Everything is being 're-litigated in the negative' in the 'Byzantine system,' in which 'Gestapo tactics' are being used to 'disenfranchise the base of the party.'
In other words, everyone's got a gripe, and every gripe is recorded. The above phrases in quotes all came from today's commentary and the outlook from all sides doesn't seem to be good. We've gotten to a point that in our personal lives when given the choice we expect to get what we want when we want it and if not, why bother? Our politics reflects that notion instead of a more professional stance of putting the small differences aside in order to move forward. In politics, like life, you really can not have it all. That our politics have become a futile zero-sum type of game, without compromise, the result is extreme or unpopular or unrealistic candidates.
Where this has left us on the Democratic side of things is with the unpopular (Sec. Clinton) and the unrealistic (Sen. Sanders). In the senator's interview today he once again walked back the 'unqualified' comment about Sec. Clinton but immediately pivoted to question her judgement citing the former secretary's support for trade deals, fracking and Super PACs that support her. We confess that we're not experts in trade deals, but we can say this about them: They're inevitable and they'll obviously never be perfect so we have to consider them in that frame of mind. In terms of fracking, it's great that we can lead the world in natural gas production but the cost is the great possibility of permanently damaging large supplies of our clean drinking water - a resource that is becoming more scarce worldwide. Also altering our geology so quickly and drastically in some regions that it has precipitated an increase in seismic activity, in Oklahoma for example where earthquakes are now a common occurrence. Fracking is fair game as an issue. However, we find Sen. Sanders's argument that Sec. Clinton's judgement should be questioned because of Super PACs supporting her not all that compelling. Remember that Super PACs came into existence because of the Supreme Court's decision on the Citizens United case fought because of a film that a corporation made about Hillary Clinton, hence giving us the illogical 'corporations are people.' You can equally make effective arguments for rejecting them or using them. The fact is that the other side, unless you're a billionaire, are going to use them to their fullest capacity. This column comes down on the side of Citizens United being one of the worse decisions by the high court in our lifetimes, but it's the reality.
The Democratic debate has gotten testy (or whatever equivalent adjective you want to use) for sure but at least it's been mostly centered on policy and the means to achieve goals. This obviously contrasts what's going on with the Republicans who it clearly seems are headed for a contested convention. How do we know this? Hmmm... Maybe because one today's guests was Paul Manafort whose title in the Trump campaign is convention manager. Mr. Manafort was an advisor for Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and the Bushes George. Now he works for Mr. Trump, which just goes to show how much some serious Republican power brokers hate Ted Cruz. It's like one of those blind hates like Republicans have for Sec. Clinton and President Obama.
Also, it seems like there are Republican power brokers, as we called them, on both sides of the Trump/ Cruz nomination argument, but here's how it lines up. Republicans who have been or who have worked with politicians seem to side with Trump whereas the conservative establishment press tends to back Cruz - the practical versus the ideological. Political operatives are backing Trump because he's always talking deals where conversely Senator Cruz speaks of ideology.
The National Review's Rich Lowry, whose publication devoted an entire issue about being against Trump, said that the nominee from the Republican party is going to be either Trump or Cruz so you can easily conclude who Mr. Lowry backs. It's the same with Glenn Beck who is a Cruz supporter, but who is also convinced that he'll be the nominee as well because he's a 'never Trump' guy. Where Mr. Beck and Mr. Lowry also agree is that anyone else as the nominee was effectively blow up the GOP. But as we've previously said, Mr. Trump is in the race until the end so he's either the Republican nominee or he's the third party.
Panel: Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Molly Ball, The Atlantic; Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Rich Lowry, The National Review
One more thing...
We're not sure what's going on with House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) but we don't like it. First, he didn't want to be Speaker of the House unless he was the consensus pick, in his mind riding in to save the day. Well, what is up with the "White Knight" complex and the campaign ad that he put out this week? He says he doesn't want the presidential nomination but these not so subtle signals and the weaselly "I'm-not-campaigning" campaigning indicate otherwise and as you can tell, it's really rubbing us the wrong way.
No comments:
Post a Comment