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.
Thursday, March 24, 2016
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.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Donald Trump Should Begin Every Debate Answer with Two Words: Wollman Rink
Many Trump critics watched the GOP debate in Texas last week thinking that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio got the better of Trump, especially because they were much better prepared to outline their policy positions and did so with flowing eloquence. Trump critics probably thought it ridiculous that these two men should be so far behind Trump in most primary contests so far. How could Donald Trump be so popular when he is apparently unable to articulate in any detail what he would actually do as President? It’s a compelling question.
However, I too watched and thought the whole debate was ridiculous too, but from a completely different perspective. The question for me is why would anyone vote for Cruz or Rubio for the most demanding job in the free world, knowing both are freshman senators with barely any accomplishments that would suggest they would be good Presidents? Isn’t that the mistake we just made with Barack Obama?
Everyone should agree that Trump needs to talk a better game if he intends to be President, but should he really be expected to be as fluid on those topics as those senators who by virtue of their careers are professional bloviators who get paid to drill that stuff into their heads day in and day out? There are lots of folks that can talk chapter and verse on a full range of topics and some probably better than those two senators. In addition, let’s not put too much emphasis in those policy positions. With few exceptions, those GOP positions are similar in their broad strokes and it’s likely that whoever wins is going to need to amend them in order to secure congressional approval. Moreover, those policies could be completely overhauled and even abandoned if the country faces another financial crisis or national security catastrophe many experts believe are a virtual certainty in the years ahead.
Quite frankly, the GOP electorate is telling us loud and clear that good policies are great, but what we really want is a leader that can make them happen. As far as I can tell, Trump was the only one on that stage with a long track record of making things happen, albeit in the private sector, but in environments that are at least as hostile as the Washington political scene. Rest assured that being a real estate developer in New York is about as tough as tough gets!
We should also remember that what Trump lacks as a policy wonk he can compensate for by surrounding himself with knowledgeable people. And as a real estate developer Trump is not only comfortable quarterbacking a team of experts in performing their respective roles, but has proven himself adept in the role of making sure it all gets done. On the other hand, the executive experience that Cruz and Rubio sorely lack cannot be so easily acquired. Those guys should be encouraged to become governors of their respective states, Texas and Florida, and return to national politics when we can evaluate their successes and failures in those roles.
At the debate, Cruz made the snide comment that while he was standing up for his principles on the floor of the Senate, Donald Trump was firing Dennis Rodman on celebrity apprentice. Too bad Trump did not respond that while Cruz and Rubio were still in high school, Trump had succeeded in taking on one of the great city government bureaucracies and accomplishing a feat most deemed a hopeless cause, the renovation of the Wollman Ice Skating Rink in New York City.
The Wollman Rink had been closed and languishing for 6 years and had become a $13 million politically charged money pit for the City, when Trump in 1986 convinced the Mayor (he had a history of antagonizing) to allow him to undertake its renovation. The renovation was finished ahead of time and under budget, within year for a total cost of approximately $2 million dollars. Obviously, that achievement does not qualify Trump to be President, but it does serve as a colorful public example of someone who gets things done, even when government is involved. Isn’t that what politics and leadership is all about, getting people to do what you want them to do? By the way, has Cruz or Rubio done anything comparable?
People who can talk are a dime a dozen, especially in Washington DC. People that can get things done are few and far between, and our country desperately needs one at this point in our history.
However, I too watched and thought the whole debate was ridiculous too, but from a completely different perspective. The question for me is why would anyone vote for Cruz or Rubio for the most demanding job in the free world, knowing both are freshman senators with barely any accomplishments that would suggest they would be good Presidents? Isn’t that the mistake we just made with Barack Obama?
Everyone should agree that Trump needs to talk a better game if he intends to be President, but should he really be expected to be as fluid on those topics as those senators who by virtue of their careers are professional bloviators who get paid to drill that stuff into their heads day in and day out? There are lots of folks that can talk chapter and verse on a full range of topics and some probably better than those two senators. In addition, let’s not put too much emphasis in those policy positions. With few exceptions, those GOP positions are similar in their broad strokes and it’s likely that whoever wins is going to need to amend them in order to secure congressional approval. Moreover, those policies could be completely overhauled and even abandoned if the country faces another financial crisis or national security catastrophe many experts believe are a virtual certainty in the years ahead.
Quite frankly, the GOP electorate is telling us loud and clear that good policies are great, but what we really want is a leader that can make them happen. As far as I can tell, Trump was the only one on that stage with a long track record of making things happen, albeit in the private sector, but in environments that are at least as hostile as the Washington political scene. Rest assured that being a real estate developer in New York is about as tough as tough gets!
We should also remember that what Trump lacks as a policy wonk he can compensate for by surrounding himself with knowledgeable people. And as a real estate developer Trump is not only comfortable quarterbacking a team of experts in performing their respective roles, but has proven himself adept in the role of making sure it all gets done. On the other hand, the executive experience that Cruz and Rubio sorely lack cannot be so easily acquired. Those guys should be encouraged to become governors of their respective states, Texas and Florida, and return to national politics when we can evaluate their successes and failures in those roles.
At the debate, Cruz made the snide comment that while he was standing up for his principles on the floor of the Senate, Donald Trump was firing Dennis Rodman on celebrity apprentice. Too bad Trump did not respond that while Cruz and Rubio were still in high school, Trump had succeeded in taking on one of the great city government bureaucracies and accomplishing a feat most deemed a hopeless cause, the renovation of the Wollman Ice Skating Rink in New York City.
The Wollman Rink had been closed and languishing for 6 years and had become a $13 million politically charged money pit for the City, when Trump in 1986 convinced the Mayor (he had a history of antagonizing) to allow him to undertake its renovation. The renovation was finished ahead of time and under budget, within year for a total cost of approximately $2 million dollars. Obviously, that achievement does not qualify Trump to be President, but it does serve as a colorful public example of someone who gets things done, even when government is involved. Isn’t that what politics and leadership is all about, getting people to do what you want them to do? By the way, has Cruz or Rubio done anything comparable?
People who can talk are a dime a dozen, especially in Washington DC. People that can get things done are few and far between, and our country desperately needs one at this point in our history.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Why Donald Trump wants to be President
Much has been written about Donald Trump’s popularity with primary voters and whether he would be a good President, but has anyone really thought about why he wants the job? He says he wants to “make America great again,” but there is an even more compelling reason that stems from Trump’s “huge” ego, competitive nature and drive to succeed. Donald Trump sees this job as the culmination of his life’s work and uniquely suited to his skills, experience and personality.
Real estate developer Donald Trump has spent his entire professional life creating world-class assets out of thin air, so imagine how tantalizing the upside potential appears right now of a down (if not out) America with its still bountiful resources and competitive advantages. The fact is the United States of America is the mother of all world-class assets, even if lately it seems to have lost its way. It would not be surprising if Mitt Romney, who spent decades trawling the globe for great companies with lousy management, ripe for picking to unlock their hidden potential, viewed his presidential candidacy in a similar light, as unlocking the hidden potential in America. But America today has even more turn-around potential than it did in 2012.
Trump’s interest in being President should make America optimistic about its future. Guys like Trump don’t usually take on projects unless the odds of success are heavily stacked in their favor. Like him or hate him, does anyone really think Donald Trump would waste his time running for President, let alone risk ruining his reputation if he didn’t think he would not only win the job but succeed at it with flying colors? (For those reasons, it is unlikely that Trump would ever run as an independent candidate with virtual certainty of losing the election!)
Critics caution about Trump’s confidence in his own abilities and point to his failures and bankruptcies as evidence of his fallibility. And while those facts must be taken into consideration, the fact that he nearly lost his empire to financial ruin years ago but managed to reclaim it is worthy of consideration too. Facing financial ruin personally should give Trump a perspective that might serve him well in managing our nation’s own dubious financial condition.
None of Trump’s plans for our economy are uniquely his own but his reputation for making deals and getting things done surely sets him apart from most current contenders for the Presidency. Because he is undaunted by political correctness, unfettered by special interests and through sheer force of will, he feels uniquely suited to reduce if not eliminate government waste, fraud and abuse and to reverse the economically counterproductive policies of the present administration. He believes doing so will likely unleash a period of growth and prosperity unseen in decades.
From Trump’s perspective, the upside for his presidency must be huge. Without considering all his big ideas for improving the nation, merely eliminating and reversing all the nonsense in Washington DC would be enough to assure his success! Donald Trump clearly sees huge upside and minimal downside with being President of the United States, especially for someone with his unique background, skills and personality.
Real estate developer Donald Trump has spent his entire professional life creating world-class assets out of thin air, so imagine how tantalizing the upside potential appears right now of a down (if not out) America with its still bountiful resources and competitive advantages. The fact is the United States of America is the mother of all world-class assets, even if lately it seems to have lost its way. It would not be surprising if Mitt Romney, who spent decades trawling the globe for great companies with lousy management, ripe for picking to unlock their hidden potential, viewed his presidential candidacy in a similar light, as unlocking the hidden potential in America. But America today has even more turn-around potential than it did in 2012.
Trump’s interest in being President should make America optimistic about its future. Guys like Trump don’t usually take on projects unless the odds of success are heavily stacked in their favor. Like him or hate him, does anyone really think Donald Trump would waste his time running for President, let alone risk ruining his reputation if he didn’t think he would not only win the job but succeed at it with flying colors? (For those reasons, it is unlikely that Trump would ever run as an independent candidate with virtual certainty of losing the election!)
Critics caution about Trump’s confidence in his own abilities and point to his failures and bankruptcies as evidence of his fallibility. And while those facts must be taken into consideration, the fact that he nearly lost his empire to financial ruin years ago but managed to reclaim it is worthy of consideration too. Facing financial ruin personally should give Trump a perspective that might serve him well in managing our nation’s own dubious financial condition.
None of Trump’s plans for our economy are uniquely his own but his reputation for making deals and getting things done surely sets him apart from most current contenders for the Presidency. Because he is undaunted by political correctness, unfettered by special interests and through sheer force of will, he feels uniquely suited to reduce if not eliminate government waste, fraud and abuse and to reverse the economically counterproductive policies of the present administration. He believes doing so will likely unleash a period of growth and prosperity unseen in decades.
From Trump’s perspective, the upside for his presidency must be huge. Without considering all his big ideas for improving the nation, merely eliminating and reversing all the nonsense in Washington DC would be enough to assure his success! Donald Trump clearly sees huge upside and minimal downside with being President of the United States, especially for someone with his unique background, skills and personality.
Saturday, November 21, 2015
Is the USA’s Hands-Off Policy Toward Terrorism Inevitable?
2015 is already turning out to be the most violent for global terrorism since 9/11 and with last week’s attacks in Paris and Mali, the American public seems to be growing ever more anxious about our Government’s hands-off policy toward dealing with terrorism. So far the President has gotten a pass for his reluctance (if not defiance) to take any meaningful action to effectively stem the tide of terrorism from ISIS, Al Qaeda and other groups. Instead, most of the blame for the burgeoning problem is still being laid at George W Bush’s feet, for getting the USA involved in a long costly war in Iraq more than a decade ago. The President has even invoked the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. and intimated that he’s content to wait for the moral arc of the universe to bend toward justice, thereby letting the tide of terrorism resolve itself over time.
Commentators will debate how much blame Obama’s hands-off policy and Bush’s hands-on policy should bear for the global terrorism mess we find ourselves in today. The point of this commentary is to question whether things would have turned out meaningfully different if we had instead elected other leaders from the pool of presidential candidates since the events of 9/11.
We can all agree that 9/11 would have likely occurred with Al Gore as President, and academics and pundits can speculate about what his response would have been to that national tragedy, but we will obviously never know for sure how his leadership would have evolved. Bush went to war because of his belief (erroneously in hindsight, along with many members of Congress) that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Would Gore have known better?
However, we do know that Gore served two terms as Vice President in the Clinton Administration which history has shown was less than pro-active in dealing with the growing problem of global terrorism even at that time. Let’s not forget the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center was the do-over for a botched attempt back in 1993 under Clinton’s watch. Obviously, Gore would not have necessarily followed Clinton’s soft approach to terrorism, but there is little to suggest that the flaky Gore would have been much more hawkish on terrorism, especially after he sold his TV station to Al-Jazeera, an organization many critics claim is sympathetic to the terrorist cause.
Furthermore, do the achievements of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, former and current Secretary of State, respectively, suggest either would have been more effective in dealing with global terrorism than our actual leaders have been? Remember, either one could have been elected President during the last decade. As it turns out, by most accounts, Clinton’s tenure as Secretary did nothing to strengthen our cause against terrorism, and although John Kerry’s tenure as Secretary is admittedly a work in progress, how can he possibly redeem himself after negotiating that horrific Iran deal, a deal that has probably done more to help the cause of the terrorists than any other single act in history.
Judging from his distinguished military career and long track record in the Senate, 2008 candidate for president, John McCain, was uniquely prepared among presidential contenders in this new century for the role of Commander-in-Chief and could have been far more effective in combating terrorism. It’s been decades since America has elected a leader with strong military experience and that trend is likely to continue with the recent suspension of Democrat Jim Webb’s campaign and Republican Lindsey Graham’s campaign barely registering among polled voters.
It should be apparent to even casual observers that President Obama has no intention of taking any meaningful action in dealing with terrorism, here or abroad, now or for the remainder of his term in office. Obama apparently believes according to the “arc of history” idea that it will all work out in our favor in the long run, but someone should remind him that another great hero of the liberal cause, John Maynard Keynes, acknowledged that in the long run, we’re all dead!
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Main GOP Debate Hosted by Fox Business Channel: Two Disturbing Realizations
There were (at least) two disturbing realizations that flowed from last night's later GOP Presidential Debate.
First, near the bottom of the time period the question was posed to Jeb Bush as to how he would tend to another 2008 style financial crisis and whether or not the banks would be allowed to fail. Jeb dodged the question by saying he would implement measures to prevent a new crisis. The discussion opened up to other candidates and notwithstanding the diversity of backgrounds, experiences, personalities and styles on stage, it became abundantly clear that all were surprised to hear the question and more importantly not one could answer the question persuasively.
Other candidates were asked if they would allow a major bank, such as Bank of America, to fail. The silence was deafening until Ted Cruz brazenly chimed in that he would, to which John Kasich commented that such an answer showed Cruz’ lack of experience and desire to put his philosophical dogma above the practical and probably horrific ramifications of allowing a behemoth like Bank of America to fail. More significantly, the chronic interrupters were speechless; No tough talk from Trump, no words of wisdom from Carson, no lectures from Carly, no platitudes from Marco; nobody had any ideas. I would have liked the opportunity to hear from former presidential candidates Mitt Romney on the topic or for that matter Newt Gingrich or Rudi Giuliani, or even current candidates Christie and Huckabee who were not allowed to attend this time. I imagine their contributions could have been meaningful. Of course, that's just speculation on my part.
With the national debt, the role of the Federal Reserve and overall government fiscal responsibility being key issues among GOP candidates, one would expect someone on that stage to have something to say worth hearing on that topic. I vacillate on whether it is more pathetic that they were aware of the issue’s relevance but were ill prepared to answer or that some or all on that stage are still oblivious to the fact that the global economy right now is in many ways even more vulnerable today than it was in 2007-8.
This is no partisan attack on Republicans. The Democrat candidates appear even more out to lunch on the topic as they don’t even bother to discuss the fiscal integrity of our government or the banking system. The fact that our current debt ($19 Trillion) together with unfunded future liabilities from entitlement programs ($200 Trillion) amounts to more than 10 times our GDP does not seem to faze Democrats in the least, so why would a financial and banking crisis worry them? Their standard answer for all problems is to spend more money, by largely borrowing without restraint and to a lesser extent confiscating wealth of private individuals through onerous taxes. Their view is apparently that the government can solve any problem if it throws enough money at it.
The second realization is far more disturbing especially in light of the fact that no one running for president apparently has the first clue about how to deal with another financial/banking crisis. Last night, John Kasich commented (erroneously I hope) that depositors can't be allowed to lose their deposits in the event of a bank failure. Whoa John, are you forgetting about FDIC insurance? The moderators and the other panelists didn't correct him! Did I miss something? Are depositors now considered bank creditors subject to bankruptcy law? Someone needs to answer that one quickly.
As far as I am concerned all the participants in last night's debate earned a big fat failing grade for that collective performance on that one issue, and that performance should convince voters that America needs a President extraordinarily prepared for the extraordinary challenges that await us. Marco Rubio, when asked about his lack of experience to be President, especially compared to Hillary Clinton, gave a laughable answer that reminded me of an old joke about a job applicant when asked for a resume answers that he did not have one because he does not like to dwell on the past. Rubio believes his candidacy should be judged on his vision for the future. Really Marco? The fact that you can’t appreciate the value of solid relevant experience in undertaking arguably THE most difficult job in the world proves you lack the maturity and judgement for the job. Rubio would have been better served by saying that Mrs. Clinton, for all her so-called experience and for all her years in government service, had very few accomplishments to show for it.
First, near the bottom of the time period the question was posed to Jeb Bush as to how he would tend to another 2008 style financial crisis and whether or not the banks would be allowed to fail. Jeb dodged the question by saying he would implement measures to prevent a new crisis. The discussion opened up to other candidates and notwithstanding the diversity of backgrounds, experiences, personalities and styles on stage, it became abundantly clear that all were surprised to hear the question and more importantly not one could answer the question persuasively.
Other candidates were asked if they would allow a major bank, such as Bank of America, to fail. The silence was deafening until Ted Cruz brazenly chimed in that he would, to which John Kasich commented that such an answer showed Cruz’ lack of experience and desire to put his philosophical dogma above the practical and probably horrific ramifications of allowing a behemoth like Bank of America to fail. More significantly, the chronic interrupters were speechless; No tough talk from Trump, no words of wisdom from Carson, no lectures from Carly, no platitudes from Marco; nobody had any ideas. I would have liked the opportunity to hear from former presidential candidates Mitt Romney on the topic or for that matter Newt Gingrich or Rudi Giuliani, or even current candidates Christie and Huckabee who were not allowed to attend this time. I imagine their contributions could have been meaningful. Of course, that's just speculation on my part.
With the national debt, the role of the Federal Reserve and overall government fiscal responsibility being key issues among GOP candidates, one would expect someone on that stage to have something to say worth hearing on that topic. I vacillate on whether it is more pathetic that they were aware of the issue’s relevance but were ill prepared to answer or that some or all on that stage are still oblivious to the fact that the global economy right now is in many ways even more vulnerable today than it was in 2007-8.
This is no partisan attack on Republicans. The Democrat candidates appear even more out to lunch on the topic as they don’t even bother to discuss the fiscal integrity of our government or the banking system. The fact that our current debt ($19 Trillion) together with unfunded future liabilities from entitlement programs ($200 Trillion) amounts to more than 10 times our GDP does not seem to faze Democrats in the least, so why would a financial and banking crisis worry them? Their standard answer for all problems is to spend more money, by largely borrowing without restraint and to a lesser extent confiscating wealth of private individuals through onerous taxes. Their view is apparently that the government can solve any problem if it throws enough money at it.
The second realization is far more disturbing especially in light of the fact that no one running for president apparently has the first clue about how to deal with another financial/banking crisis. Last night, John Kasich commented (erroneously I hope) that depositors can't be allowed to lose their deposits in the event of a bank failure. Whoa John, are you forgetting about FDIC insurance? The moderators and the other panelists didn't correct him! Did I miss something? Are depositors now considered bank creditors subject to bankruptcy law? Someone needs to answer that one quickly.
As far as I am concerned all the participants in last night's debate earned a big fat failing grade for that collective performance on that one issue, and that performance should convince voters that America needs a President extraordinarily prepared for the extraordinary challenges that await us. Marco Rubio, when asked about his lack of experience to be President, especially compared to Hillary Clinton, gave a laughable answer that reminded me of an old joke about a job applicant when asked for a resume answers that he did not have one because he does not like to dwell on the past. Rubio believes his candidacy should be judged on his vision for the future. Really Marco? The fact that you can’t appreciate the value of solid relevant experience in undertaking arguably THE most difficult job in the world proves you lack the maturity and judgement for the job. Rubio would have been better served by saying that Mrs. Clinton, for all her so-called experience and for all her years in government service, had very few accomplishments to show for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)