Not only is there no show this week, but what's also been a no show this week is courage on the part of Republican politicians for conservative principles.
In the light of Donald Trump not holding firmly on any kind of principle, Republican politicians are coming out in support of him this week after Mr. Trump being in Washington for a whole half of a day. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) said that he wasn't there yet. Yet. We've reached the stage where we have to commend someone in the party leadership for at least holding out this long, which is sad commentary. Incidentally, 'sad' is a word we heard repeatedly this week to describe Senator John McCain (R-AZ) due to his support of Mr. Trump, who disrespected the war hero because he got shot down and was held prisoner for five and half years. These past nine years prompt people to say, What on earth has happened to John McCain?
Former Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) called Mr. Trump a narcissist, egomaniac; Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said a speck of dirt is more qualified to be president (good one); Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) invoked cancer, and yet they are all endorsing him. Establishment Republicans question Mr. Trump's conservative principles because his views have veered to only the extremes on the right and left. And now the conservative electorate, not the bigoted constituency, has to question the principles of these 'conservatives' as well. What makes it pathetic (yes, a strong word) is that it's so nakedly obvious why they're doing it. McCain and Paul are running for reelection in November in states that Trump won and Jindal and Perry are looking for a spot in the administration or God forbid on the ticket.
Paul Ryan can not pull a Senator Kelly Ayotte and say that he's not endorsing anyone but will support the nominee, which means nothing. He's the Speaker of the House and eventually he's going to have to come down on this one way or another. Postulating, we suspect that Speaker Ryan will come out with an endorsement with reservation, citing conservative principles as the reason for reservation and that Mr. Trump embrace them. But the rub with that tact is that it reeks of a stance solely of self-preservation too much.
That seems like the only 'conservative' principle on display at the moment. Divided conservative will not only fall, but they will fail. However, united may render the same result.
Also...
As we've stated before, we do not subscribe to the "Hillary Clinton is in with the banks" argument. If you're the former U.S. Senator of New York or the Sec. of State those are people someone in that position has to deal with, fact. If it gets to the official point of Sec. Clinton facing Mr. Trump in the general, we'd say this about continuing to use that argument against her - Donald Trump is the bank. Along the way in his New York business building career, if he wasn't in bed with those people, those people were in bed with him. Either way, they're all in the same bed. He is the bank.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Sunday, May 08, 2016
5.8.16: The Broken Republican Establishment Unable To Tame The Tiger
There's little doubt from all the discussion on today's "Meet The Press" that the Republican party is in trouble and still doesn't know what to do with Donald Trump as their standard bearer. Chuck Todd even started the program with "Trump is tearing the party apart." Speaker of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan (R-WI) said this week of supporting Donald Trump that 'he's not there yet.'
When asked in his interview if Speaker Ryan should be the chairman of the convention in July even if he didn't support him, Mr. Trump didn't answer the question but it was clearly implied that the answer was no. In the face of Republican establishment figures who are supporting Trump and simply say that he needs to be surrounded by good [read: establishment conservatives] people and he'll come back into the Republican fold, the panel was rightly skeptical because Mr. Trump, indeed, can not be changed or 'coached up,' as Eugene Robinson put it. The tiger will not be tamed.
Sticking with that analogy for a moment, the Republican establishment has been riding that tiger hard since the Tea Party election year of 2010 and now its clawing and biting at it. Raising the minimum wage and increasing taxes on the wealthy are not Republican orthodoxy but they're the positions that Donald Trump espouses according to what he said today. In his interview, he explained that his tax policy is really only a proposal that still has to be negotiated, which is really a more on the level answer than what you'd hear from any ideologue on either side. In said negotiations, Mr. Trump said that he was less concerned about the wealthy and more focused on the middle class, in accordance to what he's been hearing from constituents on the campaign trail.
We're sure that he's also heard the complaint that it's unreasonable to live on $7.25 per hour as a minimum wage, to which Mr. Trump has also changed his position. This and the tax blasphemy have some Republicans calling him a fake conservative for such Democratic positions, namely Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) whom Donald Trump labels a 'light-weight.' For people like Republican strategist Kellyanne Conway and Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), both on the program today, we understand the conundrum their in, as also with Mr. Ryan. Give up your principles and support the nominee or stick with them and disregard the voice of the electorate.
However, consider that for a moment. The Republican constituency likes Donald Trump because he 'tells it like it is,' and the establishment accuses him of non-conservative values and viewpoints. You see where we're going with this... Donald Trump - not a Republican establishment politician - is giving people his agenda of which some parts coincide with Democratic policy points, it illustrates how the Republican constituency has been voting against its best interest all along, and Mr. Trump is waking them up to that. The awakening is rude, and powerful.
Panel: Kellyanne Conway, Republican strategist; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Matt Bai, Yahoo News
One More Thing...
Yes, short post this week, but if you read this column you get it, and there's only so much we can say that hasn't already been said about the way Donald J. Trump is changing U.S. politics. The Republican party is in trouble and if the establishment puts forward a third party candidate, the trouble will be worse. There simply are enough powerful establishment voices on the same page to effectively rally around another candidate not named Trump.
When asked in his interview if Speaker Ryan should be the chairman of the convention in July even if he didn't support him, Mr. Trump didn't answer the question but it was clearly implied that the answer was no. In the face of Republican establishment figures who are supporting Trump and simply say that he needs to be surrounded by good [read: establishment conservatives] people and he'll come back into the Republican fold, the panel was rightly skeptical because Mr. Trump, indeed, can not be changed or 'coached up,' as Eugene Robinson put it. The tiger will not be tamed.
Sticking with that analogy for a moment, the Republican establishment has been riding that tiger hard since the Tea Party election year of 2010 and now its clawing and biting at it. Raising the minimum wage and increasing taxes on the wealthy are not Republican orthodoxy but they're the positions that Donald Trump espouses according to what he said today. In his interview, he explained that his tax policy is really only a proposal that still has to be negotiated, which is really a more on the level answer than what you'd hear from any ideologue on either side. In said negotiations, Mr. Trump said that he was less concerned about the wealthy and more focused on the middle class, in accordance to what he's been hearing from constituents on the campaign trail.
We're sure that he's also heard the complaint that it's unreasonable to live on $7.25 per hour as a minimum wage, to which Mr. Trump has also changed his position. This and the tax blasphemy have some Republicans calling him a fake conservative for such Democratic positions, namely Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) whom Donald Trump labels a 'light-weight.' For people like Republican strategist Kellyanne Conway and Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), both on the program today, we understand the conundrum their in, as also with Mr. Ryan. Give up your principles and support the nominee or stick with them and disregard the voice of the electorate.
However, consider that for a moment. The Republican constituency likes Donald Trump because he 'tells it like it is,' and the establishment accuses him of non-conservative values and viewpoints. You see where we're going with this... Donald Trump - not a Republican establishment politician - is giving people his agenda of which some parts coincide with Democratic policy points, it illustrates how the Republican constituency has been voting against its best interest all along, and Mr. Trump is waking them up to that. The awakening is rude, and powerful.
Panel: Kellyanne Conway, Republican strategist; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Matt Bai, Yahoo News
One More Thing...
Yes, short post this week, but if you read this column you get it, and there's only so much we can say that hasn't already been said about the way Donald J. Trump is changing U.S. politics. The Republican party is in trouble and if the establishment puts forward a third party candidate, the trouble will be worse. There simply are enough powerful establishment voices on the same page to effectively rally around another candidate not named Trump.
Sunday, May 01, 2016
5.1.16: A Gut Connection to Our New Political Reality
Republicans sewed this one good establishing a deep root that has now spawned the monster Venus Flytrap that is the Donald Trump candidacy, eating everything that comes close to it. The New York Times' Tom Friedman explained that voters are listening with their guts and not their ears and that they're making a gut connection with Donald Trump. Right... but for all the non-Trump supporters it's more of a gut-wrenching connection. However, after being complicit in so many promises broken and the zero-sum politics that has obstructed the passage of any meaningful legislation, what did the Republican establishment expect?
This was clearly, sadly, reinforced on today's program during the interview with Ted Cruz who doesn't even understand (or he does and that makes it deplorable) that he's the problem. He's the poster-child for zero-sum politics, and he's the zero in the equation.
Kristen Welker succinctly pointed to the reason why Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) will never be the president of the United States, ever, and that is the 2013 government shutdown that he engineered. It accomplished nothing with the exception of actually going against Republican principles because it cost us money and accomplished nothing - governmental wasteful spending. On top of that, it gave the Republican party a deep-bruise black eye that they've worn since then all the way up to the moment of the Trump candidacy announcement. Not good.
The National Journal's Ron Fournier counted nine times that Senator Cruz did not answer the question of whether he would support Donald Trump of not if he were the nominee. Mr. Fournier threw in that if Cruz can't even answer that question what about the tougher ones that come with being president. (Go back to the last paragraph. Ever.) We get it, Senator Cruz can not concede anything as he stated but the fact is that just as he has done with his colleagues, he's done with the electorate - alienated too many of them with extreme positions delivered with a prickly demeanor. Look past John Boehner's Lucifer in the fresh comment to what he said after, describe Cruz as a miserable son of a bitch.
And now, whether Senator Cruz will admit it or not, Donald Trump has wrapped up the primary and is going to be the party's nominee. Mr. Trump is going to win in Indiana on Tuesday, Mr. Cruz's last stand state, and then the Texas senator is going to have to give serious thought to that question he couldn't answer today. He's going to have to come to grips with something that most Americans already knew. Ever. Coming out in the press - which by the way, cudos to Mr. Todd for defending against Mr. Cruz lousy charge that the media is comprised of liberal partisan Democrats, something that Fox News contend with - is that the Republican establishment doesn't have the stomach for a contested convention.
So given the eye-opening new reality upon us, we pray that Mr. Friedman is way off in his postulation that we're one large October/November terrorist attack away from a Trump presidency because as he continued to opine that he thinks this is the worst time to conduct foreign policy. Suffice to say that there is so much nuance required that a thorough understanding of foreign policy is a necessity.
It's not ISIS that is the greatest danger, but weak and failing governments as CIA Diretor John Brennan mentioned in his interview that create the environment for terrorist organizations like Boko Haram and ISIS exist and thrive. But on this fifth anniversary, to the day, of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the thought of him makes us think of Abu Musab al-Zarquawi who founded Al Qaeda in Iraq and whose methods are still earnestly believed in and practiced by the organization that it spawned, ISIS. Zarqawi has been dead for ten years so it is a phenomenon as Mr. Brennan pointed out, not confined to the territory in Iraq and Syria. ISIS, as we know, has a presence in Libya, Europe, Philippines, among others so keeping that in mind along with the Zarqawi dynamic, we agree that killing ISIS' present leader Al-Baghdadi is important, but only symbolically, not as much in the practical sense we're afraid.
With not only ISIS because all the other challenges the U.S. faces in the world, one teleprompter speech from Mr. Trump is not reassuring. It didn't take Thomas Friedman to tell us that Mr. Trump hasn't done his foreign policy homework to know that fact, though we're glad he said it.
The thought of Donald Trump making such careful decisions makes us a little queasy, to be honest.
Our advice, from here to November we'd advise to not eat too much because there are going to be a lot of gut-wrenching and gut-clenching moments coming up on this roller-coaster ride of a general election, and you'll want to keep it down.
Panel: Tom Friedman, The New York Times; Kristen Welker, NBC News; Ron Fournier, The National Journal; Doris Kearns-Goodwin, presidential historian
One more thing...
Good panel today, serious discussion, in which we appreciate the contributions of context that Dr. Goodwin provides such as the "American First" rhetoric in Donald Trump's speech, and that it was first a movement in American politics in 1939 that became tinged by Charles Lindbergh's anti-Semitism, yes that Charles Lindbergh. However, is it us or does Dr. Goodwin just have an awful sense of comic-timing. All her attempts were awkward to say the least.
This was clearly, sadly, reinforced on today's program during the interview with Ted Cruz who doesn't even understand (or he does and that makes it deplorable) that he's the problem. He's the poster-child for zero-sum politics, and he's the zero in the equation.
Kristen Welker succinctly pointed to the reason why Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) will never be the president of the United States, ever, and that is the 2013 government shutdown that he engineered. It accomplished nothing with the exception of actually going against Republican principles because it cost us money and accomplished nothing - governmental wasteful spending. On top of that, it gave the Republican party a deep-bruise black eye that they've worn since then all the way up to the moment of the Trump candidacy announcement. Not good.
The National Journal's Ron Fournier counted nine times that Senator Cruz did not answer the question of whether he would support Donald Trump of not if he were the nominee. Mr. Fournier threw in that if Cruz can't even answer that question what about the tougher ones that come with being president. (Go back to the last paragraph. Ever.) We get it, Senator Cruz can not concede anything as he stated but the fact is that just as he has done with his colleagues, he's done with the electorate - alienated too many of them with extreme positions delivered with a prickly demeanor. Look past John Boehner's Lucifer in the fresh comment to what he said after, describe Cruz as a miserable son of a bitch.
And now, whether Senator Cruz will admit it or not, Donald Trump has wrapped up the primary and is going to be the party's nominee. Mr. Trump is going to win in Indiana on Tuesday, Mr. Cruz's last stand state, and then the Texas senator is going to have to give serious thought to that question he couldn't answer today. He's going to have to come to grips with something that most Americans already knew. Ever. Coming out in the press - which by the way, cudos to Mr. Todd for defending against Mr. Cruz lousy charge that the media is comprised of liberal partisan Democrats, something that Fox News contend with - is that the Republican establishment doesn't have the stomach for a contested convention.
So given the eye-opening new reality upon us, we pray that Mr. Friedman is way off in his postulation that we're one large October/November terrorist attack away from a Trump presidency because as he continued to opine that he thinks this is the worst time to conduct foreign policy. Suffice to say that there is so much nuance required that a thorough understanding of foreign policy is a necessity.
It's not ISIS that is the greatest danger, but weak and failing governments as CIA Diretor John Brennan mentioned in his interview that create the environment for terrorist organizations like Boko Haram and ISIS exist and thrive. But on this fifth anniversary, to the day, of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the thought of him makes us think of Abu Musab al-Zarquawi who founded Al Qaeda in Iraq and whose methods are still earnestly believed in and practiced by the organization that it spawned, ISIS. Zarqawi has been dead for ten years so it is a phenomenon as Mr. Brennan pointed out, not confined to the territory in Iraq and Syria. ISIS, as we know, has a presence in Libya, Europe, Philippines, among others so keeping that in mind along with the Zarqawi dynamic, we agree that killing ISIS' present leader Al-Baghdadi is important, but only symbolically, not as much in the practical sense we're afraid.
With not only ISIS because all the other challenges the U.S. faces in the world, one teleprompter speech from Mr. Trump is not reassuring. It didn't take Thomas Friedman to tell us that Mr. Trump hasn't done his foreign policy homework to know that fact, though we're glad he said it.
The thought of Donald Trump making such careful decisions makes us a little queasy, to be honest.
Our advice, from here to November we'd advise to not eat too much because there are going to be a lot of gut-wrenching and gut-clenching moments coming up on this roller-coaster ride of a general election, and you'll want to keep it down.
Panel: Tom Friedman, The New York Times; Kristen Welker, NBC News; Ron Fournier, The National Journal; Doris Kearns-Goodwin, presidential historian
One more thing...
Good panel today, serious discussion, in which we appreciate the contributions of context that Dr. Goodwin provides such as the "American First" rhetoric in Donald Trump's speech, and that it was first a movement in American politics in 1939 that became tinged by Charles Lindbergh's anti-Semitism, yes that Charles Lindbergh. However, is it us or does Dr. Goodwin just have an awful sense of comic-timing. All her attempts were awkward to say the least.
Sunday, April 24, 2016
4.24.16: Coffee Talk with Don and Bernie
Chuck Todd's comment on the Bernie Sander's interview made it seem reminiscent of Mike Meyers' old Saturday Night Live skit, "Coffee Talk."
Linda Richman: Was that Bernie's exit interview? I'm verklempt. Discuss.
We wouldn't quite call it an exit interview, but it was definitely one in which in so many words Senator Sanders was saying, "I know where the door is, but I'm not going to leave until I'm ready." And that's what Senator Sanders should do because as improbably as his nomination for the general is, his message is one that needs to be heard more and more so that it really sticks all the way through to California. What we're referring to specifically is the issue of income inequality, which has gotten to the point of strangling the country. We would not include in that message Senator Sanders' demand for Sec. Clinton to release the transcripts of speeches she has made as a private citizen, as we stated before. But campaign finance - yes. Taxation - yes.
The other key take away from the senator's interview was that he said he was behind in votes and wins because the sad reality is that poor people in the United States do not vote. It is a sad truth as the senator called and we agree that if perhaps more poor people voted, they would vote for Senator Sanders and he could have very well been ahead. So knowing this, why didn't his campaign make a more concerted effort to get that vote out? There hasn't been any talk from the Sanders campaign that mass voting drives in poor areas of the country have been taking place so to simply state that 'sad fact' without the revolutionary attempt to enfranchise these people, you can't use that as an excuse for being behind. So in a way, Ms. Reid was correct in her assessment of that statement.
Perhaps Senator Sanders should have made the voter registration process in this country a bigger issue. With all the turmoil on the Republican side of things and all the talk of delegates voting opposite of the electorate, we were reminded that the Republican and Democratic parties are private organizations. So when someone wants to register to vote, a process that Republican state officials legislate up the degree of difficulty, they have to declare what private organization they belong to. If they do not, that person has no say in a closed primary. There just seems to be something off about that. Surmise to say that registration should be made easier. Hard stop.
This kind of leads to the other topic of the program, the inevitability of the nomination of the chameleonic Donald Trump who said that it's easy to act presidential, which begs the question - but is it easy to be president? The answer is no, by the way. But as Mr. Todd outlined at the top of today's program, Republicans have fully gone through those five stages of grief - denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. That's not to say that there are still more than an influential few who are pounding on the proverbial door to get the hell out, but for the most part...
RNC Chair, Reince Priebus, is urging the Republican establishment to get behind the nominee, of the private organization. But they don't have to because that pesky word keeps popping up. Most likely, the big donors are going to sit it out if Mr. Trump is the Republican nominee - it really is a sad state of affairs for the Republican party and unfortunately for them, with Mr. Priebus running the RNC good things are not on the horizon.
But getting back to the 'evolving' of Mr. Trump as a candidate, the controversy is that Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's convention manager, told the RNC brass down in Hollywood, FL that Mr. Trump was playing a part during the debates and on the stump and that's not how he really thinks. So all the things that he's been saying all along don't really mean anything. Two ways to read that: 1) That sounds like a typical politician, saying things you don't mean, which is what Mr. Trump rails against; or 2) Being the complete wildcard with his statements also makes him a complete wildcard with his actions and that's dangerous.
Panel: Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Jose Diaz-Balart, Telemundo; Robert Costa, The Washington Post; Nicole Wallace, NBC Political Analyst
One more thing...
28 redacted pages. These pages from the 9/11 report should be declassified, most certainly because Americans have the right to know. We understand that in those pages, some unflattering shades of gray seen on the Saudi government and there a key ally and source of oil for us, but so be it. Yes, the continued alliance between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia is necessary, but this is where we think President Obama has it correct. We're allies, but we ain't friends. The Saudi royal family has one motivation and that is to persist, no matter what they have to do so the days of them having us over a barrel of oil have to end.
Linda Richman: Was that Bernie's exit interview? I'm verklempt. Discuss.
We wouldn't quite call it an exit interview, but it was definitely one in which in so many words Senator Sanders was saying, "I know where the door is, but I'm not going to leave until I'm ready." And that's what Senator Sanders should do because as improbably as his nomination for the general is, his message is one that needs to be heard more and more so that it really sticks all the way through to California. What we're referring to specifically is the issue of income inequality, which has gotten to the point of strangling the country. We would not include in that message Senator Sanders' demand for Sec. Clinton to release the transcripts of speeches she has made as a private citizen, as we stated before. But campaign finance - yes. Taxation - yes.
The other key take away from the senator's interview was that he said he was behind in votes and wins because the sad reality is that poor people in the United States do not vote. It is a sad truth as the senator called and we agree that if perhaps more poor people voted, they would vote for Senator Sanders and he could have very well been ahead. So knowing this, why didn't his campaign make a more concerted effort to get that vote out? There hasn't been any talk from the Sanders campaign that mass voting drives in poor areas of the country have been taking place so to simply state that 'sad fact' without the revolutionary attempt to enfranchise these people, you can't use that as an excuse for being behind. So in a way, Ms. Reid was correct in her assessment of that statement.
Perhaps Senator Sanders should have made the voter registration process in this country a bigger issue. With all the turmoil on the Republican side of things and all the talk of delegates voting opposite of the electorate, we were reminded that the Republican and Democratic parties are private organizations. So when someone wants to register to vote, a process that Republican state officials legislate up the degree of difficulty, they have to declare what private organization they belong to. If they do not, that person has no say in a closed primary. There just seems to be something off about that. Surmise to say that registration should be made easier. Hard stop.
This kind of leads to the other topic of the program, the inevitability of the nomination of the chameleonic Donald Trump who said that it's easy to act presidential, which begs the question - but is it easy to be president? The answer is no, by the way. But as Mr. Todd outlined at the top of today's program, Republicans have fully gone through those five stages of grief - denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. That's not to say that there are still more than an influential few who are pounding on the proverbial door to get the hell out, but for the most part...
RNC Chair, Reince Priebus, is urging the Republican establishment to get behind the nominee, of the private organization. But they don't have to because that pesky word keeps popping up. Most likely, the big donors are going to sit it out if Mr. Trump is the Republican nominee - it really is a sad state of affairs for the Republican party and unfortunately for them, with Mr. Priebus running the RNC good things are not on the horizon.
But getting back to the 'evolving' of Mr. Trump as a candidate, the controversy is that Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's convention manager, told the RNC brass down in Hollywood, FL that Mr. Trump was playing a part during the debates and on the stump and that's not how he really thinks. So all the things that he's been saying all along don't really mean anything. Two ways to read that: 1) That sounds like a typical politician, saying things you don't mean, which is what Mr. Trump rails against; or 2) Being the complete wildcard with his statements also makes him a complete wildcard with his actions and that's dangerous.
Panel: Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Jose Diaz-Balart, Telemundo; Robert Costa, The Washington Post; Nicole Wallace, NBC Political Analyst
One more thing...
28 redacted pages. These pages from the 9/11 report should be declassified, most certainly because Americans have the right to know. We understand that in those pages, some unflattering shades of gray seen on the Saudi government and there a key ally and source of oil for us, but so be it. Yes, the continued alliance between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia is necessary, but this is where we think President Obama has it correct. We're allies, but we ain't friends. The Saudi royal family has one motivation and that is to persist, no matter what they have to do so the days of them having us over a barrel of oil have to end.
Sunday, April 17, 2016
4.17.16: NC HB2 Law Helps No One/ The New York Primary, Act Accordingly
In 2017, Joe Smith and his partner are getting tired of driving so they pull off the highway in North Carolina and proceed directly to the check-in desk of the local Motel 6 franchise and they are going to be refused a room because of their sexual orientation. They sue Motel 6 and lose, but they appeal until in 2018 the case, Smith v. the State of North Carolina overturns the state legislation HB2 that does not protect citizens from discrimination based on their sexual orientation. And why? Because federal law overrides state law, just as state law (NC) overrode municipal (Charlotte) law in this case; and federal law says that the Constitution applies to all U.S. citizens equally.
So to use NBC reporter Perry Bacon's summary, the governor didn't really think it through. Governor McCrory's position on this law is indefensible on both the discriminatory nature and the bathroom stipulation, or should we say ridiculousness. Just reeking of politics, Gov. McCrory is endorsing a law that helps no one. Chuck Todd quoted a figure of 39.7 million dollars of lost revenue to the state, which will surely go up as time passes. State revenue gains through corporate hubs being located there is an easy and big political win for Republicans. That's gone. The country perceives the state legislature as an intentional discriminatory body. Reputation shot. And that's after you've unleashed a ton of potential suffering for a lot of individuals in your state who wanted nothing more than to be left alone. As Mr. Todd rightly asked, "Where was the dialogue?" And the answer is that there was none.
When are Republicans going to learn that these discriminatory social issue battles are always going to be losers for them. The reason they're always going to be losers is because society evolves to become more tolerant and understanding. Despite what Donald Trump may tell you or what law the North Carolina state legislature may pass when social norms and views evolve there is no going backward. Ever.
So why did they make this law? Because of religious beliefs? No one would admit that because taken to extremes it can head toward some very dark corners. And there's the fact that it is a Constitutional no-no; it's against the rules. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Those are the rules so we're just asking why.
Speaking of which, the freshly pleasant weather has also brought on a very minor miracle in that this column agrees with something RNC Chairman Reince Priebus put forth, which was that if you didn't know the rules before the game started and now you're complaining about them, too bad. The rules are the rules and they have to be followed. And while we understand that the rules may be considered arcane, silly, and unfair, but they only suck for Donald Trump because they're not working for him. If they were, then everything would be fine.
But shouting into a microphone that the RNC system is rigged is great politically for specifically Donald Trump because he's going to win New York big, then there's Pennsylvania, Maryland and Connecticut coming up so with likely wins in all those states, Mr. Trump can say that he won in spite of the game being 'tilted against' him making it more significant in the eyes of Republican voters.
It plays even bigger when you consider the percentages outlined above when you consider that it's looking likely that Mr. Trump will win the vote total but that Mr. Cruz is likely to win the delegate vote if Trump doesn't reach the threshold of 1,237 prior to the convention. The business that gets done at the convention goes largely unnoticed, but not this year, as Mr. Priebus explained. And while you're watching this business transpire over four days in July on television, you'll be holding your nose or just shaking your head in disgust (no matter who you support).
Conversely, sorry to say for some, the Democratic race is going pretty much how a primary normally goes. There is a moderate, usually the front runner and someone else running to the base flank of the party, who pulls the moderate more toward the base.
That's what is happening but it doesn't speak to personalities, and it's clear that Sec. Clinton's and Sen. Sander's grate up against one another. Thursday's Democratic debate in Brooklyn was a heated affair but would you expect anything else, especially from Sec. Clinton who absolutely needs to win the state she represented as senator. When Senator Sanders argues that Sec. Clinton is not transparent the crowd roars, which is a great blow to the secretary even though Senator Sander's answers are just as vague on things. Senator Sanders is capitalizing on the Republican narrative that Mrs. Clinton always has something to hide, etc. as he should because she seems to always put herself in an awkward situation where in hide sight the 'something' wasn't such a great idea, and that's being kind. However, we think that Sec. Clinton should not have to release the transcripts of her speeches to financial firms et al. because she doesn't have to, being a private citizen when she gave them. More importantly, she has released her tax returns for the past twenty-two years, yet no one else running for president, including Bernie Sanders, has disclosed them at all.
With all that said about both sides, of course right now it's nasty with rhetorical ripping and tearing as it could be no other way. At stake you have the primary contest for the state that contains the media and financial capital of the world. Act accordingly.
Panel: Chris Matthews, NBC; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Perry Bacon, NBC; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator
So to use NBC reporter Perry Bacon's summary, the governor didn't really think it through. Governor McCrory's position on this law is indefensible on both the discriminatory nature and the bathroom stipulation, or should we say ridiculousness. Just reeking of politics, Gov. McCrory is endorsing a law that helps no one. Chuck Todd quoted a figure of 39.7 million dollars of lost revenue to the state, which will surely go up as time passes. State revenue gains through corporate hubs being located there is an easy and big political win for Republicans. That's gone. The country perceives the state legislature as an intentional discriminatory body. Reputation shot. And that's after you've unleashed a ton of potential suffering for a lot of individuals in your state who wanted nothing more than to be left alone. As Mr. Todd rightly asked, "Where was the dialogue?" And the answer is that there was none.
When are Republicans going to learn that these discriminatory social issue battles are always going to be losers for them. The reason they're always going to be losers is because society evolves to become more tolerant and understanding. Despite what Donald Trump may tell you or what law the North Carolina state legislature may pass when social norms and views evolve there is no going backward. Ever.
 |
| Reputation Shot. |
Those are the rules so we're just asking why.
Speaking of which, the freshly pleasant weather has also brought on a very minor miracle in that this column agrees with something RNC Chairman Reince Priebus put forth, which was that if you didn't know the rules before the game started and now you're complaining about them, too bad. The rules are the rules and they have to be followed. And while we understand that the rules may be considered arcane, silly, and unfair, but they only suck for Donald Trump because they're not working for him. If they were, then everything would be fine.
But shouting into a microphone that the RNC system is rigged is great politically for specifically Donald Trump because he's going to win New York big, then there's Pennsylvania, Maryland and Connecticut coming up so with likely wins in all those states, Mr. Trump can say that he won in spite of the game being 'tilted against' him making it more significant in the eyes of Republican voters.
It plays even bigger when you consider the percentages outlined above when you consider that it's looking likely that Mr. Trump will win the vote total but that Mr. Cruz is likely to win the delegate vote if Trump doesn't reach the threshold of 1,237 prior to the convention. The business that gets done at the convention goes largely unnoticed, but not this year, as Mr. Priebus explained. And while you're watching this business transpire over four days in July on television, you'll be holding your nose or just shaking your head in disgust (no matter who you support).
Conversely, sorry to say for some, the Democratic race is going pretty much how a primary normally goes. There is a moderate, usually the front runner and someone else running to the base flank of the party, who pulls the moderate more toward the base.
That's what is happening but it doesn't speak to personalities, and it's clear that Sec. Clinton's and Sen. Sander's grate up against one another. Thursday's Democratic debate in Brooklyn was a heated affair but would you expect anything else, especially from Sec. Clinton who absolutely needs to win the state she represented as senator. When Senator Sanders argues that Sec. Clinton is not transparent the crowd roars, which is a great blow to the secretary even though Senator Sander's answers are just as vague on things. Senator Sanders is capitalizing on the Republican narrative that Mrs. Clinton always has something to hide, etc. as he should because she seems to always put herself in an awkward situation where in hide sight the 'something' wasn't such a great idea, and that's being kind. However, we think that Sec. Clinton should not have to release the transcripts of her speeches to financial firms et al. because she doesn't have to, being a private citizen when she gave them. More importantly, she has released her tax returns for the past twenty-two years, yet no one else running for president, including Bernie Sanders, has disclosed them at all.
With all that said about both sides, of course right now it's nasty with rhetorical ripping and tearing as it could be no other way. At stake you have the primary contest for the state that contains the media and financial capital of the world. Act accordingly.
Panel: Chris Matthews, NBC; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Perry Bacon, NBC; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator
Sunday, April 10, 2016
4.10.16: Everyone's Got a Gripe, The Operatives At Play
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.
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.
Sunday, April 03, 2016
4.3.16: Facts and Math and Reince Strangelove
Presidential doctrine dictates to hold party above any candidate and the good of the country above any party, but there's only one problem with this. It doesn't exist, either in written form or as a notion in the mind of any politician.
We completely understand why some one like Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) would say that he would never vote for a Democrat under any circumstance, but there is still something disheartening about it because you know by reading this column that voting for Donald J. Trump over Hillary Clinton if those are the only two choices is not only irresponsible but un-American. Now, one may say that America needs some one like Mr. Trump as the president to shake things up, which most assuredly he'll do, but it won't be for the betterment of the country. That is also a certainty.
No more exemplified by Mr. Trump's five different answers on abortion in a 48-hour period as Chuck Todd pointed out. With all the various answers it seems that Mr. Trump has an answer for himself as to where he stands on abortion, but doesn't know the right conservative answer, which should tell Republicans something. Conversely, as Helene Cooper pointed out, Sec. Clinton can state her view and then go in depth as to why she has that view, and the record to match. In particular, when Mr. Todd asked the secretary about legal protections for the unborn, Mrs. Clinton rightly, knowingly, said that no such laws exist and that ultimately women have full rights over their bodies. Whether you agree with her view or not, it's clear that she is more thoughtful on the issue than Mr. Trump. It speaks to the comfort level that New York Times columnist David Brooks mentioned that Democrats have with Hillary Clinton. And as we've said before, if Mr. Trump is the Republican nominee, she'll enjoy the support of Republican women as well.
As distressing as those comments were, even more troubling is Mr. Trump's comprehension of U.S. nuclear policy, or the lack thereof. Mr. Trump has said that he'll keep all cards on the table, even nuclear, when it comes to combating ISIS and that maybe South Korea and Japan should have nuclear arms instead of us protecting them with the deterrent. Once again, Mr. Trump has tried to take what he thinks is the most hard-right position on an issue just for the sake of taking it without understanding the consequences of such a position. It's ridiculous, and the Pentagon is worried.
Despite the worst political week that Mr. Trump has experienced to date, Mr. Brooks is convinced at this point that a Trump nomination is a foregone conclusion but he'll then go down in a 'crushing defeat.' that will be remembered 100 years from now. (Yes, he will get a tweet.) And from what we've written so far, you'd think we, like Mr. Brooks, are already looking toward the general election, but not really as it's more a critique on the depth of knowledge the front-runners from the respective parties have on issues. By that score, the Democrats are way ahead, and if there are two choices, well...
Sec. Clinton does has a transparency problem, whether she actually has been matters not because the perception is there so the problem exists. Having said that, despite the pressure from the Sanders campaign to release the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches, she shouldn't do it. She made those speeches as a private citizen and she's entitled to that privacy, like it or not. Senator Sanders says they should be released because he believes that Sec. Clinton is too closely tied to Wall Street because of contributions, but here's a fact. Wall Street firms were part of fmr. Senator Clinton's constituency. Regardless, we agree with The Cook Political Report's Amy Walter in that the Democrats are having a skirmish.
We'd also agree that the Republicans are in the midst of thermo-nuclear war. And the Dr. Strangelove of the bunch, Reince Priebus aka "The Worst Guy In Politics" acts as though everything is going great while the party all around him is crumbling. Even if you consider his circular answers about delegate math, he still does seem to comprehend that the party is broken. If Trump is the nominee, Mr. Priebus will be the one held responsible for tanking the party and jeopardizing Republican majorities in Congress. If Mr. Trump isn't the nominee, all those new Republicans brought into the process that Mr. Priebus likes to boast about, we'll leave the process and go with a third-party Trump run. Reince Strangelove had his finger on the button and he pushed it.
It truly seems as though Mr. Priebus really has learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.
Panel: Amy Walter, Cook Political Report; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Charles Benson, NBC News - Milwaukee Affiliate; David Brooks, The New York Times
We completely understand why some one like Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) would say that he would never vote for a Democrat under any circumstance, but there is still something disheartening about it because you know by reading this column that voting for Donald J. Trump over Hillary Clinton if those are the only two choices is not only irresponsible but un-American. Now, one may say that America needs some one like Mr. Trump as the president to shake things up, which most assuredly he'll do, but it won't be for the betterment of the country. That is also a certainty.
No more exemplified by Mr. Trump's five different answers on abortion in a 48-hour period as Chuck Todd pointed out. With all the various answers it seems that Mr. Trump has an answer for himself as to where he stands on abortion, but doesn't know the right conservative answer, which should tell Republicans something. Conversely, as Helene Cooper pointed out, Sec. Clinton can state her view and then go in depth as to why she has that view, and the record to match. In particular, when Mr. Todd asked the secretary about legal protections for the unborn, Mrs. Clinton rightly, knowingly, said that no such laws exist and that ultimately women have full rights over their bodies. Whether you agree with her view or not, it's clear that she is more thoughtful on the issue than Mr. Trump. It speaks to the comfort level that New York Times columnist David Brooks mentioned that Democrats have with Hillary Clinton. And as we've said before, if Mr. Trump is the Republican nominee, she'll enjoy the support of Republican women as well.
As distressing as those comments were, even more troubling is Mr. Trump's comprehension of U.S. nuclear policy, or the lack thereof. Mr. Trump has said that he'll keep all cards on the table, even nuclear, when it comes to combating ISIS and that maybe South Korea and Japan should have nuclear arms instead of us protecting them with the deterrent. Once again, Mr. Trump has tried to take what he thinks is the most hard-right position on an issue just for the sake of taking it without understanding the consequences of such a position. It's ridiculous, and the Pentagon is worried.
Despite the worst political week that Mr. Trump has experienced to date, Mr. Brooks is convinced at this point that a Trump nomination is a foregone conclusion but he'll then go down in a 'crushing defeat.' that will be remembered 100 years from now. (Yes, he will get a tweet.) And from what we've written so far, you'd think we, like Mr. Brooks, are already looking toward the general election, but not really as it's more a critique on the depth of knowledge the front-runners from the respective parties have on issues. By that score, the Democrats are way ahead, and if there are two choices, well...
Sec. Clinton does has a transparency problem, whether she actually has been matters not because the perception is there so the problem exists. Having said that, despite the pressure from the Sanders campaign to release the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches, she shouldn't do it. She made those speeches as a private citizen and she's entitled to that privacy, like it or not. Senator Sanders says they should be released because he believes that Sec. Clinton is too closely tied to Wall Street because of contributions, but here's a fact. Wall Street firms were part of fmr. Senator Clinton's constituency. Regardless, we agree with The Cook Political Report's Amy Walter in that the Democrats are having a skirmish.
We'd also agree that the Republicans are in the midst of thermo-nuclear war. And the Dr. Strangelove of the bunch, Reince Priebus aka "The Worst Guy In Politics" acts as though everything is going great while the party all around him is crumbling. Even if you consider his circular answers about delegate math, he still does seem to comprehend that the party is broken. If Trump is the nominee, Mr. Priebus will be the one held responsible for tanking the party and jeopardizing Republican majorities in Congress. If Mr. Trump isn't the nominee, all those new Republicans brought into the process that Mr. Priebus likes to boast about, we'll leave the process and go with a third-party Trump run. Reince Strangelove had his finger on the button and he pushed it.
It truly seems as though Mr. Priebus really has learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.
Panel: Amy Walter, Cook Political Report; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Charles Benson, NBC News - Milwaukee Affiliate; David Brooks, The New York Times
Sunday, March 27, 2016
3.27.16: Super Zombies Control the Party Nominations
In this election cycle for both Democrats and Republicans it seems as though it is less about the electoral vote than it is about delegates, specifically what we'll call the super zombies. As Ben Ginsberg explained, zombie delegates in the Republican party are ones beholden to no one, just as super delegates in the Democratic party.
These super zombies are going to get who they want in the general and it's pretty clear that on the Democratic side of things their choice is Hillary Clinton, despite what Bernie Sanders said in his interview of beginning to convince some of the super zombies to get on his side after he swept yesterday's caucuses in Hawaii, Alaska and Washington. He's not going to convince enough of them that's for sure because it's also clear that in the bigger states where primaries are held, not caucuses, - e.g. New York and California - Sec. Clinton fares much better than Senator Sanders.
However, if Senator Sanders wins the primary vote, why wouldn't the super zombies not support him because polls show that both he and Sec. Clinton beat Donald Trump in the general election. Here's the thing about the super zombies, in both parties they form their the establishment, center-right and center-left, but still center. So where in the Democratic party the electorate views them with scorn and cynicism - part of the problem.
In the Republican party, however, the super zombies are viewed by many as the saviors from political chaos and insanity that has manifested itself in the form of Donald Trump. If Mr. Trump doesn't have the required 1,237 delegates come the convention the super zombies will come in and throw their support behind another candidate, eat up all the Trump supporters and through them behind another candidate, saving the party from itself.
The problem is that these delegates like zombies, if they do that at the convention, have no plan for the "Now, what?" Mr. Trump's supporters as we've said previously are going to go with him, where ever he goes. Mr. Todd pointed out on today's program that Senator Cruz tweeted that Donald Trump is not a Republican, which leaves him an out on the 'supporting the nominee' pledge.
But however he justifies backing out of this pledge, as Hallie Jackson explained, it's a problem for Senator Cruz who prides himself as a man of his word, no matter how wrong those words are. And it is because of wrong words that Senator Cruz is wrong in thinking that the delegates have his back at the convention.
As much as Mr. Trump has disqualified himself to be president because as Andrea Mitchell explained he has no basic knowledge of foreign policy, stunning so, (See the referenced Trump interview with The Washington Post editorial board: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-met-with-donald-trump-electing-him-is-still-a-radical-risk/2016/03/21/bfbe5498-ef90-11e5-85a6-2132cf446d0a_story.html) Senator Cruz inspires little more confidence or competence with five words: Patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods.
In the wake of the ISIS terror attacks in Brussels, that was exactly the wrong thing to say here in The United States primarily because it goes against the laws and principles on which the country exists, not that it matters during an election season that on the Republican side has gone way off the rails. Coupled with irresponsible statement was the sad descent of the 'political' discourse into talking about the candidates wives.
For Gov. John Kasich's part, we don't necessarily agree that a vote for him is a vote for Donald Trump, but we don't really disagree either. He surely is pulling votes away from Ted Cruz but just how many or enough? Either way, we like that John Kasich is staying in the race and staying on positive message as the 'told you so' candidate for the Republicans because when it's all said and done, he won't be the nominee but would have been the one to win.
For example, Gov. Kasich said in reaction to failures by the Belgian government leading up to the attacks, he offered that the NATO alliance needs to be reformed into not only a military alliance but a 'policing and intelligence' alliance. We would agree to the extent that NATO should coordinate all the member intelligence, but we disagree with the policing aspect. Point being is that you can reasonably discuss and argue the merits of these points with John Kasich.
But if not him, then who?
At the top we mentioned that all super zombies (delegates) occupy the same space hovering around the center where you also find the Republican suburban women's vote, and as Andrea Mitchell pointed out, the Clinton campaign (she being the most 'moderate Republican/centrist Democrat' in the race) feels that it can capture it. She can, and she will if the Republican nominee is either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz (Criminally investigating Planned Parenthood is not popular with women.).
Panel: NBC News Campaign Reporting Team: Andrea Mitchell, Kristen Welker, Hallie Jackson, Katy Tur
One more thing...
Happy Easter! If you celebrate this most holy of Christian holidays then we wish you particularly well this weekend.
With that said, here's an informative (and short) article by Rollo Romig in The New Yorker on how Muslims view Jesus: http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/how-muslims-view-easter
No matter what you believe, we'll leave you this week with an image I took yesterday, in which all can understand the sentiment. Again, Happy Easter.
These super zombies are going to get who they want in the general and it's pretty clear that on the Democratic side of things their choice is Hillary Clinton, despite what Bernie Sanders said in his interview of beginning to convince some of the super zombies to get on his side after he swept yesterday's caucuses in Hawaii, Alaska and Washington. He's not going to convince enough of them that's for sure because it's also clear that in the bigger states where primaries are held, not caucuses, - e.g. New York and California - Sec. Clinton fares much better than Senator Sanders.
However, if Senator Sanders wins the primary vote, why wouldn't the super zombies not support him because polls show that both he and Sec. Clinton beat Donald Trump in the general election. Here's the thing about the super zombies, in both parties they form their the establishment, center-right and center-left, but still center. So where in the Democratic party the electorate views them with scorn and cynicism - part of the problem.
In the Republican party, however, the super zombies are viewed by many as the saviors from political chaos and insanity that has manifested itself in the form of Donald Trump. If Mr. Trump doesn't have the required 1,237 delegates come the convention the super zombies will come in and throw their support behind another candidate, eat up all the Trump supporters and through them behind another candidate, saving the party from itself.
The problem is that these delegates like zombies, if they do that at the convention, have no plan for the "Now, what?" Mr. Trump's supporters as we've said previously are going to go with him, where ever he goes. Mr. Todd pointed out on today's program that Senator Cruz tweeted that Donald Trump is not a Republican, which leaves him an out on the 'supporting the nominee' pledge.
But however he justifies backing out of this pledge, as Hallie Jackson explained, it's a problem for Senator Cruz who prides himself as a man of his word, no matter how wrong those words are. And it is because of wrong words that Senator Cruz is wrong in thinking that the delegates have his back at the convention.
As much as Mr. Trump has disqualified himself to be president because as Andrea Mitchell explained he has no basic knowledge of foreign policy, stunning so, (See the referenced Trump interview with The Washington Post editorial board: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-met-with-donald-trump-electing-him-is-still-a-radical-risk/2016/03/21/bfbe5498-ef90-11e5-85a6-2132cf446d0a_story.html) Senator Cruz inspires little more confidence or competence with five words: Patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods.
In the wake of the ISIS terror attacks in Brussels, that was exactly the wrong thing to say here in The United States primarily because it goes against the laws and principles on which the country exists, not that it matters during an election season that on the Republican side has gone way off the rails. Coupled with irresponsible statement was the sad descent of the 'political' discourse into talking about the candidates wives.
For Gov. John Kasich's part, we don't necessarily agree that a vote for him is a vote for Donald Trump, but we don't really disagree either. He surely is pulling votes away from Ted Cruz but just how many or enough? Either way, we like that John Kasich is staying in the race and staying on positive message as the 'told you so' candidate for the Republicans because when it's all said and done, he won't be the nominee but would have been the one to win.
For example, Gov. Kasich said in reaction to failures by the Belgian government leading up to the attacks, he offered that the NATO alliance needs to be reformed into not only a military alliance but a 'policing and intelligence' alliance. We would agree to the extent that NATO should coordinate all the member intelligence, but we disagree with the policing aspect. Point being is that you can reasonably discuss and argue the merits of these points with John Kasich.
But if not him, then who?
At the top we mentioned that all super zombies (delegates) occupy the same space hovering around the center where you also find the Republican suburban women's vote, and as Andrea Mitchell pointed out, the Clinton campaign (she being the most 'moderate Republican/centrist Democrat' in the race) feels that it can capture it. She can, and she will if the Republican nominee is either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz (Criminally investigating Planned Parenthood is not popular with women.).
Panel: NBC News Campaign Reporting Team: Andrea Mitchell, Kristen Welker, Hallie Jackson, Katy Tur
One more thing...
Happy Easter! If you celebrate this most holy of Christian holidays then we wish you particularly well this weekend.
With that said, here's an informative (and short) article by Rollo Romig in The New Yorker on how Muslims view Jesus: http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/how-muslims-view-easter
No matter what you believe, we'll leave you this week with an image I took yesterday, in which all can understand the sentiment. Again, Happy Easter.
 |
| click photo to enlarge |
Sunday, March 20, 2016
3.20.16: Donald Trump Is In The Race Until The End
Before we start...
Going forward you have to do your political calculus with the understanding that candidate Donald J. Trump will be in the race until the end. Either Republicans support him and award him the nomination to represent them in the general or they deny him the nomination at the convention and he most assuredly runs as a third-party candidate.
Republicans have to decide what is more important to them - winning an election at all costs or keeping your party's principles and philosophies in tact, hence 'saving it' from Donald Trump. Said candidate has one objective and that is to win the presidency. Mr. Trump wants the legitimacy of representing the Republican party in the race, not to mention their support, but it won't change his goal if they don't give it. The Atlantic's Molly Ball alluded to this ever so briefly at the end.
Now...
With that in mind, all the scenarios that senior Republican strategists Steve Schmidt (McCain campaign) and Stuart Stevens (Romney campaign) described respectively are moot. When Mr. Stevens answers that "yes, we can still stop Trump," we need clarification. Stop Trump from what exactly? Getting the nomination? Becoming the president? Mr. Stuart also explained that Mr. Trump is losing Romney voters but that is not going to be enough to swing the nomination away from Mr. Trump. It may, however, legitimize the formation of a third party.
Either way, down ticket races will be affected because if Mr. Trump is the party standard-bearer, that trouble for Republican senators up for re-election in purple states. Compounding this problem for these senators is the obstruction of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee from getting a hearing, orchestrated by Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). One understands his cause of blocking the nomination, hoping for a Republican presidential win, but the risk is huge, and here's why.
First, in today's consecutive interviews with Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. McConnell, it's clear that they have both been hypocritical in their statements about SCOTUS nominees in a president's final year in office. The fact is that this is the luck (or unluck) of the draw with life-time appointments. There are going to be those odd times where the law is inconvenient, but it should still be followed, despite what Sen. McConnell tells you about history and principle.
Getting back to Senate elections, the obstruction of the Supreme Court could cost Sen. McConnell is majority leadership because he's asking senators like Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire to not only run away from the Republican candidate Donald Trump but you're also having them run away from the establishment because of the hard line on the Supreme Court position. Not good at all if you want to hold the majority in the Senate.
With Republican establishment heads spinning around in 360-rotations, a la Linda Blaire and all the chaos, discuss about the Democratic race went under the radar this week with the exception of the topic of Sec. Clinton's speaking style, which apparently receives derisive critiques from male pundits. The only conclusion to draw is that a discussion such as this can only benefit Mrs. Clinton. If male pundits access that Hillary Clinton is shrill and doesn't 'smile enough,' women especially ones over 60 like Joy-Ann Reid outlined would understandably be upset. They would say that in her victory speech on Tuesday, she was speaking to a big cheering crowd necessitating the need to speak more loudly. In terms of temperament, they would describe it as ' determined.' These types of criticisms aren't levied against other candidates, but then again, who says any part of politics is fair.
Panel: Jose Diaz-Balart, NBC News; Molly Ball, The Atlantic; Joy-Ann Reed, NBC News; Robert Costa, The Washington Post
One More Thing...
President Obama in Cuba. If he doesn't speak out strongly about political prisoners and dissidents in Cuba, American democracy, human rights today, then all the criticisms of the trip and him going become valid. If he does speak about those things, it will cement Obama's legacy with something history will view in a positive light.
Going forward you have to do your political calculus with the understanding that candidate Donald J. Trump will be in the race until the end. Either Republicans support him and award him the nomination to represent them in the general or they deny him the nomination at the convention and he most assuredly runs as a third-party candidate.
Republicans have to decide what is more important to them - winning an election at all costs or keeping your party's principles and philosophies in tact, hence 'saving it' from Donald Trump. Said candidate has one objective and that is to win the presidency. Mr. Trump wants the legitimacy of representing the Republican party in the race, not to mention their support, but it won't change his goal if they don't give it. The Atlantic's Molly Ball alluded to this ever so briefly at the end.
Now...
With that in mind, all the scenarios that senior Republican strategists Steve Schmidt (McCain campaign) and Stuart Stevens (Romney campaign) described respectively are moot. When Mr. Stevens answers that "yes, we can still stop Trump," we need clarification. Stop Trump from what exactly? Getting the nomination? Becoming the president? Mr. Stuart also explained that Mr. Trump is losing Romney voters but that is not going to be enough to swing the nomination away from Mr. Trump. It may, however, legitimize the formation of a third party.
Either way, down ticket races will be affected because if Mr. Trump is the party standard-bearer, that trouble for Republican senators up for re-election in purple states. Compounding this problem for these senators is the obstruction of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee from getting a hearing, orchestrated by Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). One understands his cause of blocking the nomination, hoping for a Republican presidential win, but the risk is huge, and here's why.
First, in today's consecutive interviews with Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. McConnell, it's clear that they have both been hypocritical in their statements about SCOTUS nominees in a president's final year in office. The fact is that this is the luck (or unluck) of the draw with life-time appointments. There are going to be those odd times where the law is inconvenient, but it should still be followed, despite what Sen. McConnell tells you about history and principle.
Getting back to Senate elections, the obstruction of the Supreme Court could cost Sen. McConnell is majority leadership because he's asking senators like Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire to not only run away from the Republican candidate Donald Trump but you're also having them run away from the establishment because of the hard line on the Supreme Court position. Not good at all if you want to hold the majority in the Senate.
With Republican establishment heads spinning around in 360-rotations, a la Linda Blaire and all the chaos, discuss about the Democratic race went under the radar this week with the exception of the topic of Sec. Clinton's speaking style, which apparently receives derisive critiques from male pundits. The only conclusion to draw is that a discussion such as this can only benefit Mrs. Clinton. If male pundits access that Hillary Clinton is shrill and doesn't 'smile enough,' women especially ones over 60 like Joy-Ann Reid outlined would understandably be upset. They would say that in her victory speech on Tuesday, she was speaking to a big cheering crowd necessitating the need to speak more loudly. In terms of temperament, they would describe it as ' determined.' These types of criticisms aren't levied against other candidates, but then again, who says any part of politics is fair.
Panel: Jose Diaz-Balart, NBC News; Molly Ball, The Atlantic; Joy-Ann Reed, NBC News; Robert Costa, The Washington Post
One More Thing...
President Obama in Cuba. If he doesn't speak out strongly about political prisoners and dissidents in Cuba, American democracy, human rights today, then all the criticisms of the trip and him going become valid. If he does speak about those things, it will cement Obama's legacy with something history will view in a positive light.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)