Cromwell

The longsuffering people of Greece

Thought austerity would finally cease.

But cutting their debt

Left the Germans upset

So their taxes and fees still increase.

Meet the new boss.

Same as the old boss.

They didn’t want to miss a new episode of “Empire.”

A comparison of the two:

Francis       v.        Xi

Leader of > 1 Billion         Yes                  Yes

Selected in Secret              Yes                  Yes

Corruption Fighter            Yes                  Yes

Critical of West                   Yes                  Yes

Universal Values                Yes                   Only on Paper

And the winner is. . .Francis, who actually believes in the universal values he espouses.  Chinese exceptionalism isn’t a big seller here.

 

 

1.  Why did you think it was OK to lie about the contents of the Planned Parenthood videos?
2.  You obviously support a large increase in the defense budget even though the US spends more for defense than the next five countries combined.  Where will you find the money for this increase?
3.  Since there is no chance that the US will invade Russia, and Putin knows that, how exactly would building up our forces along the Russian border change Russian behavior in Syria?
4.  How do you propose to deal with the issues of wage stagnation and inequality?  Do you even view these as issues?

And, of course, the most important:

5.  Given your checkered past as a CEO, and given further that you have no experience in government (to use your own language, losing a Senate race is an “activity,” not an “accomplishment”), why would anyone think you are qualified to be President of the United States?

We may be stupid, but we’re strong.

I know, I know:  you want to fire them all today.  Unfortunately, the system doesn’t work that way.  You have to let the process play itself out.

Here are my predictions:

1.  Tier One:  Candidates relegated to the JV debates:  You’re already fired.

2.  Tier Two:

a.  Mike Huckabee:  No money, very restricted message, no hope.  Hits the

bricks after he loses in Iowa.

b.  Chris Christie:  Cashes in his chips after losing in New Hampshire.

       c.  John Kasich:   Occupies roughly the same ideological space as Jeb!, but

has no money.  Exits gracefully after losing in New Hampshire.

3.  Tier Three:

a.  Scott Walker:    Evil Eagle Scout departs to a chorus of indifference

after a poor showing on Super Tuesday.

b.  Ben Carson:   Also gets the boot after Super Tuesday.

c.  Carly Fiorina:   Becomes a prime contender for VP after Super Tuesday.

4.  The Finalists:

a.  Jeb Bush:  Has enough money to overcome losses in early primaries.

Knows how to run a nationwide campaign.   Calendar becomes more

favorable after Super Tuesday.

b.  Donald Trump:  Numbers will erode over time, but has too much

money and ego to quit.

c.  Marco Rubio:  Has enough money and support to fight to the end.

d.  Ted Cruz:  Ditto.

e.  Rand Paul:  His father kept going under similar circumstances, so

why wouldn’t he?  Has Conservative Libertarian space all to himself.

And the winner is. . . It’s too early to tell.

 

 

Will the Fed raise interest rates?

The country’s not doing that great.

Wages are low

And growth is still slow

Stop them before it’s too late.

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.