Cromwell

It’s too bad for him that the story is ridiculous, because that precludes him from using the redemption narrative that is so popular with evangelicals.  Just ask George W. Bush.

It’s what he aspires to, but it’s difficult when you look like a former cast member of Our Gang.

There once was a young man named Marco

Whose chances looked just a bit dark-o.

He wore high heeled boots

To a chorus of hoots

Guess his campaign just needed a spark-o.

               New York Values

“New York values,” Cruz would say.

Half the population’s gay.

“Superheroes” in Times Square.

Sex and crime are everywhere.

Take the subway, you’ll get mugged

By a drug-addicted thug.

It’s so godless and depraved

It’s too far gone to be saved.

 

But the time machine returns us to 2016.

 

Take a second look today.

“Hamilton” is on Broadway.

Music, sports, and dance are great.

Climb atop the Empire State.

Concert halls and fine museums

Nowhere else to go and see ’em.

Indices of vice are down

It’s America’s playground.

 

So sue me if I take offense

New York values excellence.

 

However. . .

 

Big hoops fans are out of luck

The Nets and Knicks, alas, still suck.

 

P.S.  While all Republican candidates want to run against Jimmy Carter, Cruz is taking nostalgia to a new level:  he wants to run against Al Smith.

So here we are again:  Clinton is in Iowa and New Hampshire trying to fight off a surging outsider.  It’s 2008 again.  Or is it?

It isn’t, for the following reasons:

1. The debate in 2008 was about personalities and style; the issues this year are substantive.  It was very difficult to find any meaningful differences in the Obama and Clinton programs in 2008; the rationales for the Obama candidacy were his opposition to the war in Iraq, his unique abilities as a communicator, and the desire to move past the Clinton sturm und drang.  This time, there is an actual debate about single-payer, free public college, and Wall Street regulations.

2.  The country has moved past the ongoing Clinton controversies.  At least, that is my guess.  Those of us who supported Obama in 2008 because we thought the GOP hysteria about the Clintons was unique to them have to admit that Hillary was right about the right-wing conspiracy.

3.  The Iraq war vote doesn’t resonate the way it did in 2008.  Clinton is partially responsible for the Iran deal, and she doesn’t advocate sending large numbers of American troops to Syria, so pacifists within the party don’t have much to complain about.

4.  Obama had the African-American vote; Sanders doesn’t.   It won’t matter in Iowa and New Hampshire, but it jolly well will elsewhere.

There once was a woman named Hill.

She brushed off attacks on her Bill.

She took on the Bern

In the end, we’ll all learn

That his chances of winning were nil.

Matt Taibbi has a column on rollingstone.com in which he rips David Brooks for cynically feeding the masses red meat for the benefit of plutocrats and refusing to accept the Trump and Cruz ascendancy as a consequence.  I think the column is completely unfair to Brooks, who writes reasonably and soberly, but not to the GOP media as a whole.

If you persist in telling your audience in the shrillest tone possible that Obama is a socialist because he wants to increase the maximum income tax rate from 35 to 39 percent, what do you think is going to happen?  These people need to look at themselves in the mirror if they want to know what went wrong.

The likely response of the Reactionaries in the electorate:  Who are you, and why should we care?

It’s a nice try, but what the establishment really needs to do is put millions of dollars into negative ads pointing out how Trump really isn’t a “winner,” and how profoundly he has deviated from conservative orthodoxy in the past. Putting a manifesto in a magazine that only conservative intellectuals read isn’t going to cut it.

Our core interests in the Middle East are as follows:

1.  Keep the oil flowing; and
2.  Prevent terrorist attacks on us and our allies.

Our values must inevitably take a back seat to our interests when the two conflict, as they sometimes do (think of our support for the governments in Bahrain and Egypt), but should be observed in other circumstances.  They are:

1. Prevent human rights violations in the area; and
2. Encourage the growth of liberal democratic principles (respect for property rights; freedom of the press, religion, and association; truly free elections, etc.) Please note that these two items are related, but not identical; while it is unlikely that a truly democratic state will engage in human rights violations, many authoritarian governments respect some or even most civil rights, and may be better than any plausible alternative.

That’s it.  It isn’t any more complicated than that.

Some of the items that are not included on the list are as follows:

1. Unconditional support for Israel when it acts in a way that is inconsistent with our interests.  For example, when the Israeli government tried to use its clout in Congress to force us to go to war against Iran for no obvious American benefit, the President was wise to resist.
2.  Supporting the interests of either side in a religious civil war.
3.  Providing military support for Saudi efforts to establish hegemony over the area. Our relationship with the Saudis should be based solely on Interest #1 above;  it is not premised on any commonality of values.
4. Refusing to do business with Iran.  Heaven knows we are dealing with decades of bad history, but as long as the Iranians are willing to act in a manner consistent with our interests and values, there is no reason to treat them as pariahs.

In short, it is a mistake for us to act as if we have some sort of moral obligation to “cut the grass” for Israel, or to serve as the tip of the Saudi spear, just because we have had common interests and enemies in the past.

Sarah Palin is as close to a pure Reactionary as you could hope to find.  Trump doesn’t go that far;  his tax cut plan is as PBP and WSJ-friendly as the Bush plan.

It would be interesting to hear what she thinks of the various GOP proposals to give more money to billionaires, but, in all likelihood, no one will ever ask.

            You Can’t Always Beat Donald Trump

I saw you today in New Hampshire.

Speaking at a town hall.

You predicted a win, but you didn’t sound sure.

Your chance of success is really small.

 

You can’t always beat Donald Trump.

You can’t always beat Donald Trump.

You can’t always beat Donald Trump.

But if you campaign hard

Use all your charm

You can beat Rubio.

 

I saw you today on the TV.

Addressing a small crowd.

While the voters flocked to a big Trump rally.

And man, they were being really loud.

 

You can’t always beat Donald Trump.

You can’t always beat Donald Trump.

You can’t always beat Donald Trump.

But if you campaign hard

Use all your charm

You can beat Rubio.

 

Parody of “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” by the Rolling Stones.

On Sunday, I posted a column in which I suggested that the election was, in its essence, just a very public job interview process.  I identified three criteria that an employer would consider in an interview:  job experience; personal skills; and business plan (ideology).

For today’s purposes, I’m going to ignore ideology and focus exclusively on the other two criteria.  I would grade the candidates as follows:

Resume Quality

Kasich:  A.  Lengthy legislative experience; successful governor of a purple state.

Clinton:  A.  First Lady; Senator; executive and international experience as Secretary of State.

Christie:  B.  Reasonably successful governor of a blue state.

Bush:  B.  Experience is similar to Christie’s; scores lower because the GOP dominated the Florida Legislature.

Sanders:  B.  Senator; has executive experience in Burlington.

Rubio:  C.  One-term Senator with experience at the state level, but has never run anything.

Cruz:  C.  Same as Rubio.

Trump:  F.  Cutting deals for developments with local governments is not analogous to dealing with Nancy Pelosi, let alone Putin.

Personal Qualities

No one gets an A here.

Kasich:  B.  Intelligent and compassionate, if a bit whiny.

Clinton:  B.  Masters policy details easily; mostly good people skills; is used to intense scrutiny.

Bush:  B.  Qualities that make him a lousy candidate (temperance, thoughtfulness) would help him as President.

Sanders:  C.  Open and honest and has little ego, but a bit of a curmudgeon.  Sees the world in overly simple terms.

Rubio:  C.  Impressive political skills, but lacks gravitas at this point in his career.

Christie:  D.  Shouting at teachers may play in New Jersey, but not in the country as a whole.

Cruz:  F.  Obvious intellectual abilities, but the most personally disagreeable candidate within my memory.  Radiates  ambition, negativity, and anger.  Even his ideological allies in Washington view him as a user.

Trump:  F.  Every day with him as President would be a roller coaster ride.  You could imagine him pushing the button just because Putin said something to piss him off.

You can draw your own conclusions.

The NYT has run a number of articles on the spouses of various candidates, including Cruz and Christie, over the last few weeks.  Based on the information in those articles, it is unlikely that our next First Family will be a traditional family with a male breadwinner and a homemaker mom, regardless of whether the next President is a Republican or a Democrat.

That is absolutely OK;  we’re not in the fifties anymore, Toto.  My point in writing this is that what were perceived to be unusual characteristics of the Clinton marriage 20 years ago are much less so today, and anyone on the right who feels the need to comment on their relationship would be wise to STFU.

I (and, to be fair, others) have observed that the fundamental premise of the Trump campaign is that he is a winner.  The evidence most often used to support this comes from polling numbers.  Ergo, when one of his opponents challenges him on a policy issue, his standard response is to swat the matter away by calling the challenger a loser, and by citing the most recent polls to prove it.

I honestly can’t remember anyone ever campaigning like this, but in economic terms, what Trump is attempting to do is to create a bubble, and we all know from recent experience how that is likely to end.  “Vote for me because lots of other people have said they will vote for me” is not a message that will survive repeated defeats.

At least it isn’t a Ponzi scheme, which was my initial reaction.

 

A few months ago, I posted an only slightly tongue-in-cheek column in which I predicted that Palin would be Trump’s running mate due to their personal and ideological similarities.  Consider my opinion confirmed.