Donald Trump is depicted by many in the GOP and its de facto chief spokesman, Ted Cruz, as an inveterate “dealmaker” who will compromise conservative principles by “cutting deals” with Congress if elected President.
Let’s put aside the fact that “making deals” is actually viewed positively by many Americans fed up with a Congress and President that have been unable for the past seven years to address the many urgent domestic and foreign challenges facing our country. Someone should inform Ted Cruz that standing up for principles and not accomplishing anything does little to help the plights of struggling Americans.
Instead, let’s focus on the fact that Ted Cruz, who lost to Trump in the Louisiana primary, has been busy “working behind closed doors” to win more delegates from party bosses in that state. The “anti-Trump” faction spins the story that Cruz is displaying his shrewd political savvy in seizing an opportunity to win delegates he actually hasn’t earned from Louisiana voters. One can only wonder how Trump would have been portrayed had he seized that same opportunity. Why isn’t anyone asking what kind of “deal” Cruz is making with the Louisiana powers that be in order to secure their support?
Moreover, what is Cruz offering all his new supporters who until very recently publicly expressed disdain for him? Why are Lindsey Graham, Carly Fiorina and many others suddenly supporting him? Perhaps they view Cruz as the lesser of two evils, but one really must wonder why such strong-minded, “principled” individuals would roll over so easily.
We will probably never know what “horse trading” is occurring at this very moment among GOP bigwigs at all levels of government to undermine Trump’s candidacy in upcoming primaries and ultimately at the convention this summer.
As if the blatant hypocrisy of the foregoing isn’t shameful enough, Trump’s critics suggest that maybe the self-proclaimed “world’s greatest dealmaker” isn’t as great as he thinks precisely because he has avoided those sneaky and underhanded tactics to acquire more delegates, concentrating instead on garnering the support of “we the people” to propel his campaign forward.
The hypocrisy goes well beyond those examples. Donald Trump has been accused of feeding off fear and negative sentiment to win voters, but Ted Cruz’ most compelling plea so far has been to persuade Americans that the prospect of Trump or Clinton becoming President would be a disaster for our country.
Trump’s critics also say he changes his views on a whim to conform to prevailing public sentiment. Is that any more egregious than the GOP establishment contemplating changing their rules for nominating their candidate in order to load the odds in favor their choice?
Time will tell whether the aggressive, politically incorrect iconic businessman can be trumped by the self-indulgent, ruthless tactics of professional politicians.
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Ted Cruz has Two Chances to Become President: Slim and None
Many GOP pundits are expending great effort (and jeopardizing their credibility) to support Ted Cruz’ long-shot campaign to compete successfully against GOP front-runner Donald Trump. The entire effort is based on conjecture and counterfactual analysis to find a path for Ted Cruz to win the GOP nomination for President in 2016. The Pro-Cruz/Anti-Trump effort uses historical precedents, statistical techniques and lots of verbal massaging to persuade its constituency. This article is an attempt to focus on some simple facts to clarify the reality of the situation.
Ted Cruz’ plea for other GOP contenders to abandon their campaigns to give him a clear path to victory is not only arrogant but fanciful. The fact is that to date, even with most other contenders now suspending their campaigns, Cruz’ popularity with voters has barely budged nor is it clear that Cruz would have garnered the majority of votes cast for other contenders in prior primary contests. Moreover, by now it should be obvious that if Marco Rubio had not competed in the Iowa caucuses (and if Ben Carson’s Iowa campaign had not been undermined), Donald Trump might have beaten Cruz in Iowa, and that loss could have snuffed out Cruz’ campaign at inception.
Conservative Ted Cruz is not very popular with anyone, including conservatives in his own party. To date, he has secured slightly more than a quarter (28%) of GOP delegates compared to Trump’s 45%. His appeal even in the most conservative states so far is mixed at best. Although Cruz beat Trump in Idaho, Oklahoma and Utah, he lost to Trump in Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi and tied with him in Louisiana. With the exception of Texas, his home state, the remaining Cruz victories to date have been in small, generally peripheral states, including Alaska, Kansas, Maine, Wyoming and Guam territory.
Ted Cruz is either conning us or delusional about his chances for securing the requisite 1,237 delegates needed for outright victory at the GOP convention this summer. Given his standing today, Cruz must win more than 90% of the delegates at stake going forward, compared to Trump’s need to win 60%. That unlikely achievement becomes virtually impossible considering that future contests will occur in states generally unsympathetic to conservatism.
Notwithstanding what polls indicate at this juncture, the idea that Cruz can beat Trump, let alone Hillary Clinton is unrealistic at best. Trump has expanded the field of voters beyond historical norms and has proven support among some Democrats and Independents; Cruz barely gets the support of Republicans and given his strict conservative ideology is unlikely to garner meaningful votes outside his party in a general election. Forty percent of the electorate claims to be independent and the remaining sixty percent is more or less evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. How can Ted Cruz possibly beat Hillary Clinton facing an electorate with that party affiliation split?
There is something fundamentally un-American about the GOP establishment undermining its front-runner and the will of its constituency, especially doing so to support a candidate popular with only a small minority of its Party. The Republican Party has much to lose and not much to gain by betting its very existence by endorsing a candidate that has minimal party support and minimal likelihood of prevailing in the general election next fall.
Ted Cruz’ plea for other GOP contenders to abandon their campaigns to give him a clear path to victory is not only arrogant but fanciful. The fact is that to date, even with most other contenders now suspending their campaigns, Cruz’ popularity with voters has barely budged nor is it clear that Cruz would have garnered the majority of votes cast for other contenders in prior primary contests. Moreover, by now it should be obvious that if Marco Rubio had not competed in the Iowa caucuses (and if Ben Carson’s Iowa campaign had not been undermined), Donald Trump might have beaten Cruz in Iowa, and that loss could have snuffed out Cruz’ campaign at inception.
Conservative Ted Cruz is not very popular with anyone, including conservatives in his own party. To date, he has secured slightly more than a quarter (28%) of GOP delegates compared to Trump’s 45%. His appeal even in the most conservative states so far is mixed at best. Although Cruz beat Trump in Idaho, Oklahoma and Utah, he lost to Trump in Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi and tied with him in Louisiana. With the exception of Texas, his home state, the remaining Cruz victories to date have been in small, generally peripheral states, including Alaska, Kansas, Maine, Wyoming and Guam territory.
Ted Cruz is either conning us or delusional about his chances for securing the requisite 1,237 delegates needed for outright victory at the GOP convention this summer. Given his standing today, Cruz must win more than 90% of the delegates at stake going forward, compared to Trump’s need to win 60%. That unlikely achievement becomes virtually impossible considering that future contests will occur in states generally unsympathetic to conservatism.
Notwithstanding what polls indicate at this juncture, the idea that Cruz can beat Trump, let alone Hillary Clinton is unrealistic at best. Trump has expanded the field of voters beyond historical norms and has proven support among some Democrats and Independents; Cruz barely gets the support of Republicans and given his strict conservative ideology is unlikely to garner meaningful votes outside his party in a general election. Forty percent of the electorate claims to be independent and the remaining sixty percent is more or less evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. How can Ted Cruz possibly beat Hillary Clinton facing an electorate with that party affiliation split?
There is something fundamentally un-American about the GOP establishment undermining its front-runner and the will of its constituency, especially doing so to support a candidate popular with only a small minority of its Party. The Republican Party has much to lose and not much to gain by betting its very existence by endorsing a candidate that has minimal party support and minimal likelihood of prevailing in the general election next fall.
Monday, March 7, 2016
Sun-Sentinel Should Be Embarrassed by Clinton Endorsement
South Florida Sun-Sentinel’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president is the best recent example demonstrating the extraordinary liberal media bias that has become commonplace in our nation’s newspapers over the years. It is undoubtedly the main reason no sentient being under the age of 60 would be caught dead reading a newspaper and the reason most seniors subscribe to newspapers for the TV and movie guide, crossword puzzles, to use the newsprint to clean their windshields or to line the bottoms of their bird cages.
The top of the page summarily dismisses the leading Republican candidates with the phrase “Why we can’t endorse Trump, Rubio, Cruz or Kasich.” It says Trump isn’t serious enough, Rubio lacks the experience and work ethic, Cruz is “scary” and although Kasich is most qualified and polling likely to beat Hillary, because he can’t win the Republican nomination, don’t waste your vote on him. Although there are various other “facts” listed for the four, you would never know by reading this editorial that these are four extremely accomplished men, with backgrounds worthy of admiration in many respects.
The endorsement continues with a header “Clinton’s experience and steadiness makes her best choice for president.” But for the fact that the section has a gratuitous photo of Bernie Sanders, the editorial says “nothing” about him. You would never know that Sanders is giving Clinton a run for her money no one can apparently fathom (unless one considers how weak a candidate she is). However, not even the smartest bookies in Las Vegas could have predicted their intense rivalry, mainly because Sanders is not even a Democrat!
The endorsement says Clinton’s resume is impressive and indicates the time she has spent over the years in national politics. The reader can easily infer that Clinton is the Cal Ripken of politics, with an impressive attendance record, with basically no accomplishments that would qualify her for president. The next major point made is that Clinton “also has chosen not to totally distance herself from the record of Barack Obama.” What? Obviously the Sun-Sentinel writers feel they must walk a tightrope here, wanting us to know Clinton supports the failed Obama administration’s policies, but not too much!
It continues with her foreign policy record by describing her opinions and her “support” for certain issues. Wait a minute, wasn’t she Secretary of State? There’s no mention of her accomplishments, which is not too surprising because indeed there are none. Harry Reid, however, wants us to know that “nearly every foreign policy victory of President Obama’s second term has Secretary Clinton’s fingerprints on it.” That’s an interesting choice of words with the subliminal message that we should really think of this administration’s recent foreign policy in criminal terms. The word “nearly” is a head scratcher; there were no foreign policy victories, so why quibble over which ones Clinton handled?
The closer is priceless: “Clinton would not need training wheels if she were to become the Democratic nominee.” Well that’s nice. It probably means she kept the notes from Bill’s two successful runs for president to which she may refer during her own pathetic race for the presidency.
The top of the page summarily dismisses the leading Republican candidates with the phrase “Why we can’t endorse Trump, Rubio, Cruz or Kasich.” It says Trump isn’t serious enough, Rubio lacks the experience and work ethic, Cruz is “scary” and although Kasich is most qualified and polling likely to beat Hillary, because he can’t win the Republican nomination, don’t waste your vote on him. Although there are various other “facts” listed for the four, you would never know by reading this editorial that these are four extremely accomplished men, with backgrounds worthy of admiration in many respects.
The endorsement continues with a header “Clinton’s experience and steadiness makes her best choice for president.” But for the fact that the section has a gratuitous photo of Bernie Sanders, the editorial says “nothing” about him. You would never know that Sanders is giving Clinton a run for her money no one can apparently fathom (unless one considers how weak a candidate she is). However, not even the smartest bookies in Las Vegas could have predicted their intense rivalry, mainly because Sanders is not even a Democrat!
The endorsement says Clinton’s resume is impressive and indicates the time she has spent over the years in national politics. The reader can easily infer that Clinton is the Cal Ripken of politics, with an impressive attendance record, with basically no accomplishments that would qualify her for president. The next major point made is that Clinton “also has chosen not to totally distance herself from the record of Barack Obama.” What? Obviously the Sun-Sentinel writers feel they must walk a tightrope here, wanting us to know Clinton supports the failed Obama administration’s policies, but not too much!
It continues with her foreign policy record by describing her opinions and her “support” for certain issues. Wait a minute, wasn’t she Secretary of State? There’s no mention of her accomplishments, which is not too surprising because indeed there are none. Harry Reid, however, wants us to know that “nearly every foreign policy victory of President Obama’s second term has Secretary Clinton’s fingerprints on it.” That’s an interesting choice of words with the subliminal message that we should really think of this administration’s recent foreign policy in criminal terms. The word “nearly” is a head scratcher; there were no foreign policy victories, so why quibble over which ones Clinton handled?
The closer is priceless: “Clinton would not need training wheels if she were to become the Democratic nominee.” Well that’s nice. It probably means she kept the notes from Bill’s two successful runs for president to which she may refer during her own pathetic race for the presidency.
Saturday, March 5, 2016
GOP Battle with Trump May Backfire
It is understandable that mainstream Republicans should hate Donald Trump, and it has little to do with the fact that he is a politically incorrect self-aggrandizing bloviator, that he is not a true conservative, or that he is unlikely to beat Hillary Clinton in this year’s Presidential election. They hate Trump because they know they are unlikely to control him and based on his rhetoric he is someone likely to buck the system. That may be the best reason for “we the people” to consider voting for him.
Trump is a true political outsider and poses a threat to the Washington political class’s clubby way of life, the one that allows them to keep their jobs regardless of poor performance, allows them to enact laws for us that do not apply to them, and even break other laws with apparent impunity.
Trump is also self-funding his campaign, which means that he will not accept funding from lobbyists whose special interests have customarily guided the national political agenda. That means that under a President Trump we might expect congress to enact laws that are popular with the American public and even stand up against the special interests that often work against the needs of ordinary Americans. That, coupled with Trump’s pledge to rid the Federal Government of “waste, fraud and abuse,” must terrify certain members of the establishment and the special interests they serve.
Trump’s straight talk and no nonsense manner are also likely to expose the major shortcomings of the people who currently run the government. His brash aggressive candidacy has already revealed the real people behind the media-created facades of the other candidates in the race and some well known Republican Party stalwarts, and while enlightening it has not been pretty. In their desperate efforts to compete with and derail Trump’s momentum, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have damaged their career images. Trump has even managed to expose the true colors of Mitt Romney, former Presidential nominee. If he gets the chance, we can bet Trump will expose all of Hillary Clinton’s shortcomings.
Heretofore staid and steady Mitt Romney recently came out of his comfort zone in order to trash Trump’s candidacy. Romney raised some legitimate issues but also impaired his own credibility by exaggerating and mischaracterizing Trump’s candidacy. For example, he said Trump’s success was founded on inheriting his family’s business and that he was not a successful businessman. Really Mitt? Nobody is buying that. Romney also misrepresented Trump’s economic policies, especially for trade and immigration. He called him greedy and predatory in his business practices, which ironically was the way he himself had been labeled by critics during his own Presidential bid in 2012. Really Mitt? You knew it was baloney when critics accused you of dirty practices, yet you turn around and accuse Trump of the same thing? It was a vicious speech unprecedented in scope and scale, the type of tough talk that if directed at President Obama four years ago might have propelled Romney to the Presidency in 2012. One can only deduce that Romney sees Trump now as a bigger threat to America than Barack Obama was then; even so much of a threat that Romney is willing to trash Trump and hand an easy victory to Hillary Clinton, who Romney said would make a horrible President. Really Mitt? That makes some of us wonder about your own judgment and temperament to be President.
Romney and others do not seem to understand that a large plurality of Republican voters do not care about conservative principles or the traditions of the Republican party, they want a President with the resolve and even audacity to take the necessary action to shake up the status quo and change the way business does (or doesn’t) get done in Washington.
The Republican Party needs to tread carefully at this juncture. It promised Trump it would support his nomination if he won fair and square, which seems likely if not inevitable at this moment. If it reneges on that promise and attempts to subvert the will of the people by undermining his candidacy, it likely will fracture the party and hand Hillary Clinton a victory in the general election. That would be unfortunate and prove that preserving the conservative integrity of the party (and its feckless approach to governing) is more important than saving our nation from another failed Democrat Administration.
Trump is a true political outsider and poses a threat to the Washington political class’s clubby way of life, the one that allows them to keep their jobs regardless of poor performance, allows them to enact laws for us that do not apply to them, and even break other laws with apparent impunity.
Trump is also self-funding his campaign, which means that he will not accept funding from lobbyists whose special interests have customarily guided the national political agenda. That means that under a President Trump we might expect congress to enact laws that are popular with the American public and even stand up against the special interests that often work against the needs of ordinary Americans. That, coupled with Trump’s pledge to rid the Federal Government of “waste, fraud and abuse,” must terrify certain members of the establishment and the special interests they serve.
Trump’s straight talk and no nonsense manner are also likely to expose the major shortcomings of the people who currently run the government. His brash aggressive candidacy has already revealed the real people behind the media-created facades of the other candidates in the race and some well known Republican Party stalwarts, and while enlightening it has not been pretty. In their desperate efforts to compete with and derail Trump’s momentum, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have damaged their career images. Trump has even managed to expose the true colors of Mitt Romney, former Presidential nominee. If he gets the chance, we can bet Trump will expose all of Hillary Clinton’s shortcomings.
Heretofore staid and steady Mitt Romney recently came out of his comfort zone in order to trash Trump’s candidacy. Romney raised some legitimate issues but also impaired his own credibility by exaggerating and mischaracterizing Trump’s candidacy. For example, he said Trump’s success was founded on inheriting his family’s business and that he was not a successful businessman. Really Mitt? Nobody is buying that. Romney also misrepresented Trump’s economic policies, especially for trade and immigration. He called him greedy and predatory in his business practices, which ironically was the way he himself had been labeled by critics during his own Presidential bid in 2012. Really Mitt? You knew it was baloney when critics accused you of dirty practices, yet you turn around and accuse Trump of the same thing? It was a vicious speech unprecedented in scope and scale, the type of tough talk that if directed at President Obama four years ago might have propelled Romney to the Presidency in 2012. One can only deduce that Romney sees Trump now as a bigger threat to America than Barack Obama was then; even so much of a threat that Romney is willing to trash Trump and hand an easy victory to Hillary Clinton, who Romney said would make a horrible President. Really Mitt? That makes some of us wonder about your own judgment and temperament to be President.
Romney and others do not seem to understand that a large plurality of Republican voters do not care about conservative principles or the traditions of the Republican party, they want a President with the resolve and even audacity to take the necessary action to shake up the status quo and change the way business does (or doesn’t) get done in Washington.
The Republican Party needs to tread carefully at this juncture. It promised Trump it would support his nomination if he won fair and square, which seems likely if not inevitable at this moment. If it reneges on that promise and attempts to subvert the will of the people by undermining his candidacy, it likely will fracture the party and hand Hillary Clinton a victory in the general election. That would be unfortunate and prove that preserving the conservative integrity of the party (and its feckless approach to governing) is more important than saving our nation from another failed Democrat Administration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)