Additional ruminations, beyond those already posted.
- The moderators (CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Dana Bash, and Hugh Hewitt) did both a very good and a terrible job. Good, because by and large they kept control of the debate, kept a decent conversation going, and for the most part limited very aggressive filibuster attempts from Ted Cruz. Terrible, because the debate was supposed to be about national security and foreign policy. ISIS is an important issue, to be sure, but it’s not the only, or even the most important, national security/foreign policy issue we face. Yet, virtually the entire debate focused on what to do about them. Almost nothing about Russia (“punching the Russians in the nose” apparently passes for serious foreign policy discussion in the GOP), China, North Korea, or even anyone in the Middle East other than ISIS. And, needless to say, nothing about climate change or other non-terroristic threats to our national security. That’s on the moderators, who consciously chose to stick to what the GOP candidates want to talk about. Also, they didn’t do a very good job with follow-up questions to absurd things the candidates said, such as Christie wanting a face-to-face with King Hussein of Jordan (who has been dead for over 15 years), or Cruz recalling that Bill Clinton and George W. Bush each deported over 10 million undocumented immigrants (in fact, Clinton deported less than a million, and W. deported roughly as many as Obama has – and Obama is on track to surpass him, making him the deporting-est president in US history).
- It’s worth saying a little more about Trump’s moments of surprising lucidity. Perhaps the most startling was this, in which he utterly trashed the Iraq war and its aftermath:
In my opinion, we’ve spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that frankly, if they were there and if we could’ve spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems; our airports and all of the other problems we’ve had, we would’ve been a lot better off. I can tell you that right now.
We have done a tremendous disservice, not only to Middle East, we’ve done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have wiped away, and for what? It’s not like we had victory.
It’s a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized. A total and complete mess. I wish we had the $4 trillion or $5 trillion. I wish it were spent right here in the United States, on our schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart…. What do we have now? We have nothing. We’ve spent $3 trillion and probably much more – I have no idea what we’ve spent. Thousands and thousands of lives, we have nothing. Wounded warriors all over the place who I love, we have nothing for it.
Remarkable. “A tremendous disservice to humanity.” “The people that have been wiped away.” “Thousands and thousands of lives, we have nothing.” Even the Democrats rarely talk like that. And also remarkable was how Trump delivered these comments. He was not ranting. He actually seemed to mean it. There are good arguments to be had about the best course of dealing with truly awful dictators, and last night’s debate put some of those arguments in play. Trump did by far the best job of outlining the cost of sending Americans into war zones. Both liberals and conservatives who hate Trump found that particular line of argument compelling. I hope the moderators of the next Democratic debate quote some of that at the candidates, and ask them if they agree.
- Jeb! had a prepared line last night that he no doubt thought would be the zinger that puts him back in the game. He called Donald Trump a “chaos candidate.” That’s actually a pretty good description. It’s also totally ineffective as a means of cutting into Trump’s lead. Why? Because a chaos candidate is exactly what a lot of people want, and this is what Jeb! and other establishment types continue to profoundly misunderstand. A lot of people – on both sides – deeply believe that our political system is in a state of such crisis that, basically, it has to be blown up. That’s not far from what Bernie Sanders is saying in his call for “revolution.” Trump, precisely because of his unpredictability, his lack of interest in GOP orthodoxy, his willingness to say any damn thing that pops into his head, in addition to his financial independence, is widely perceived as the candidate on the GOP side best positioned to shatter the system as it currently exists. A “chaos candidate” is not a bad shorthand for someone like that. And it’s exactly what his supporters want.
- Ted Cruz is deeply dislikable. It’s been widely and almost certainly accurately reported that his Senate colleagues (on both sides of the aisle) and other political establishment types truly can’t stand the guy. And we saw it again last night. Cruz is pretty good at staring right into the camera to say what he wants to say. When he did that, it made my skin crawl, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. You just get the sense that someone with no soul is looking at you, which is an unsettling feeling. He doesn’t feel quite human. At least Donald Trump, boorish and bullying as he is, is a recognizable member of our species – we all know guys like him, just not as rich. Cruz … I’m not so sure. Whether that puts a ceiling on his campaign potential of course remains to be seen. But I do think that, in order to win the nomination, a candidate has to be “likable” in some way, and I wonder whether Cruz has that in him.
- Fiorina, Paul, Kasich, Carson, and Jeb! have no chance to win the nomination. Christie has very little, though if he really catches fire and wins NH and has a decent Super Tuesday outing (both very tall orders), he could keep himself alive for a while longer. Really, it’s down to Trump, Cruz, and Rubio. And, fortunately for Trump, Cruz and Rubio detest each other (as was evident from last night’s debate) and will continue trying to tear each other down, each probably believing (incorrectly, IMHO) that Trump has no chance to actually win the nomination, so by destroying the other, he clears the path for himself. As long as they continue splitting the non-Trump vote, Trump stays in a good spot. I’m sticking to my prediction of Trump as the eventual nominee.
As I’ve pointed out before, even the singing Filipino weathermen can casually talk about the risks of climate change and even shave his head in protest of the Paris talks. This is because that nation has already lost over a hundred thousand people, at least, to the rising tides.
It’s why unlike Masssachusetts, they don’t care where they put the wind power, they are proud of it. Hotel rooms shut off all electricity when you exit them, plastic bags are small, as our soda cups and extra napkins and paper products cost more. It’s no ecotopia, we are still talking about a nation mired in poverty whose “liberal” government still wasn’t even able to allow a debate on legalizing birth control, but it still collectively recognizes the risks of climate change more than we are allowed to in the States. Because it’s media has way more balls.
Even Manny Pacquio’s homophobic Marcos/Peronist party recognizes it, when the GOP universally fails to. It will cause more violence, more death, more destruction to people, not just animals, and not just to non-Americans than any other threat facing us. And they have their fucking heads in the sand while Wolf Blitzer let’s them keep them there.
…and I’m still betting heavily against a Trump nomination in my own mind.
In 2007, I suggested to James Carville that Rudy Guiliani was the most electable Republican, he proceeded to tell me ‘maybe if all da oda candidates geet into a cah and it rolls on over and blows up and just da wheels be spinnin on it, maybe then rudy’s gotta a chance.’
Turns out the Ragin Cajun* was right.
*Still disappointed the U C Dems didn’t get these guys to do the catering
…but Guiliani was one of the last northeastern moderates, so while he may have been electable in the general, he wasn’t getting the nomination even after 9/11. The GOP has always ultimately settled on reasonable conservative whose turn it is, which still most closely describes Bush.
Fun facts: The last election the GOP won without a Bush on the ticket was 1972, which was also the last year that any GOP ticket – winner or loser – went without a Bush or Bob Dole until 2008. Also, if you include Richard Nixon you have to go back to 1964 from 2008 to find a ticket without him, a Bush, or Dole and you have to go back to 1928 from the present day to find a winning GOP ticket that did not include him or a Bush.
And have you seen Jeb’s numbers? The pundits are saying that Trump had a terrible night and Jeb! had a good night, but the numbers show he has no hope. Jeb! isn’t in the top three in a single early primary state, isn’t in the top three in his home state, isn’t in the top three in Texas where his family got their start, and isn’t in the top three nationally. His supposed base of moderates is going to Trump!
Rubio can get a third place in IA, NH and SC and still be a serious contender past Super Tuesday, if Jeb gets 8th in IA and 6th in NH, as currently predicted, for the sake of the party he will have to drop out. Especially if it’s Trump and Cruz in 1st and 2nd in the first three states.
His only avenue left is severely swift boating Rubio, besides being an act of political filicide, it would be an act suicide for the Republican establishment as well. It would either nominate Trump or Cruz, or elect a Democrat in the fall.
…at least since the GOP Revolution of 1994. “Look at how extreme they’ve gotten! Surely this is the year they will nominate a crazy. The poll numbers for the favorite going in are in the tank.” Yet, like clockwork they return to someone safe: Dole, GWB, McCain, Romney. I would turn your final sentence on its head. Nominate Trump or Cruz, and we WILL elect a Democrat in the fall.
Go to a righty blog and see how Contract authors Boehner and Kasich are regularly bashed for being liberals, as is Paul Ryan, proud architect of a plan to kill the New Deal, for having the audacity to suggest Muslims have a right to emigrate here. It’s a real disease that has embedded itself. 75% of registered republicans support Muslim internment camps. This ain’t my lifetimes Republican Party, let alone my dads or my grandpas. None of these “moderates” are going to be nominated. Mark my words.
Again, you’re not saying anything that hasn’t been said other years, just before they nominate a non-mouth-frother. Limbaugh whacked both McCain and Romney quite a bit on their way to the nomination, for example. I think you risk falling in exactly the same trap that has caught pundits in those years too.
The establishment might still win out, but it won’t be Jeb! He has no prayer of being that candidate this cycle. That is what I was mainly trying to argue. Trump, Cruz, and Rubio have about a 30-35-35 chance of winning in that order. I strongly feel Cruz will win Iowa which may blunt Trump’s appeal, and if that leads to a pissing match between them it may benefit Rubio. Rubio seems willing to concede the early states to them and hope to win big down the stretch, it’s never been attempted before but could work in this cycle. But it’s really a three man race, with a small possibility of a Christie upset in NH. But if Jeb gets 4-6th in the early states, I don’t see how he recovers.
Santorum won it last time. I think Huckabee did in 2008 and Pat Robertson in 1988, right-wingers all. When did Cruz and Rubio become establishment? Cruz definitely isn’t and Rubio was the Tea Party candidate for Senate. I still think Bush might pull an upset in a tortoise vs. hare sort of way. I’m reminded at this point in the 2004 cycle we all thought Dean was steamrolling his way to the Dem nomination. He was up in every poll. Joe Trippi was a rock star for his new harnessing of the internet and electeds were jumping on the bandwagon. Then at the last minute Kerry pulled it out in IA and NH and the early favorite was safely back on his way to the nomination.
Climbing from middle of the pack to front, Jeb! Has climbed from undisputed front runner to “barely beating Rand Paul”. Not the same. He is not only projected to lose the first two states, but to not even place in the top 5. Who was the last nominee in either party who lost IA and NH and didn’t place in the top three in either? You’d be hard pressed to find one. This cycle is unlike other cycles. Especially with all the advantages he has coming into the race, being a brother and son of a former President. If he’s 5th in Iowa and 6th in NH which is a must win for him, as he currently is, he is done.
…until it isn’t. We’ll see, but I still won’t be surprised if Bush pulls off a top three in either or both.
You could say the same about the Democrats. Without Clinton or Obama, they haven’t won an election in 40+ years unless the sitting GOP president was thisclose to indictment. There are only 2 1/2 elections every decade, and so the sample is vanishingly small. These facts might be fun, but they have as much meaning as ;sadokf;n:KALJfd;JKSAL
The best GOP candidate has trouble climbing the Electoral College wall and a flawed candidate is going to have real issues getting even close to 270.
…like when the Republicans debate they are only running for their party’s nomination, but when the Democrats debate they are actually running for President?
Wow. Singing Trump’s praise for the rare moment of lucidity?
No need to be nice, oh so nice to the self asserting bully. All he did is cheapen the public discourse and sink it deeper into the gutter. After him, the deluge.
It will cost a lot more than four trillion to untangle the mess Trump will make if the man is elected.
Let’s not joke about this. There are no pearls in his dung.
in the Middle East, but that’s partly because he blathers incessantly; so, like the monkeys with the typewriters, eventually he’s going to say something that makes sense.
Even so, while I would agree that it would have been a hell of a lot better if we had spent $4 trillion on our roads and bridges rather than trying to destroy and rebuild Iraq, we probably never would have spent that money on our roads and bridges. Today’s sequester supporters, and Trump is among them, would have blocked that type of spending.
Also, while our involvement in Iraq was unquestionably a colossal waste of lives and treasure, I’m not sure the Middle East would ultimately be any less of a mess had we not toppled Saddam Hussein. True, he was supposedly a bulwark against Iran. But the Middle East is and has been a mess for many other reasons, including our support for reactionary regimes like Saudi Arabia. I haven’t heard Trump criticize that.