privilege who believes (just as Jay Inslee believes he’s done more for women’s reproductive rights than Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar) that he can make life better for all those people who are not like him, not because he knows anything about their lives but because he’s smart and nice and well-meaning, and when smart nice well-meaning people run things everything works out for the best. 

That’s just, you know, logical. 

It’s like, science. 

Like Kirsten Gillibrand, he believes in “healthy capitalism,” which is a bit like saying you believe in “healthy cancer”: Yeah, you can (usually) treat it, but wouldn’t you rather be cured?

Most of what I dislike about Mary Pete was expressed in this Current Affairs article, which does a good job of using his own words (mostly from, ugh, Shortest Way Home, his memoir pretending to manifesto) to damn him. 

Shortest Way Home conjures a young Harvard student who thinks the word “edgy” is sufficient to describe both proto-Dumpster fascist Lyndon LaRouche and Noam Chomsky. 

His description of Harvard Square takes in those actors who belong to the school; the homeless people who live there are invisible to him, or, even worse, not worth mentioning. 

He seems perfectly content to dismiss left-wing student activists as “social justice warriors” despite the fact that this phrase is paradigmatic in right-wing discourse. 

He speaks fondly of his time at McKinsey, a company regularly described as one of the most evil corporations in the world. 

He joined the military long after 9/11 could sort-of-but-not-really be invoked to justify the U.S. propensity to go to other countries and kill lots of people. 

By 2007 it was no longer possible to pretend that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were anything other than failed, murderous exercises in empire-building and/or revenge, but despite the fact that these were the only places he was likely to serve he signed up anyway. 

And though he loves to talk about the notes he left his family in case he didn’t come back, by all accounts his chances of seeing combat were as low as they could be—but boy, he sure got a lot of cute pictures in uniform out of it!

Every move is simultaneously cynical and morally oblivious.

. . . .

Like Obama, Buttigieg seems always to be saying that the United States is the only place where someone like him could’ve succeeded, and that he wants everyone to enjoy the same peculiarly American successes that he’s had. 

But unlike Obama (whose naïveté was at least partly a pose), Buttigieg’s biography belies the idea that his success was either hard won or particularly unlikely. 

He’s lived the life of a comfortably middle-class white male, but he acts as if it’s his natural gifts (by which he means his intelligence and his ability to speak seven languages and play the piano, although they’re actually his whiteness and maleness and financial security) that have raised him above from the rabble.

. . . .

Free education? 

Why, that’s unfair to the working class! They’ll end up paying for the education of all those millions and millions of billionaires’ children! What are we, czarist Russia?

And so on and on.

Just as a lot of blacks thought O wasn't black enough, alienated enough, angry enough, or radical enough - pretty much that he should've been more like, and publicly more like, Rev. Jeremiah Wright - there is no doubt a lot of gays see Mayor Pete as way, way too tame.

So, that fact needs to be suppressed?

And the reaction of the lame-stream press was pretty weird in its own way.

NBC News:

New Republic magazine pulls down homophobic op-ed about Pete Buttigieg by an openly gay literary critic

Homophobic?

The New Republic has retracted a vulgar and homophobic op-ed about Pete Buttigieg by openly gay literary critic Dale Peck.

The magazine had published the piece, titled “My Mayor Pete Problem,” on its website on Friday.

In the piece, Peck described Buttigieg as “the gay equivalent of Uncle Tom,” and he referred to the presidential candidate as “Mary Pete” throughout the column.

Peck argued that because Buttigieg waited until his early 30s to come out as gay, he would be too preoccupied with sex and drugs to be an effective president. 

The piece also crudely speculated about intimate details of Buttigieg’s personal life.

Almost immediately, social media erupted in widespread condemnation.

. . . .

Hours later the op-ed was taken down and replaced by an editor’s note saying: “Dale Peck’s post ‘My Mayor Pete Problem’ has been removed from the site, in response to criticism of the piece’s inappropriate and invasive content. 

We regret its publication.”

The New Republic's editor, Chris Lehmann, added separately in a statement, "The New Republic recognizes that this post crossed a line, and while it was largely intended as satire, it was inappropriate and invasive."

Satire? Of what? How?

The only Dem who agrees with me and with most Democrats and most Americans?

Bernie Sanders Fires Back at Joe Biden Over Medicare for All Claims

I think this is worth a Pinocchio.

Biden said Saturday that his proposal for a public option would cost about $750 billion over 10 years, according to CNN. 

He is the only Democratic front-runner that opposes a single-payer health plan enrolling all Americans in a Medicare-like program.

That last is a lie, if the Times is right.

As of June 23, 8 of the Dems supported M for A.

12 supported some sort of public option, including Mayor Pete, Casto, and Joe B.

3 did not respond to the Times' question.

A new survey of the Democratic candidates by The New York Times finds that many of them prefer less sweeping changes than the Medicare for All Act, the single-payer bill introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders and supported by Senator Elizabeth Warren and several other presidential hopefuls. 

A majority of candidates in the survey — including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the leader in early polls — said they would rather add a “public option” in the health care system that would compete with private plans.

The public option was once considered too far-reaching — champions of the idea in Congress could not muster quite enough support to include it in the Affordable Care Act in 2010. 

But it is now seen as a more moderate alternative to Mr. Sanders’s plan, which would all but eliminate private health insurance and enroll everyone in a government-run program.

Even some candidates who back the single-payer approach of Medicare for All told The Times they would also be willing to support a choice between some kind of public option and private insurance, an acknowledgment that many Americans like their private coverage and want the choice to keep it.

. . . .

The findings underscore that the Democratic field, like the electorate, has not moved en masse to left-wing positions on health care. 

While Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren are among the most full-throated supporters of major change, influencing the conversation with their provocative ideas, many other candidates say they are inclined to try to broaden options for health care rather than wholly replace the current system of coverage with a strictly government-run one.

“We don’t need to blow up our current health care system to provide everyone with high-quality, affordable care,” Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado wrote, explaining his preference for a public option.

Thing is, Joe B is leaving not much room for other moderates.

Why choose an unknown, if you are a moderate, when a superstar is on the ticket?

Things are a little different for the, uh, immoderate voters.

Because so many of them are identitarians who really, really don't want to vote for an old white guy, Sanders doesn't have the same effect on them that Biden has on moderate voters.

For each of Sanders and Biden, the second choice most popular among their voters is the other old white guy.

That might be a dash of identity politics getting in there, but I think it's name recognition and maybe just a preference for experience.

You know, you may say you're a girl, but we both know you're not.

Actually, I sympathize with these bathroom bans.

Unenforceable (would door guards be posted to - ahem - frisk people at the entrances?) but good symbolism.

I am not in the least interested in licensing persecution of these folks, but such bans are not persecution.

GOP House nominee compares his anti-LGBTQ bigotry to saving Jews from the Holocaust

Likewise, I oppose and deplore as absurd mockery gay marriage.

But these are not half so serious to me as my opposition to abortion.

And yet none of these individually, nor all of them collectively, are deal breakers for me.

On social as well as class issues, voters are faced with two opposing teams increasingly committed to extremes.

One party favors abortion on demand for the whole term of the pregnancy and is apt to favor infanticide on demand as soon as they dare, while the other favors a nearly total prohibition of abortion and would never in human imagination favor infanticide.

I am closer to the Republicans; forced to choose I will choose their position.

One party favors gay marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, women in combat, and even greater absurdities in deference to sexual outlawry, post-modernist feminism, and gender revolutionism while the other would turn back the clock on the law regarding all things sexual to 1950.

I am about equidistant from both, though I find the Dem position far less cruel though much more absurd.

Forced to choose I will choose the Dems position.

With the GOP and increasingly against the Dems I favor capital punishment and long sentences.

To my knowledge there is not any actual, formal issue position of the contemporary GOP regarding race that I do not agree with.

I would prefer that whites remain a politically dominant demographic majority in the US, since I have no wish that I, my family members, or my near descendants suffer the greater or lesser indignities of minority status.

Sometimes I sympathize with the libertarian view that private economic agents ought not to be subject to government-enforced nondiscrimination.

And I generally sympathize with the legal toleration of racially, religiously, or otherwise exclusive private clubs, such as men-only or whites-only country clubs.

I am pro-capitalism (and anti-socialism and anti-Communism) without being personally a capitalist, and favor the careful sort of free-trade/fair-trade, globalizing deals favored by O and Hillary and center-left Democrats as well as Republicans.

And I would much prefer the American security forces use torture, if necessary (and useful), to prevent a serious radiological, let alone a genuine nuclear, attack on the US, or maybe on anyone, though I would also prefer that the police eschew it and not return to the third degree as a tool for choking out false confessions in preference to actually trying to find out and punish the truly guilty.

Forced to choose, I prefer a system in which education is overwhelmingly in private hands, and some of it religiously affiliated in one way or another, rather than that education be overwhelmingly - much less entirely - in the hands of state agencies committed to an official view of anything or an official secularism.

Why do I vote for Democrats, every single time?

Because they have built and today defend over a century of progressive achievements in aid of the common people nearly all of which have benefitted, do benefit, or will benefit myself and my wife and my immediate - however stupidly ungrateful - family.

While Republicans have opposed those achievements every step of the way and to this day would tear them all down if they could, putting myself, my wife, and my immediate family in a perilous fix.

Why am I a registered Democrat?

So I can vote in my state's closed primaries.

Too white, too old, too male, and especially too centrist for TV and Internet Democrats, generally

That's pretty much what opinionators in Dem media have been saying about Joe Biden since forever.

And then Kamala Harris attacked him for not being, in the past, the kind of Democrat she and the further left candidates are on race and on abortion, today.

Under severe pressure and with no credible sincerity at all he has abandoned his long-time opposition to abortion (he never actually called for Roe to be overturned).

He has not, to my knowledge, apologized for or retrospectively abandoned his past opposition to school busing to achieve racial balance, nor indicated his view of its role today.

So for days and days the media, especially the Democrat media, have harped on all this.

But his leadership in the polls does not seem to have been affected.

People have been saying it for years

Women playing men's sports is of interest disproportionately to lesbians, and not that much to anyone, women included.

Lesbians as players more than as fans, but really both.

Part of why women athletes are paid less than their male counterparts is that the fan base isn't anywhere near as large.

And it's a good reason.

Men mostly want to watch men.

As do women.

Androgyny Is Now Fashionable in the W.N.B.A.

They are looking like the lesbians they are and for so long pretended not to be.

PS.

Women in the police, women in the fire department, women in the military, especially women in combat arms.

We always knew it but for the longest time nobody was allowed to say so.

Well, men weren't allowed to say so.

Still aren't, really.

Maybe Trump will say it for us and get a bump up to 43% from his current ceiling of 41.

(And yet.)

Is that still allowed by the PC fanatics?

Can people regret blindness in their children?

If it were possible, would people be allowed to cure or seek cures for blindness?

And what about sexual orientation?

Ann Widdecombe one-woman show pulled after gay therapy remark

Parents often regret not having, or having too few, grandchildren.

Not exactly an unrelated thing, is it?

Or is that, too, no longer allowed?

Wanting your own children and grandchildren, yours by blood, yours by sperm and ova, flesh of your flesh, rather than somebody else's by adoption.

PC so often seems to run against nature, what has emerged from the sculpting of humans and human desire by evolution.

Democrats' ideology police have been hammering Joe Biden

Joe Biden Had A Very Bad Week

They already don't like him because he's an OLD, WHITE, MAN.

And they already don't like him because he's not exactly consumed with enthusiasm for the AOC/Bernie agenda, and not at all the guy to renounce capitalism in favor of socialism, even under pressure.

But he did bend on the Green New Deal and he cravenly and without a shred of credibility folded completely on the Hyde Amendment, gaining nothing but a respite in hostile criticism FROM DEMOCRATS.

Faux Democrats and outright non- and anti-Democrats of the further left have joined arms with the most radical of baby-killing feminists and anointed themselves the ideology police of the Democratic Party, and have largely gotten away with it.

The Second Sex

Women are as smart as men, by and large.

They are less aggressive, assertive, and violent.

They are weaker, too, on average.

They are partly on that account, but also because they bear and nurse children while men do neither, the second sex, assigned by nature to that place.

Everything is what it is, and not another thing.

Why then should we wish to be deceived?

Oh, and all this rot about women not being paid for housekeeping, child rearing, and the like is just a ludicrous hoax.

Everything is what it is.

I am a Democrat and a liberal.

I am not a fool.

It's not just abortion in peril

The GOP wants to make it possible for states to criminalize contraception and, though they won't admit it, not only to abolish gay marriage but criminalize gay sex.

The right to privacy was first asserted to be a right against state interference with one's sex life in Griswold, and Republicans have all along opposed it and everything Democrats have done with it to abolish laws criminalizing disobedience to the strictures of Christian moral theology relating to sex.

There is still the establishment clause, but it's clear as a bell no GOP court will ever agree that clause forbids the legal imposition by the federal government or by the states of Christian sexual morality, either.

In this as in all else, the Republican Party represents a radical minority of the people of our country absolutely insistent on imposing its will on the rest of us by hook or by crook.

Hence the importance of what happened in a case having nothing directly to do with abortion.

Supreme Court Liberals Raise Alarm Bells About Roe v. Wade

It's about stare decisis.

Hyatt made clear that the five conservative justices are perfectly content to overrule a precedent merely because they disagree with it.

. . . .

The doctrine of stare decisis directs judges, including Supreme Court justices, to adhere to prior decisions even when they think those prior decisions are wrong. 

Under the doctrine, justices shouldn’t overrule an earlier ruling unless several things are true: 

The decision is unworkable and has generated inconsistent results; it rests on outdated facts; and it represents an outdated mode of legal thinking. 

The court is also not supposed to overrule precedent where parties have relied on the decision to structure their lives.

Many legal scholars have identified stare decisis as a substantial obstacle to the overturning of Roe, since women have relied on Roe and it is not unworkable. 

Roe is also not an aberration — it is part of a long line of cases protecting rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. 

Nor does Roe rest on outdated facts; medical advances have made abortion safer, whereas maternal mortality rates in the United States have climbed.

Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, who says she is pro-choice, invoked stare decisis to explain her votes to confirm the nominations of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the court. 

She pointed to the nominees’ promises to adhere to stare decisis in their confirmation hearings to ward off the suggestion that they would overturn Roe. 

People sometimes likewise suggest that Chief Justice John Roberts, who has a reputation for being an institutionalist, will display a strong commitment to stare decisis.

In Hyatt, however, the five conservative justices based their decision to overrule the earlier decision almost exclusively on their belief that it was an “erroneous precedent” that “is contrary to our constitutional design.” 

The justices’ lack of respect for precedent was evident in the amount of space the majority opinion devoted to stare decisis — a mere three paragraphs — and in what the court said about it.

That is what the Bible says.

If you don't like it your problem is with the Bible and the people who adhere to it.

Face that.

Your problem is with Christianity and the Christian God.

Franklin Graham to Buttigieg: Homosexuality 'sin' to be 'repentant of' not 'flaunted'

While Franklin Graham once spoke on behalf of a unified and mighty evangelical voting bloc, today the situation is complicated by shifting attitudes toward homosexuality that are segmented by political party and age. 

A poll conducted this year by the Public Religion Research Institute found that majorities of every religious denomination support extending nondiscrimination protections to LGBTQ people. 

A majority — 54 percent — of white evangelical protestants support extending such protections.

This religious group’s attitudes “are highly structured by party affiliation,” the poll found. 

The poll found that 47 percent of white evangelical Republicans support LGBTQ protections, compared to 58 percent of white evangelical independents and 71 percent of white evangelical Democrats. 

If Graham speaks for any group, it is perhaps for the slender majority of Republican-identified white evangelical Christians who oppose LGBTQ rights.

. . . .

Franklin Graham, son of the late Billy Graham, was a vocal critic of former President Bill Clinton’s sexual improprieties and wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “Clinton’s Sins Aren’t Private” in 1998. 

But after President Donald Trump was accused of having an illicit affair with adult film actor Stormy Daniels, Graham told the Associated Press it’s “nobody’s business.”