Category: Uncategorized

The concept was fine, the structure of the speech made sense, and the argument was reasonably forceful.  However, it dragged on too long, and it did not soar. Color me mildly disappointed; this was probably his last best chance to make a really ringing statement, and I don’t think it happened.

The moderators in the previous debates have typically chosen to challenge Trump by asking questions about his ridiculous position on immigration.  He stands by what he says and thereby makes his supporters happy.  Nothing is accomplished; the implausibility of his answers has no impact.

If the Fox moderators really want to expose him for the benefit of the GOP electorate, they need to ask him a wider range of questions on topics with which he is much less comfortable.  Here are some possibilities:

1. Most of the rest of the candidates have proposed cuts to Social Security in one form or another to prevent the trust fund from being depleted in the reasonably near future.  What is your plan to protect the benefits of future recipients?
2.  Did you support the 2008 bank bailout?  If the solvency of a major bank was threatened in the same way during your term, would you bail it out?
3. What is your position on ethanol regulations?
4. You apparently take the position that we should ally ourselves with the Russians and the Assad regime against ISIS.  How can we do that without offending our Saudi and Turkish allies?
5. What actions would you take to prevent the Chinese from creating fill islands in the South China Sea?
6.  What actions would you take to address rising inequality in this country?  How would you deliver on your promises of higher paying jobs for American workers?
7.  You have proposed applying large tariffs to imports from China.  How can this be done without violating our treaty obligations under the WTO, and how, if at all, would you help American workers deal with the large price increases in essential goods that would follow?

I (and others) have opined on several occasions that the GOP always wants to nominate Ronald Reagan.  Using that as a yardstick, how does Cruz measure up?

There are some similarities.  Cruz, like Reagan, comes from the southwest.  He looks comfortable in cowboy attire.  Both of them were strong believers in traditional values.   Finally, the two have two other important traits in common: the belief in simple black-and-white solutions to complex problems; and the complete lack of doubt in the righteousness of the cause.

In my eyes, however, the differences outweigh the similarities.  Regardless of whether you think Reagan was a good President or not, you have to concede that he had a grace about him that appealed to people on both sides of the aisle.  He was unfailingly optimistic, had a wonderful sense of humor, and was surprisingly tolerant on a personal level of social and ideological differences.  In short, even his political opponents liked him, and many of them were willing to work with him.

There is a excellent profile of Cruz in a David Brooks column in today’s NYT.  I have analogized him to a vampire;  you could also call him a human death star, or a black hole.  He just exudes a sort of negative force that feeds on the anger of his supporters.  He has no interest in reaching out to anyone who doesn’t agree with him, because he views his opponents as being evil, not just wrong.  His personality, therefore, is the opposite of Reagan’s.

Can you imagine seeing and listening to this guy on TV every day for four years? Neither can I, which, in the final analysis, is the principal reason why I don’t think he can win a nationwide general election–even more than his extremist views on taxes, spending, abortion, etc.

Major Tom has finally found his way home.

Marco Rubio is often referred to, more for worse than for better, as the Republican Obama.  How do the two stack up?

                                   Rubio         v.           Obama

Ethnicity           Cuban-American       African-American

Age at Presidential Bid           44                          47

Bad Habit                         Sweating                  Smoking

Signature Issue               Immigration             Iraq

Dubious Association     Brother-in-law       Rev. Wright

And the winner is. . . Let’s be real here:  we are comparing the two-term President who led us out of the Great Recession to a man who ultimately ran away from the bill with which he is most closely associated.

                   The Trumpster and the Vampire

The Trumpster and the Vampire

Sat beneath a tree.

Working on their latest plans

To stop the refugees.

 

The Trumpster and the Vampire

Were lounging in their chairs.

Ted pledged his love to Israel.

The Trumpster didn’t care.

 

The Trumpster and the Vampire

Were holding down the fort.

The Trumpster said when he’s in charge

Ten million he’ll deport.

 

The Trumpster and the Vampire

Were talking about taxes.

Ted claimed that flat is where it’s at

He knows just what the facts is.*

 

The Trumpster and the Vampire

Were perched atop a bench.

Ted said he’d make the desert glow

He didn’t mind the stench.

 

The Trumpster and the Vampire

Hung out behind the wall.

Sometimes it’s better if they don’t

Say anything at all.

 

The Trumpster and the Vampire

Are geared up for the race.

And one of them is doomed, alas

To end in second place.

 

The Trumpster and the Vampire

America must choose

If one of them should win the prize

The rest of us will lose.

*Homage to a famous line in “Take the Money and Run” by the Steve Miller Band.

 

Bernie Sanders had a column about the Fed in the NYT about two weeks ago. After you peeled away the tiresome left-wing populist rhetoric, it contained two legitimate points:

1. There is insufficient justification for an increase in interest rates at this point in time:  There is no evidence which suggests that inflation is an imminent problem.  Further interest rate increases will result in a stronger dollar, which will hurt exports and wreak havoc in struggling emerging economies.

2.  Increasing interest rates in response to rising wages exacerbates inequality:  The Fed has taken a lot of unjustified criticism for propping up the stock market, and thereby improving the bottom lines of the 1 percent, at a time when wages have remained stagnant.  What was the alternative–promoting a new Great Depression to spread the misery to everyone?  That said, I would be very concerned if the Fed decides to put the brakes on the economy just because we are starting to see a belated increase in wages, because, whether intentional or not, that would be an act of class warfare.  Trading a slight risk of increased inflation for improved living standards for workers is a sensible gamble at this point in time.

Michael Gerson argues in a column in today’s Washington Post that a Trump victory in the primaries would be a disaster, because it would turn the GOP from the party of Lincoln into a party that rejects racial and religious inclusiveness.

Say what?

Gerson is either living on the planet Zoltan or in a time machine that is stuck in the early 1960’s.  You can reasonably argue that the GOP leadership has not been racist (George W. Bush, to name one, clearly wasn’t), but it is indisputable that the GOP has relied heavily on a core of racist voters for its electoral successes since Nixon’s campaign in 1968.  Trump is simply substituting plain language for code.

If Gerson really wants the GOP to be the party of Lincoln, he has to be willing to forego all of its electoral victories in the Deep South.  I, for one, am not holding my breath.

 

In the short run, you can’t.  Every plausible approach has been tried by the last several administrations, and all of them have failed.

Here are your options:

1.  A preemptive war is not a viable approach because even if you somehow managed to destroy all of the North Korean nuclear weapons before they could be used, the North Korean army has enough men and artillery to level Seoul.  South Korea will understandably never agree to this.

2.  More sanctions won’t work because the country is already isolated, and the Chinese aren’t willing to push any harder.

3.  Engagement has been tried by the South Koreans on numerous occasions.  It always fails, because the North Korean government (correctly) views it as a threat to their regime.

4.  Leaning on China is the current favorite solution.  It is true that the Chinese leadership has no use for the Korean regime, but it is equally true that the Chinese view the status quo as the best of a menu of bad options, most of which would ultimately result in an American ally with troops on its border.  The North Korean government knows this, and is therefore prepared to ignore  Chinese attempts to rein it in.  Don’t expect much help from this quarter.

Two additional observations:

1.  The best ultimate solution to North Korea would be a military coup inspired and controlled by the Chinese.  The North Korean regime is aware of this, which is why anyone close to the throne who is perceived to be too close to China is likely to end up being executed in some particularly gruesome way.

2.  The actions of the North Korean government are perfectly rational if you begin with the premise that it has no interest in the welfare of its people;  it only cares about its own survival.  Occasional flurries of public militarism help keep the people in line.

The bottom line is that, for the foreseeable future, all we can do is remain vigilant without overreacting and hope that the Chinese can help at least a little bit.

The newbie dictator Jong Un

Thought exploding more nukes would be fun.

He threatened to blow

Up his neighbors, you know.

If he does, he’ll have nowhere to run.

Strong

Some think that blunt talking can prove that you’re strong.

I write here to tell you that thinking is wrong.

 

Strong isn’t making glass from desert sand.

Strong is more holding a poor person’s hand.

Strong isn’t showing your neighbor disdain.

Strong’s about healing unbearable pain.

Strong isn’t keeping the refugees out.

Compassion and justice are what it’s about.

Strong isn’t baring and beating your chest.

Strong’s about caring and being your best.

 

If you can’t figure out where all of this led

You’re probably voting for Trump or for Ted.

1. Cruz wins in Iowa.
2. Trump wins in New Hampshire.  Cruz and Rubio finish second and third.
3. Cruz wins a hard-fought battle in South Carolina.
4. Cruz wins the SEC primary handily.
5. Rubio wins Florida.  Bush exits the race.
6. From this point, Cruz wins the red states, while Rubio and Trump divide the blue and purple states.

And your GOP nominee is. . . Ted Cruz!

Ezra Klein posted an article on Vox.com yesterday in which he essentially argued that Trump would ultimately lose as a result of GOP voter pragmatism and some indescribable event similar to what happened to Howard Dean in 2004.  I don’t think the formula is that mysterious.  In addition to voter pragmatism, here are the reasons I think his support will wither quickly after Iowa:

1.  Sooner or later, the GOP enforcers will wake up and start running a barrage of negative ads about Trump’s many past and present left-wing deviations from party orthodoxy:  I have written on this before, so no further elaboration is necessary.

2.  Defeat in Iowa will dent Trump’s image as a winner:  Trump’s appeal is uniquely based on the (completely incorrect) public perception that he is a strong man who never loses at anything.  If and when Cruz beats him in Iowa, this rationale for his candidacy disappears.

If these two things don’t occur, I believe the establishment pundits are wrong and that Trump actually will get the nomination.  If they do, the next question is how he will react, and what it will mean to the GOP.  I will discuss that in a subsequent post.

In this scenario, Cruz wins Iowa due to his superior ground game and evangelical support, while either Rubio or Bush wins New Hampshire (a Christie win, due to the weakness of his campaign elsewhere, is only meaningful in that it is a loss for Trump).  This scenario results in the following:

1. Trump’s support drops rapidly.  He ultimately withdraws, snarling about how the party has treated him unfairly.
2. The establishment rallies around the New Hampshire winner.
3. The winner in South Carolina is the likely nominee.  I would put my money on Cruz, but a Rubio/Bush victory is possible.
4. Cruz will win the SEC primary and many of the Great Plains states, but it will not be enough if Rubio/Bush win in South Carolina.

 

Imagine that you are a businessman and you are forced to choose between Trump and Cruz.  Which one would you prefer?

While they agree on several important points affecting your interests (immigration; tax cuts; deregulation), they have completely different mindsets and personalities.  One of them is a hyperkinetic economic nationalist whose business has accustomed him to dealing with government on a regular basis; the other is a small government reactionary whose views on the economy were last fashionable during the Coolidge Administration.

For me, this would be a difficult (and painful) choice.  It probably would depend on the extent to which your business relied on access to overseas markets and the assistance of the government.  On balance, I hate to say it, but I would give Trump a slight edge in spite of his protectionist leanings, because he at least doesn’t want to bring back the gold standard, and he wouldn’t aspire to recreate some sort of 19th Century laissez-faire nirvana.