Category: Uncategorized

The election process is, in a real sense, just a very public version of a job interview.  The three most important concerns for the electorate are:

1. The resume:  Does the candidate have the requisite experience to do the job?
2. Personal characteristics:  Does the candidate have the right skills and temperament?
3. Business plan (i.e., ideology):  Where does the candidate think we should go from here?

In this post, I will be discussing #2 without reference to ideology, but by using a device common to sports fans who are discussing the merits of particular players in the draft.  For example, if you are the Cleveland Browns in the 2014 draft, and you have a choice between Teddy Bridgewater and Johnny Manziel, the former is a fairly predictable pick with limited distance between his ceiling and floor (a successful game manager, like Alex Smith), while the latter, given his skills, height, and personality issues, could be anyone from Fran Tarkenton (a Hall of Famer) to Ryan Leaf (a complete bust).

With that in mind, what are the ceilings and floors of the most significant remaining candidates?  Here are my choices:

1. Donald Trump:  Ceiling–Huey Long, an outrageous populist who managed to improve conditions for the poor in Louisiana while running roughshod over the system and the law.  Floor–George Wallace, a race-baiting demagogue with no notable accomplishments with which I am familiar.
2. Ted Cruz:  Ceiling– Calvin Coolidge, an austere small government conservative who was fortunate enough to be President during a boom.  Floor–Richard Nixon, with whom he shares similar talents and barely-suppressed hatred of his opponents.  If you have “New York values,” you and millions of others are already on Ted’s enemies list.
3. Marco Rubio:  Ceiling–Barack Obama, also a youthful and inspiring candidate.  Floor–Jimmy Carter, inexperienced in Washington and over his head.
4. Bernie Sanders:  Ceiling–FDR, in the unlikely event he manages to pull off the “Sanders Revolution” and build a new welfare state.  Floor–Harry Truman, speaking plainly about a GOP majority that prevents him from accomplishing anything.
5. Hillary Clinton:  Ceiling and Floor–LBJ.  I have posted on this analogy previously.

Hillary and her surrogates have been voicing some odd objections to Bernie’s single-payer program that have been justly panned by the left-leaning media.  I have to believe that what Hillary really wants to say, but can’t, is that, based on her uniquely painful experience, single-payer is not politically feasible, so there is no reason to discuss it.  The reason she can’t say it is that Sanders would respond by arguing that his “revolution” will make it possible;  how can she say in public that she doesn’t believe his efforts to mobilize support for Democrats among the disaffected poor are doomed to failure?

There once was a Texan named Cruz.

David Brooks left his feelings all bruised.

He called out The Times

For its liberal crimes

I’m guessing he watches Fox News.

The terrorist group known as ISIS

Threw the whole Middle East into crisis.

Its members will kill

For their God and a thrill

Forgive me if I’m a bit biased.

In my opinion, the Obama Administration made three significant mistakes in dealing with ISIS, Iraq, and Syria.  They were:

1. Identifying the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian military as a “red line;”
2. Changing course and asking for congressional approval of air strikes; and
3. Underestimating the strength of ISIS and the rottenness of the Iraqi Army in the early stages of the war.

The question for today is whether, in the long run, these mistakes made any real difference in the circumstances on the ground.  Here are my reactions:

1. The “red line” created an open-ended obligation to take military action in Syria. The President, for very good reasons, was extremely reluctant to do that, because he foresaw that a few air strikes would not make much of a difference, and the GOP hawks would have subsequently insisted on sending troops to remove Assad and occupy the country (i.e., Iraq II)  There is no plausible reason to believe that limited air strikes would have caused the fall of the regime, particularly in light of its backing from Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia.  The practical result of this mistake, therefore, was a temporary loss of credibility and prestige, but nothing else.
2. Same as #1 above.
3. If we had understood the magnitude of the threat correctly, we would have gone to Maliki and demanded that he clean up his act, and he would have refused. There is no reason to believe that renewed American involvement in the Iraqi military would have been welcomed until the disaster had already occurred. That involvement would not have been possible without the cooperation of the Iraqi government.

In short, Syria and Iraq would still be a mess, and just about the same mess, if the mistakes had not been made.

1.  For long stretches, it sounded more like a GOP pep rally than a debate.  The moderators made very little effort to draw out differences among the candidates, or to attack the weaknesses of their arguments.
2. You know you’re in for a long night when the candidate who exhibited the most humanity was . . . Donald Trump, with his graceful tribute to the people of Manhattan after 9/11.
3. Of the Romney Coalition (i.e., “the establishment”) candidates, Christie clearly had the best showing.  That is actually bad news for the establishment, because Christie has no chance of making any kind of showing outside of New Hampshire.
4. Rubio got the worst of his exchange with Christie and just gave excerpts of his campaign speeches.  That won’t help him in New Hampshire.
5. Does Cruz have an “I hate New York” bumper sticker on his car?  Where does he think his wife’s employer is based?  Does he believe it makes sense to simply write off a large number of electoral votes?
6. I am in equal measures impressed and disgusted by Cruz’ ability to attribute the hostility of David Brooks, a Republican columnist, to the liberals at the NYT.
7. The GOP consensus on foreign policy:  trash talking and defense budget increases will solve all of our problems.  As if.
8.  At least Cruz is willing and able to take on Trump.  Both of them commanded the stage.  Cruz got the best of it on the birther issue;  Trump won on “New York values.”  Call it a draw.

I posted a column a few months ago about how analogizing Trump and Sanders as outsiders did a disservice to Bernie.  It occurred to me this morning that the fundamental difference between the two is that Bernie views himself as being unimportant except to the extent that he is the vessel for a series of ideas, whereas with Trump, the person is the message, and ideas pale next to his general awesomeness.

There once was a Texan named Cruz.

His campaign’s been much in the news.

He took out a loan

Without making it known.

Does it matter?  The voters must choose.

Ross has a column in today’s NYT in which he basically argues that Sanders doesn’t really want to be President because he isn’t willing to rake Hillary Clinton’s muck.  By saying that, he betrays his lack of understanding of the basis for the Sanders campaign.

One of the most attractive things about Bernie is that he isn’t running for President because he needs an ego boost; he is running purely because he has a specific left-wing policy agenda that he wants to implement.  He understands perfectly that he can’t get the agenda through Congress even if he wins the election unless he can mobilize the support of millions of disaffected voters to change the balance of power in both houses, as well.  Hence the emphasis on the “Sanders Revolution;” without the revolution, electoral victory is pointless.

Personal attacks on Hillary don’t move the revolution forward; they only help Republicans (that is, in all likelihood, what is really motivating Douthat).  Don’t expect Sanders to deviate much from this approach in the coming months.

In the world of political scandals, there are real scandals, nothingburgers (think the Rubio brother-in-law stories), and matters in-between.  This one is in-between.

There was nothing illegal or inappropriate about the loan itself; the issue is the lack of proper disclosure.  If it had been disclosed, would it have made a significant difference in the Texas Senate race?  I don’t know, but I’m guessing not.

That said, the story is important for the following reasons:

1.  It makes Cruz look like a hypocrite:  Everything I have read about his legal career suggests (not surprisingly, given his personality) that he has an Inspector Javert-like passion for enforcing the letter, rather than the spirit, of the law.  This story makes it clear that he doesn’t hold himself to the same standard.

2.  It undercuts his red-state tribune narrative:  It will be harder for him to sell himself as a soul mate of evangelical farmers in Iowa when it becomes known that his wife makes big bucks working for Goldman Sachs.

I would hope that the bogus birther story doesn’t have an impact on the Iowa voters, but this one should.  We’ll see.

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.