Month: September 2015

The CNN moderators, as advertised, did their best to pit the candidates against each other last night.  That occasionally resulted in enlightening entertainment; more often, it just led to pointless bickering.

I think we have reached the end of a phase of the campaign.  The public now has its first impressions of the candidates, and the large number of people on stage makes it impossible to engage in (badly needed) detailed evaluations of the positions of each of them.  Barring terrible gaffes, the debates will no longer make a big difference until the field has been substantially winnowed and cross-examination becomes more meaningful.  The next phase will be about commercials, and money, which plays more to Jeb!’s strengths.

The most revealing discussion, in my view, was about climate change.  It would appear that Rubio has decided that “I am not a scientist” sounds wimpy on a debate stage, so he ditched that position in favor of “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”  Chris Christie essentially followed his lead.  I guess protecting the jobs of coal miners in Kentucky is more important to him than protecting beachfront houses on the Jersey shore from monster hurricanes.  One wonders if his constituents agree.

Winners:

1.  Carly Fiorina:   Made clear and forceful (albeit vacuous, if you were really listening) arguments.  Dealt with her HP firing problem reasonably well.

2.  Rand Paul:  Appears to have decided that he cannot win the nomination by pandering to the GOP mainstream, so went back to his Conservative Libertarian roots.  Gave consistent and logical answers based on his CL ideology.

Losers:

1.  Jeb Bush:  Tried harder to be an alpha male, but ultimately lost the swagger battle to Trump again.  Fumbled the John Roberts question, did not make his electability case, and did nothing to set himself apart from his brother.  Viewers have to be wondering how he could say that his brother kept us safe when he was in office during 9/11.

2.  Ben Carson:  In addition to being typically low-energy, he sounded dangerously moderate for his constituency at times.  Could lose supporters to Fiorina.

Also ran:

1.  Mike Huckabee:  Described his plan to ignore the Supreme Court in a little more detail.  Only seems to be interested in abortion, same-sex marriage, and Iran.

2.  Ted Cruz:  Was clear and provided plenty of red meat for his Reactionary constituents, but did not get to talk much.  Virtually everything he says is demonstrably false, if that matters.

3.  Scott Walker:  Launched one moderately successful attack on Trump, but blended into the scenery the rest of the night.  Hurts his cause every time he blathers on about how kicking union butt is good preparation for dealing with foreign bad guys.

4.  John Kasich:  Did little to add to what he said last time.

5.  Chris Christie:  The whole basis of his campaign as the blue state bully who gets things done evaporated when Trump joined the race.  Has no chance of beating Trump in a swagger contest.

6.  Marco Rubio:  Joke about the water bottle fell flat.  Sounded forceful and reasonable, but his statements about Putin’s objectives in Syria were completely nonsensical.  As noted above, simply does not care about climate change.

7.  Donald Trump:  More polished than last time, but wildly inconsistent.  Still the alpha male in the crowd, and sounds authentic to his supporters.  Suffers when the discussion turns away from illegal immigration, particularly to foreign affairs.  Shtick about being a butt-kicking businessman is starting to wear a little thin.

The under won on Reagan references, but just barely.

While Trump would make a great cartoon character (imagine him doing battle with the Roadrunner or Bugs Bunny), the actual person he reminds me of most is George Steinbrenner.  In fact, the points of connection are almost eerie.  Consider the following:

                                     Steinbrenner              vs.                         Trump

Billionaire blowhard              Yes                                       Yes

Inherited wealth                      Yes                                       Yes

Ties to GOP                       Campaign contributions         Populist campaign

Ties to New York              Owned the Yankees                 Built high rises

TV show character              Seinfeld                                   The Apprentice

Famous for firing              Billy Martin                              Omarosa

 

And the winner is. . . George Steinbrenner.   He has seven World Series wins, Derek Jeter, and Mariano Rivera as part of his legacy.  That beats buildings and golf courses.

In honor of the Donald and his supersized ego, Hump Day has been renamed “Trump Day” on this blog.  Until further notice, you can expect at least one posting dissecting Trump and his campaign every Wednesday.

Things to watch for tomorrow:

1.  How aggressively will the panel question the candidates–Trump in particular?  Don’t expect a reprise of the first debate.  The CNN panel will play it straight and be less aggressive.

2.  How will the candidates respond to the questioning?  As I have noted previously, attacking the panel is a proven way of demonstrating swagger.  There is little down side for GOP candidates to insult CNN (as opposed to Fox News) journalists.  Chris Christie in particular might find this a good way to get some desperately needed attention.

3.  Will Jeb! launch personal attacks on Trump?  If he does, the outcome will remind you of that famous scene in one of the Indiana Jones movies in which a bad guy brandishes a sword at Indy, and Indy pulls out a gun and shoots him.  Jeb! would be wise to leave the attacks to surrogates and to focus his (low) energy on proving he is the only adult in the room.

4.  Will Fiorina attack Trump?  Probably.  She has much to gain, and little to lose.

5.  What is the over/under on references to Ronald Reagan?  25.

So who’s really winning the race?

Of Jeb’s lead there is nary a trace.

In Carson and Trump

They have men they should dump

It’s Marco and Cruz all should chase.

 

A few observations:

1.  Trump’s lead is ultimately going to crumble in the face of all out assaults in the media from the GOP establishment.  That is going to take some time, however.
2.  Cruz is well-positioned to pick up Trump’s supporters when they start looking for someone who is impeccably orthodox, but outside the establishment.
3. Rubio’s plan has always been to build as many bridges as possible to the various factions and to hope Jeb! implodes.  Right now, you would have to say it is working.  If he wins the Sheldon Adelson primary, he will be a serious threat to win the Romney coalition subprimary.

 

And you thought Michael Foot was dead.

I have always imagined that Dick Cheney sees himself as a figure similar to the Jack Nicholson character in “A Few Good Men”–a sort of martyr for foolish idealistic Americans who can’t handle the truth.  Well, the reality is that the Iraq invasion which he championed with such gusto did more to facilitate Iranian mischief than anything else that has happened since 1979.  To make matters worse, that turn of events was completely predictable, and was, in fact, predicted.  It was not a “known unknown” or even an “unknown unknown.”

So, Dick, you’re the one who can’t handle the truth, and the extremists in the Middle East are laughing their ISIS off at you.  You might want to consider that the next time you feel compelled to say something about the nuclear deal.

There once was a VP named Dick.

Fighting Middle East wars was his shtick.

His poorly-laid plans

Helped empower Iran

Would a follow-up war do the trick?

If Brent Scowcroft agrees with you, you are probably right.

If Dick Cheney agrees with you, reassess your position immediately.

On reflection, Cheney, the butt-kicking chicken hawk businessman, is something of a model for Donald Trump.  I will discuss that further in a later post on Trump’s foreign policy views.

There once was a woman named Carly.

Her GOP foes viewed her warily.

They said she was great

In the first live debate

But Trump thought she looked pretty gnarly.

Who said he’s a low energy guy?

Jeb! released his tax cut plan earlier this week.  In a nutshell, it provides enormous cuts for the wealthy and modest relief for everyone else.  It also contains limitations on deductions over certain income thresholds and eliminates the “carried interest” loophole for hedge fund managers.  In economic terms, and in the context of the other, much larger, decreases, the latter proposals are more symbolic than anything else.

Having said that, in politics, symbols matter, which leads to two questions:

1.  What is Jeb! trying to accomplish with these concessions to popular opinion?
2.  Will he succeed?

I think Jeb! is making a concerted effort to position himself as the adult in the room who is willing to reach out to Democrats and Independents in order to get things done.  This, in turn, is intended to appeal to PBP voters who are concerned that the rhetoric from the right is damaging the GOP’s image among moderate general election voters.  In other words, vote for me, because I am the only GOP candidate who can actually win in 2016.

This approach should appeal to more moderate voters.  On the other hand, it will turn off the WSJ/supply sider crowd, who may then decide that the Rubio plan, in spite of its unhealthy (in their eyes) interest in cutting taxes for working people, is superior.  The Jeb! plan, in short, should be viewed as a political gamble that will only work if the WSJ and the donor class decide to give him a pass for tactical reasons.  Whether it will succeed or not will be seen in the next few weeks.

In their own separate ways, Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina are both bringing back the tired old proposal to “run government like a business” to the campaign.  For Trump, a real estate developer, government, like his business, is primarily a dealmaking process in which the best (i.e., the most aggressive) negotiator wins.  For Fiorina, the former CEO of a tech company, the problem with government is its inefficiency, which can be resolved with (surprise!) better use of technology.

The problem with this is that government is not a business.  In economic terms, it is a monopoly that is designed to provide goods and services for consumers regardless of their ability to pay for them.  Its essential objectives are to dispense justice, provide security, and promote the general welfare (a concept open to much debate), as opposed to simply making the largest possible profit.  The American system further diffuses power instead of concentrating it, and emphasizes transparency and fairness over speed and agility.  Its success or failure is not subject to easy quantification–there is no “bottom line.”

As a result, anyone who is elected to “run government like a business,” and anyone who selects a candidate on that basis, is doomed to disappointment.

Planned Parenthood, that is.

PP is an issue that divides the Reactionaries and the PBPs.   The former loathe abortion unconditionally because it eliminates a necessary sanction on immoral sexual behavior;  the latter are more or less indifferent to the moral elements of abortion, but see the “War on Women” as a tactical mistake that may ultimately cost them the election and deprive them of tax cuts, deregulation, etc.

The Reactionaries are clearly getting restless.  As noted in a previous post, the PBPs have reaped almost all of the practical benefits from the PBP/Reactionary coalition.  Look for the Reactionaries to fight for a government shutdown over this issue on October 1, and for the PBPs to make a deal with the Democrats to avoid the shutdown, as usual.  That will lead to even greater conflict among the GOP presidential candidates, and more excitement at the debates.

1.  It has been demonstrated time after time that the support of white liberals alone is not sufficient to get the Democratic Party nomination.  I strongly suspect that Elizabeth Warren decided not to run largely because she is aware of that fact.  The Sanders candidacy is ultimately doomed because it has no appeal to the rest of the party.
2. I think it would be very useful if the Democrats had a candidate who would discuss the need to rethink and rework the welfare state in light of technological change (i.e., the “gig economy”) and globalization.  For example, does it really make sense in today’s world to tie the cost of Medicare and Social Security solely to the payment of wages?  And is it a good idea for Obamacare to include an employer mandate?  Sanders is too tied to the past to have this discussion.