No Time for Anti-Trump Forces to Relax After Wisconsin

For a Wisconsinite who has been rather obsessed with the Republican presidential primary process, the two weeks leading up to our contest on April 5th were pretty amazing, as the candidates and the media concentrated so much attention on our state.  For me, this year’s race has, unfortunately, been dominated by Donald Trump’s attempt to appropriate the GOP and it’s presidential nomination for his own self-serving ends.  Somehow, millions of people have chosen to support him in this endeavor, which, should it succeed, would be an absolute disaster for the Republican party and the country.  So, I am very glad that the voters of Wisconsin made a much wiser choice and gave Senator Ted Cruz a big victory, which was not expected just a short while ago.  It’s nice to be able to be proud of the voters of my state for something related to a presidential election for a change, since it has been opting for liberal Democrats in general elections for many years.  Some commentators speculated that the results in Wisconsin might indicate that we had come to a turning point in the race, with the momentum swinging away from Trump.  That would have been absolutely wonderful, but I can’t breathe easy yet.  Alas, we are still a very long way from escaping the looming threat of a Trump nomination, and it actually seems as if the atmosphere may have already become much more pro-Trump again.

Even though there has been some positive, encouraging news during the last few weeks, including the outcome in Wisconsin and the success Senator Cruz has had securing delegates at state and local conventions, there are still plenty of troubling circumstances and developments surrounding the race to cause great concern.  For one thing, despite his recent successes, Cruz won’t really have a chance to build momentum, because the next primary is in New York, where Trump has a big lead in the polls and is expected to pick up many delegates with a win in his populous home state.  A week later, elections will be held in more states favorable to Trump, and I worry that each Trump victory might be the one to precipitate the stampede of support to the frontrunner that we usually see much earlier in a race.  As spring proceeds, how much longer will less-intense skeptics of Donald Trump continue to treat the contest as undecided and competitive rather than “accepting” Trump as the presumptive nominee and preparing to back him in November’s general election?

It has been clear for many months now that, no matter what Donald Trump says or does, and no matter how terrible a time observers believe he is having during a particular stretch of the campaign, Trump still maintains a very significant level of support, generally about 35-40% of those voting or being polled as Republicans.  It’s bad enough that these members of the public obviously don’t care that Trump lacks the knowledge, experience, and character to be anything other than an abysmal president, but a great many of them are also willing to join on to whatever ridiculous argument or position he might take next.  For example, Trump has been complaining extensively about the various rules and procedures involved in the process of choosing a Republican presidential nominee.  He was already unhappy about the requirement to have the support of an actual majority of delegates in order to win the nomination, but lately he has also been critical of the processes taking place in various states to select the people who will serve as delegates, railing especially against the recent caucuses in Colorado.  Of course, Trump doesn’t like what has been happening because Ted Cruz and his campaign have been much more successful than Trump has in winning delegates chosen directly through means other than popular primaries as well as in getting actual supporters chosen to serve at the national convention in states that have voted.  All of the rules that different state parties have adopted have been in place for some time and were not secret.  They apply equally to all candidates and were certainly not adopted to hinder any particular “businessman”/reality TV star that almost no one would have expected to be in contention.  The Cruz team learned the rules and put in a lot of effort to do as well as they could under them, while Trump and his people did not.  None of this has stopped the staggeringly self-centered Trump from brazenly and dishonestly calling the process “rigged” and “undemocratic” and accusing Cruz of cheating and of stealing “his” delegates.  Regardless of the fact that what Trump is saying is (as usual) not true, many of his supporters are willing to believe and echo his claims.  Since Trump still gets such excessive media coverage without remotely balanced counter-arguments, I worry how much of the rest of the public may also come to believe the laughable story that Trump is somehow being treated unfairly in the Republican primary process.

In the last couple of weeks, there have been several discouraging stories about the responses Republican primary voters have given to various poll questions.  Because of his many flaws, it is perfectly reasonable for a large number of Republican voters to say they would not support Donald Trump if he were to become the nominee, but, sadly, there were also many people who said they would not back Ted Cruz if he were to win the nomination.  This wouldn’t particularly surprise me if the sentiment is coming from Trump fans who think that only he is deserving of their votes, but I find it quite disheartening to think that some others who may see Cruz as too conservative or polarizing may also take this position.  Polls of Republicans also reportedly show that people aren’t really interested in having a fight for the presidential nomination at the national convention and that most think the candidate who has won the most delegates should get the nomination, even if he does not have a majority.  This past week, an RNC member offered up the opinion that Trump would probably win if he had at least 1100 delegates, and we’ve also been hearing that some party “insiders” and officials are again saying things that suggest they may be moving toward some sort of acceptance of the idea of a Trump nomination -- that now, despite all the polls showing Trump would be easily beaten by the Democrats, they think that perhaps, with help from the Republican party and associated organizations, he could actually win.  Sigh...

What all of these things tell me is that a lot of people, including voters and even party officials and officeholders, still are not taking this election and the jaw-dropping awfulness of a potential Donald Trump nomination seriously enough.  First off, Republicans who are not under Trump’s spell need to accept that the person who has a chance to stop him from accumulating enough delegates to win the nomination is Senator Ted Cruz, and they should not undermine his efforts to do so.  (Memo to John Kasich:  Since the chance you believe you have to be nominated at the convention requires limiting Trump’s successes in the remaining primaries, maybe it would be in your interest to criticize him  rather than Cruz.)  Since the race began with so many candidates, many voters will have previously preferred other candidates to Cruz, but there is no reason for any traditional Republican to oppose or refuse to vote for him should he be the nominee.  He is a solid, conservative Republican who could represent the party well in the general election campaign and as president, if given the opportunity.  Any concerns people might have about Cruz’ style or about past conflicts with Senate colleagues should certainly not be strong enough to make sensible voters refuse to support him and to let Trump or a Democrat win instead.  The election is far too important for that.

The future direction of the party and the nation are at stake here, and everyone really needs to realize that as soon as possible and act accordingly.  Of course this is something worth battling about at the convention.  Far from being treated unfairly in the nominating process, Trump has benefitted from a system that was set up to favor front-runners, and this needs to be broadcast far and wide.  The need for a candidate to win a majority of delegates at the convention should be explained, reinforced, and defended at every opportunity.  The nomination should not be given to someone who cannot gain this much support just because he insists he is entitled to it or because some people think, “Gosh, he’s kind of close, we should just be generous and let him win.”  We’re not talking about awarding the prize for best pie at the county fair here -- this is about choosing the person who will be Republicans’ and conservatives’ standard-bearer in a fight to lead the country in a better direction.

If there is no majority winner on the first ballot, we can only hope that many delegates initially bound to Trump will abandon him at the first opportunity and vote instead for a far better option, such as Ted Cruz.  I don’t think the party should at all hesitate in welcoming such an occurrence.  It certainly should not give in to the idea that it might look better to TV viewers and be “less trouble” to go along with the Trump “highest total should win” attitude, avoid the disruptions his outraged supporters might cause if he isn’t nominated, and just try to minimize the coming electoral damage at all levels.  For one thing, there are also large numbers of Trump opponents who would be extremely upset if he is nominated, especially if there was a chance to avoid doing so.  Also, it would just be wrong to reward a campaign that has tried to use not-so-subtle threats of personal exposure and large-scale unrest to intimidate delegates and the party into giving Trump what he wants.  Furthermore, if concessions are made to Trump regarding the rules and the convention nominating process due to his “popularity” with a certain segment of the public and a fear of what might happen if he doesn’t get his way, I can only imagine the wide array of traditional Republican values and policy positions that will be cast aside from the party platform to accommodate Trump’s liberal, unorthodox, or even bizarre views.

Should that happen, what would be the point of still having a Republican party, and how could other GOP candidates, office-holders, and voters deal with the conflicts between what they have always believed and the things being said by the new supposed “leader” of the party?  To those whose main goal is not the destruction of the Republican party, this would be a terrible thing, so every effort should be made to prevent Trump -- someone who is not really a Republican, let alone a conservative -- from assuming the position at the top of the ticket.  After all, if Trump does become the nominee, Republicans and conservatives will have already been defeated, no matter what the outcome of November’s general election may be.

Wisconsin's Chance to Help Right the Ship

Wisconsin has been the focus of attention in the presidential primary process for the last couple of weeks.  This is something new for us, since the nominations are usually essentially already decided by the time our state votes.  On the Republican side, in particular, we have the chance to make a significant statement about the direction of the race and the party, and I hope that we will take that opportunity to move things in a more sensible direction.  

There is no rational explanation for the success that Donald Trump has had to this point in the Republican presidential contest, as he is completely unqualified and is not really a Republican, let alone a conservative.  Still, inexplicably, this man has managed to garner more votes and delegates than anyone else, and it will take a lot of things falling into place for his opposition to prevent him from becoming the nominee.  A victory for Ted Cruz in Wisconsin would show once again that Republicans as a whole are not ready to fall in line behind the front-running Trump and hand him the nomination, and it would be one important step toward making a different outcome possible.

The choice before voters should not be a difficult one.  Early on, perhaps the presence of so many Republican candidates in the race led some of the public astray -- unable to focus on all of the options, they may have paid attention only to the person constantly in the limelight.  Now, however, there are three candidates remaining, and voters should certainly care enough to look into each of them sufficiently to see the differences among them and learn which might be worthy of a presidential nomination.  For many months now, Trump has repeated vague intentions of winning, negotiating good deals, and "making America great again," while demonstrating that he has no clue how to actually go about improving things should he (heaven forbid) become president.  In contrast, many of his opponents, including Senator Ted Cruz, have put forth actual plans regarding taxes, health care, and many other issues and shown that they in fact do have relevant knowledge with which to approach America’s concerns.

Since the beginning of the race, Trump has run a campaign of insults and attempts at intimidation aimed at his opponents, protesters, the media, the Republican party, and anyone else that gets in his way.  He also is serially dishonest and changes his stories and positions constantly, sometimes even within a few hours.  These tendencies have certainly been on display during the last two weeks in unpleasant episodes such as Trump’s Twitter targeting of Cruz’s wife, which he tried to justify with the false claim that Cruz had been involved in an outside anti-Trump group’s ad that used a photo of Mrs. Trump.  In another example, Trump’s campaign manager was recently charged with misdemeanor battery for his rough treatment of a female reporter in Florida in an incident that both Trump and the staffer had at times downplayed and at times denied, while accusing the journalist of making things up.  After the charges were filed, Trump not only defended his campaign manager, but also suggested that his actions were justified because the journalist and her pen (which could have been a small bomb, after all!) might have been a threat to Trump.  In the last few days, Trump has also stated at least four different opinions about abortion laws, and he has once again said that, despite pledging to do so, he might not support a different nominee if he doesn’t think he’s treated “fairly” at the Republican convention.

Recent days have also brought even more evidence against Donald Trump’s candidacy for the GOP nomination.  When asked about important functions of the federal government, in addition to security, he listed everything from health care and education to housing and the creation of strong neighborhoods.  While campaigning here in Wisconsin, Trump persisted in using discredited liberal criticisms to attack our own Governor Scott Walker, putting Trump on the same page as Sanders and Clinton.  Trump has also casually suggested radical changes in our foreign policies toward allies if they don’t contribute more financially to the arrangements, and he has been rather nonchalant in his discussions of the possible spread or use of nuclear weapons.  This is clearly not a man who is in any way a limited government conservative Republican, and his uninformed recklessness would be extremely dangerous on the world stage.  Trump has shown little regard for the way our system of government is intended to work, and the main premise of his campaign seems to be that putting him in charge will solve everything.  Donald Trump's statements have been so inconsistent that we can’t really have any idea what goals or policies he would actually pursue if in office, but his extreme self-centeredness coupled with the positive things he’s said about authoritarian governments and leaders suggests that a President Trump might well exceed the boundaries of executive authority to a far greater degree than even the current occupant of the White House already has.

In contrast, Ted Cruz has a long-standing appreciation of the U.S. Constitution and its principles of limited government.  He intends to undo Barack Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders, protect the rights and freedoms of citizens, reform taxes and regulations, and rein in the federal bureaucracy.  Unlike Donald Trump, Cruz is knowledgeable about foreign and domestic policy issues and has spent time thinking through his positions and proposals for goals such as economic improvement and the rebuilding of the military, among many others.  Cruz understands the importance of maintaining our relationships with Israel, NATO, and other allies and also recognizes the need to deal with threats from our enemies by, for example, more aggressively targeting ISIS and rejecting Obama’s “agreement” with Iran.  The current Supreme Court vacancy is a reminder of the importance of presidents in shaping the direction of the courts.  Ted Cruz will seek to appoint judges who follow the law and the Constitution, and his legal background as a clerk at the Supreme Court and as Solicitor General of Texas makes him particularly well-suited to choose strong people for the bench.  While in Washington, Senator Cruz has demonstrated his willingness to stand up for what he thinks should be done, even in the face of harsh criticism, sometimes from his own party.  Throughout the campaign, Cruz has shown a level-headed demeanor and a focus on issues.  He is not easily distracted from making his points by unfriendly reporters or hostile opponents, and he does not fly off the handle and hurl insults every time things do not go his way.  It took an unfair attack on his family to prompt  him to, understandably, call Trump a “coward” for dragging Cruz’ wife into his Twitter war.  In short, Cruz has the experience, preparation, convictions, and temperament to qualify him for the presidency, while his chief opponent clearly does not.

Of course, there is also a third candidate seeking votes in the Republican primary.  Governor John Kasich is an experienced politician with considerable success during his career, and he would certainly be a far better nominee or president than Donald Trump.  However, some aspects of his record and positions, including Medicaid expansion in Ohio and a proposal to once again pursue comprehensive immigration reform early in a presidential term, are not ideal.  In addition, his track record so far during this primary season has not been strong, as he has won only in his home state and has often received very low levels of voter support.  With Ted Cruz’ stronger conservative message and better results in this year’s elections, he is the best available choice for Republicans.

After the seemingly unprecedented amount of candidate visits and media attention Wisconsin has received lately, our voters now have the chance to make a crucial choice about the future of this year’s presidential election and our country.  I am hopeful that we will reject the disastrous candidacy of Donald Trump and help to steer the Republican nomination process back in the right direction by providing a much-needed victory to the genuinely conservative and infinitely more presidential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz.

An Immodest Proposal for the GOP

Spring has arrived (on the calendar, at least), and lots of attention and television time is being given to college basketball.  But I’d have to say that, this year, no spectacle deserves the term, “March Madness” as much as the presidential election season.  Sadly, no matter what developments take place in the race, the Republicans seem unable to restore sanity to their side of the contest.  The course the GOP has been on would have seemed impossible to imagine less than a year ago, but it now seems bound to lead to a very bad outcome for the party, conservatism, and the country.

Despite constantly demonstrating that he lacks the knowledge, preparation, temperament, character, or other qualifications we should expect from someone seeking to become president of the United States, Donald Trump has somehow managed to convince around 40 percent of those participating in Republican primaries and caucuses to loyally vote for him.  Even as the field of other candidates has narrowed, no one else has consistently been able to gain that much support, although Ted Cruz has provided Trump’s closest competition.

I believe that nominating Donald Trump would be a disaster for the Republican party in many ways.  What, if anything, would the party stand for going forward, and what would it mean to throw the party’s support to a man like him as leader?  Plus, with the high percentage of people reporting negative views of Trump, there’s a good chance that not only Trump, but also other Republican candidates, could lose in a convincing fashion with him at the top of the ticket this fall.  And, with one of our two major political parties suffering an enormous crisis, the Democratic Party might essentially then have free reign to pursue its most liberal ideas, which would hardly be good for America.  Therefore, preventing Trump from obtaining the Republican nomination is imperative, but it seems that even many people opposed to Trump, including elected officials, have not approached the matter with the necessary urgency.

With Marco Rubio suspending his campaign, Senator Cruz is closer to the one on one matchup with Trump that he has been wanting for a very long time.  However, with John Kasich remaining in the race, the non-Trump vote is still being divided, making Cruz’ quest to overtake the frontrunner even more difficult.  This circumstance seems unlikely to change at this point, as Governor Kasich is hoping he could receive the nomination at the convention if no candidate accumulates enough delegates to win outright before that.  While it would be nice if Kasich would get on board with the notion that stopping Trump is the most important thing in the race right now and act accordingly, I suppose we can’t blame a politician too much for holding on when he thinks he has a shot at the presidency.  Of course, if voters not supporting Trump agreed that rallying around Cruz is the best course of action, they wouldn’t have to keep voting for Kasich even if he is still officially running.

Obviously, the most desirable way to select a preferable nominee would be for a candidate other than Donald Trump to win at least 1237 delegates during the primary process and thus secure a victory.  While Senator Cruz could still achieve this goal if voters in the remaining states all suddenly came to their senses, that is probably too much to expect, and the chances of an outright pre-convention win get slimmer with every contest in which Trump gains delegates.  The somewhat more likely secondary option is for Trump’s opposition to keep him under 1237 delegates, as well, so that the nomination can be decided at the convention.  Then, we have to hope that the convention delegates will save the day by rejecting Trump and nominating a far better candidate.

While there are already plenty of rules in place to govern the primary, caucus, and convention processes at the state and local levels, I’d like to offer just a few possible tweaks that might be helpful in making sure that the best Republican nominee is eventually selected.  Trump has suggested that there will be problems (maybe even riots) if he does not get the nomination, and I think it’s likely that many of his supporters would not vote for someone else no matter how that other person was nominated.  But, there are also many voters who are extremely opposed to Trump and won’t vote for him if he is the nominee.  So, since Republicans are probably going to lose a sizable chunk of potential voters in any case, and since the party will be accused of “stealing” the nomination from Trump even if another candidate is selected by just following the rules, I propose that the RNC do something very bold as soon as possible to block Trump’s takeover of the party.

• The current rules require a candidate to earn 1237 delegates (a majority) to win the nomination, even if that takes multiple ballots from delegates voting at the convention.  Yet, calling this just an arbitrary number, Trump has said that he should be named the winner if he simply has the largest total number of delegates after the primaries conclude.  Well, since he obviously has no problem with the idea of altering the rules and sees no particular significance in the target of 1237, maybe a change is in order.  After all, especially in a contentious year like this one, we want to make sure that the nominee is acceptable to most Republicans, so perhaps candidates should be required to reach 1650 delegates (two thirds) to win the nomination outright.  This should greatly increase the chances of a contested convention, where the delegates -- hopefully mostly people with good judgment and an interest in the well-being of the Republican party and its ideals -- would vote to chose the eventual nominee.

• Actually, if those with power over the rules should be feeling especially fearless, they could take things a step further.  Trump has often shown that he believes in having one set of rules for himself and another for everyone else.  For example, he can hire foreign, or even illegal, workers and have clothing lines manufactured overseas while blasting others for such actions.  While Trump thinks he can say whatever he wants, no matter how outrageous, about other people, he believes anyone saying things he doesn’t like should be fined, sued, or fired.  So, Trump really should have no objection to the idea of a two-tiered delegate requirement for securing the nomination, where a candidate who meets certain qualifications of experience and party commitment by virtue of, say, having served in elected office as a Republican, would only need to meet the current 1237-delegate standard, while someone with no political experience and a history of party-switching would need to clear the higher bar of 1650 delegates.

• Alternatively, in the spirit of bipartisanship, or perhaps to honor Donald Trump’s long track record of supporting and praising Democrats, the RNC could borrow an idea from the Democrats and add a prominent role for party superdelegates to the convention’s nominee-selection process.

• Or, the rather appealing notion of a sort of political “morals clause” could be implemented.  There would be a set of basic standards of conduct that candidates would need to meet in order to be considered for the Republican nomination.  Anyone who violated these standards by, for example, encouraging violence at his events, threatening the party with the possibility of riots if it does not do what he wants, advocating the commission of war crimes as part of his foreign policy proposals, etc., would be disqualified.

These are just a few suggestions for the RNC personnel responsible for establishing the convention and nomination rules to consider.  I’m sure they could be quite creative and come up with more of their own.  Fair-minded people may object to the idea of changing the rules late in the game or stacking the deck against a certain candidate, but I wonder if Mr. Trump would have those same scruples if he officially had the power to make the rules more favorable to himself.

Still, while my proposals may be just wishful thinking or political fantasy, that only underscores the need for Republicans who are not enthralled by Donald Trump to seriously commit -- now!! -- to the existing possibilities for stopping him from getting the nomination. Senator Cruz still has a mathematical chance to win a majority of delegates, and every effort should be made to persuade voters in the remaining states to support his candidacy in the hope of making this happen or at least securing him enough delegates to keep Trump from reaching the required total.  In the latter case, Republicans need to be strong in defending the legitimacy of the rules for deciding a nomination at the convention when no candidate has acquired a majority.  We must be willing to counter the loud voices of Trump’s backers in the media and the public and explain the many, many reasons that Trump should not be the person designated as the standard-bearer for all Republicans, and the convention delegates should make the wise choice to select a better-qualified candidate whose views are much more in keeping with the party’s traditions.  Yes, almost anyone might fit that description, but the choice should be someone actually running for president this time, and, based on the state of the campaign to this point, the candidate most deserving of the nomination this year is Senator Ted Cruz.

Snap out of it, Republicans!

From the beginning, following the Republican presidential primary campaign closely has been a source of great concern.  While Iowa caucus day offered a glimmer of hope that there might still be a chance a real conservative (gasp!) politician could win the nomination in the end, it’s pretty much all been downhill since that night.  I really do fear that this race, and the general election to follow, will not end well.

I realize that, on the Democrat side, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are saying all kinds of ridiculous leftist things, and a large portion of their voters are embracing outright socialism.  There’s plenty of room for criticism there, but I don’t really expect anything better from the liberals/Democrats, so I’m not going to spend much time worrying about them now.   On the other hand, in the past I would have thought better of Republicans and conservatives, looking to them to behave much more sensibly and responsibly, but that is clearly not happening right now.  Instead, the voters in New Hampshire turned out in large numbers to award a dominant victory to the most unqualified, uncouth, and unconservative “Republican” candidate in my memory.  Donald Trump continually lowers the levels of civility and discourse in the campaign to the point where, considering his willingness to use profanity and repeat vulgar comments about  his opponents, perhaps stations covering debates or his other appearances might want to start airing them with a 5-second delay.  Of course, when not denying having said anything wrong in the first place, Trump now says that he’ll clean up his language from now on.  We’ll have to see how long that pledge actually lasts, because he did promise on national television that he wouldn't file a lawsuit questioning Ted Cruz’ eligibility for the presidency but has since threatened on multiple occasions to do just that.

Frustratingly, despite all of Trump’s flaws and all of the reasons he should not be the Republican nominee, most of the other candidates have not directed much of their attention to making a case against him.   This has allowed him to basically coast along as the front-running center of attention, largely able to define his own image through his rallies, media coverage, tweets, and so on.  There have been some exceptions, as Jeb Bush has been a consistent Trump critic, and, after a long time treating Trump with kid gloves, Ted Cruz finally began pointing out his deficiencies in the last few weeks, although he still seemed extremely reluctant to do so on the debate stage.  Perhaps some of Trump’s opponents want to minimize potential alienation of Trump’s supporters so that those people will be more likely to still vote for them if they win the nomination.  Or maybe they are afraid that Trump’s next move to test the boundaries of his political invulnerability might involve actually trying out on one of them his theory that he could shoot someone in public without losing votes.  (I’m joking about the last reason -- mostly.)  Some analysts have written that it hasn’t yet been in the interests of most of the candidates to take on Donald Trump, suggesting that they have had more reason to concern themselves with others against whom they might be more likely to gain an advantage or that it might even help them to have Trump defeating certain of their rivals at this point.  I’m no expert in running political campaigns, so perhaps this is correct in some practical way, but I find it difficult to believe that it is a good idea for anyone aiming higher than second place not to challenge the person who’s had big leads in the polls for many months.  The voting has already started, and it seems that the leader after just a few states often becomes very difficult to overcome.  Furthermore, I suppose I’m asking too much, but I think that these people seeking to be the leader of our country should understand that it is an urgent matter more important than their own personal goals to make sure that Donald Trump is not designated the supposed representative of Republican and conservative ideas, whether he would end up running a losing general election campaign that hands control of the presidency once again to Democrats, or if he would ultimately be doing irresponsible things in the White House himself if he should actually somehow win.

It is especially exasperating that, while Mr. Trump has been spared much of the criticism he would deserve, there has been no shortage of attacks among the other Republican candidates and the groups supporting them.  I did not appreciate all of the infighting that took place in the primaries in 2012, and I was afraid going into the race this time that it was likely to happen again.  I don’t see how it can be helpful to the Republican Party or the conservative movement for a field of generally successful and respected candidates to enter the presidential race only to spend the better part of a year having their accomplishments, opinions, actions, and character minimized, called into question, or attacked by those on their own side.  Isn’t it difficult enough for Republicans to win a Presidential election without helping the opposition by damaging the image of the eventual nominee in the eyes of the public during the primaries and handing the Democrats plenty of quotes and avenues of attack to build upon in their quest to defeat the Republican candidate?  Of course the primary competitors should point out differences of opinion they have about the ways to address various issues, and sometimes (see above) an opponent will merit outright criticism.  However, we seem to have an environment where, even amongst those who basically agree on most matters, harsh criticisms are flung over things large and small in great number, often becoming exaggerated, generalized negative characterizations of the candidates.  Defeating one’s rivals is paramount, even if it involves tearing down colleagues and friends, possibly with partial or misleading references to their records.  Oddly to me, it even seems that the willingness and ability to attack your opponents vigorously and well is seen by some to be a necessary qualification for a nominee, and someone considered lacking in this area is deemed too weak to be the party’s choice.

After the New Hampshire debate, during which an extended exchange with Chris Christie was seen to have resulted in a serious mistake and political damage for Marco Rubio, I was struck again by the absurdity of some of the conduct and thinking involved in the race.  I read that Christie was very pleased by what happened in the debate, as he felt he had accomplished his goal of taking down Rubio, to whom he referred as the “anointed one,” even though Rubio had only recently been gaining some momentum for and from his strong third-place finish in Iowa.  So, we have a situation where, rather than convincing everyone of the superior merits of his own candidacy or pointing out the reasons voters should choose a Republican in November (although he may believe he also did these things,) the acknowledged main aim of one (or more) of the candidates was to basically destroy the chances of a fellow Republican contender (in particular, one seen by many to have the potential to be a successful spokesperson for many conservative ideas)?  Well, if Republicans devote much of their energy to thinking of and treating each other this way, is it any wonder they aren’t more successful in defeating Democrats?  (By the way, am I the only one to think it might  have been nice for Christie to employ at least some of his tough prosecutorial debating tactics against Trump, instead??)  Governor Christie suspended his campaign after finishing sixth in New Hampshire, but, hey, at least Rubio had a very disappointing result there, too, right?  Quite a victory -- for Donald Trump’s chances, as the number and strength of his competitors dwindles, and for the Democrats who can just sit back and watch the Republicans do their dirty work for them.

As the focus of the race turned to the next primary in South Carolina, commentators pointed out that campaigning there has usually tended to get tougher and nastier, which is a pretty scary thought considering the way things have already been going.  With that in mind, I was quite apprehensive about watching the latest debate Saturday night.  Adding to the gloom of the week was the terrible news that the great conservative Justice Antonin Scalia had died, which is very sad and also throws the balance of the Supreme Court and the likely fate of laws on many issues into question going forward.  The importance of trying to make sure a conservative president, rather than Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders, is the one to fill this and future potential vacancies was discussed in the debate, and voters should (but, alas, may not) weigh this topic heavily when making their decisions.

I’m not sure what to think about the way the debate, as a whole, went this weekend.  I would say that an angry Donald Trump seemed to be the most prominent feature of the event, which got more and more out of hand as the evening went on.   At least Trump finally faced more challenges from the others this time, but many of these were prompted by Trump saying even more outrageous things than usual and being particularly insulting to his competitors, whom he kept interrupting, at times rather randomly.  In other words, he went so far that they really had no choice but to respond.  Among other gems, Trump again defended his use of private eminent domain, said that he thinks Planned Parenthood does some “wonderful things” for women’s  health, accused President George W. Bush of lying to “get us into” the war in Iraq while knowing that there were no weapons of mass destruction there, and, to top it all off, practically blamed Bush for the September 11 terrorist attacks that happened during his ”reign.”  (Does this choice of words indicate that Trump sees the presidency as some sort of kingship?)  None of this is really new, and Trump even took some of these forays into the world of Democrat Bush Derangement Syndrome in one of the early debates last year, but the volume and frequency of these rather un-Republican statements seemed to be increased.  The big question remains whether any of this will actually make a difference to the voters.  Will those supporting him be bothered by it, especially enough to make them switch to another candidate or at least stay home during the primaries?  So far, they’ve stuck with Trump no matter what, often even increasing their support when he says and does things that would seem beyond fatal for any other candidate.  I can only hope it will be different this time, when more people are expected to be paying serious attention, but I’m not holding my breath.

As for the other candidates, I thought that they did fairly well, especially since, in addition to answering questions, they had to deal with the loose cannon at center stage.  I thought that Jeb Bush was able to hold his own against Donald Trump while defending his brother and pointing out some of Trump’s troublesome past statements.  He also made a few other good points, but I’m not sure he’ll be able to make his way back into serious contention for the nomination.  I was a little worried for Marco Rubio, as many said he needed a “comeback” performance after the problems in the last debate, but I thought that he was very strong throughout the evening on many issues, including his contributions to the conversation in defense of President Bush regarding Iraq and 9/11.  Ted Cruz was also solid, and I do appreciate the way he is able to remain calm even when under fire on stage.  Unfortunately from my perspective, there were a couple of verbal skirmishes between Cruz and Rubio, and a few things were said that I wish were not.  The two Senators seem to me to be our strongest options right now, and I would prefer for their strengths, rather than any perceived shortcomings, to remain the focus, especially at these high-profile events.   John Kasich has seemed more energized the last couple of debates, and I’m sure his second-place finish in New Hampshire gave him a boost of confidence.  I’m not sure how his more moderate-sounding rhetoric, defense of his Medicaid expansion in Ohio, and expression of an intent to pursue comprehensive immigration reform early in his administration will play out in the campaign, though.  While they don’t make him my preferred candidate, I do have to sympathize with his call for a more civil Republican primary process.  It would certainly be nice if, as he suggested, the candidates could avoid attacking each other and just tell us what they are for , but that’s not likely to happen any time soon.

So, we have another week before the Republican primary in South Carolina.  The results there could be crucially important in determining the way the race turns out.  If Donald Trump, who has had a big lead in the polls there, has another victory, even after his latest displays of unsteady temper, crassness, and a tendency to think like liberals, it may be yet another sign that voters are determined to make the colossal mistake of nominating a completely unfit person for the presidency.  The other Republican campaigns should dial way back on attacking each other and focus on doing whatever they can to convince any persuadable voters not to go down that road.  Most importantly, I would implore the members of the public to come back to their senses and stop giving their support to someone so dangerously undeserving.  It’s not completely too late to turn around now, but that time is fast approaching.

Roller Coaster Ride: Iowa Results, New Hampshire Debate, etc.

This past Monday, I was very apprehensive about what might happen in the Iowa Republican caucuses.  Donald Trump had retaken the lead in the polls a few weeks ago, and there seemed to be a growing acceptance, even among established party officials and officeholders, of the idea of Trump as the Republican nominee.  Especially since Trump was expected to win the second contest in New Hampshire fairly easily, it seemed that a victory for him in Iowa to start the contest might make it difficult for anyone else to overcome his lead and defeat him elsewhere.  The best hope for slowing down Trump’s apparent momentum seemed to be a possible comeback win in Iowa for Ted Cruz, who had led in polls there for a while in December and January, but Cruz was facing opposition from the state’s governor and others who didn’t like his opposition to ethanol mandates and subsidies.  So, I was rather hesitant to check the results Monday night and postponed doing so until quite late, after everything was sure to be over.  I was very relieved to see that Senator Cruz had indeed managed to win by several points, and I was also encouraged to learn that Marco Rubio, another conservative candidate, had done very well and placed a strong third.  (If only he could have gotten just a little greater percentage and taken second over Trump, I might have actually started jumping up and down with excitement, but we can’t have everything, right?)  While I was happy with this outcome, which provided a welcome ray of hope in a confounding primary season, it was only the first step in a very long process.

With the focus of the race shifting to New Hampshire, the stakes for the candidates remain very high, and there is still plenty to concern a political worrywart like me.  In particular, if Donald Trump, who has been comfortably leading the polls in New Hampshire for a long time, wins the primary there, he might be able to regain the momentum and the air of near-inevitability that was put into question by the results in Iowa.  While it might be too difficult for someone to overtake him in the few days before Tuesday’s vote, hopefully some of his opponents will at least be able to give him some serious competition and demonstrate that the contest is far from over.  Based on Iowa’s voting, as well as other factors, the most likely people to present that challenge seem to be Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, but others could have a chance as well.  Saturday night’s debate on ABC was a high-profile opportunity for the candidates to try to convince voters to support them and could potentially have a big impact on both the New Hampshire primary and the overall race.

After watching the coverage of the event, I have many thoughts, but I’ll try to contain myself and discuss a more limited group of important points.  To start with let’s just say that some of the conversations on the stage, along with the commentary offered on the air during and after the debate, did not put my mind more at ease about the upcoming elections.  Hearing what the political experts on the network had to say actually left me once again wondering if I was completely on another planet, because my perceptions of some things were so different, and it will be interesting to see which view prevails among the public in general.

In the days before the debate, there was speculation that Marco Rubio was likely to be a frequent target on Saturday, since the chances for success of quite a few other candidates, both ahead of and (especially) behind him in the polls, are seen by many to largely depend on defeating him.  These predictions proved accurate, as Senator Rubio certainly was a focus of attention, and things didn’t always go well for him.  An exchange with Chris Christie fairly early in the evening seems to have gotten the most attention, and it definitely wasn’t pretty.  Rubio was asked to address a line of criticism that has been raised by Christie and others, which suggests that Rubio does not have a record of accomplishments in his career to justify the voters electing another first-term senator (like Barack Obama) as President.  Besides naming some things he has done as a legislator, Rubio chose to address the Obama-related portion of the charge by arguing that Obama, rather than being someone making poor decisions because of inexperience, is, in fact someone who “knows what he is doing.”  Christie came after Rubio from multiple angles at the same time, attacking him both for this characterization of Obama and also for being an unaccountable member of the Senate, who can just spout memorized talking points about issues (as opposed to a governor like Christie, held responsible for making decisions.)  Regrettably, Rubio’s responses to Christie involved repeating parts of what he’d already said, which played into Christie’s charge about scripted answers.   Obviously, Rubio should have found different words to articulate his message the second and third time, but perhaps he thought he needed to repeat the point because Christie was too busy interrupting and misinterpreting him for the audience to understand it the first time.  When Rubio said that Obama “knows what he is doing,” he clearly meant that Obama’s (very often unwise, outrageous, or disastrous) actions are intentionally taken in pursuit of his goals to “fundamentally transform” the nation, which is an important notion worth discussing, but Christie chose instead to mock Rubio more than once by interpreting the phrase to mean that Obama is competent, well-qualified, and/or doing a good job.  Christie also repeatedly criticized Rubio for the immigration reform bill he sponsored a few years ago, but I’m not sure Christie’s critique was particularly logical.  Rather than criticizing Rubio for supporting an amnesty-granting bill in the first place, he seemed to be suggesting that the problem was Rubio’s lack of leadership in eventually abandoning the bill rather than continuing to fight for it.  Again, Rubio could probably have done a slightly better job of explaining and making his case, but I certainly don’t think that the Senator would have demonstrated more fitness for the presidency by waging a never-ending battle to pass a (bad) bill that did not have the support to pass, especially a bill that many Republicans already hold against him.  In the end, the TV analysts seemed to characterize the New Hampshire debate as a huge stumble for Rubio that could practically destroy his campaign -- showing that he’s “not ready for prime time” and wouldn’t really be such a challenging candidate for Hillary Clinton to face in the general election, etc., but I seriously disagree with this interpretation.  (Perhaps there’s even a little wishful thinking involved on Democrats’ part?)  The exchanges with Christie will clearly not make Senator Rubio’s highlight reel (although I don’t think they put him in as bad a light as the commentators suggested,) but I don’t think they should define his whole night, as he also gave many strong answers throughout the evening on a wide range of issues including foreign policy, taxes, and social issues.  (More on the last one a bit later.)  I continue to believe that Marco Rubio would be a very qualified and capable nominee, and I hope that a few rough moments of debating won’t overshadow all of his good qualities in the eyes of the public.

While Chris Christie may have harmed Marco Rubio during the debate, I’m not sure that his performance will actually be particularly helpful to his own electoral chances.  As usual, he told us repeatedly (hmm, imagine that) that he has been a federal prosecutor and US Attorney, dismissed the importance of members of Congress (who just talk a lot) while painting himself as a governor who, by necessity, has to actually make things happen, and, as the self-designated teller of truths and debate translator, directed some of his remarks straight to the audience at home.  To me, most of this is just window dressing aside from the actual content of what he has to say, and I think he’s overdone it to some extent, but other people may see things differently.  As for the substance, Christie did contribute some worthwhile points (such as New Jersey’s experience with raising taxes on millionaires), but I found a couple of his statements about drugs and abortion particularly troubling.  It’s fine for Christie to make the case that non-violent drug offenders should receive treatment rather than incarceration, but he also said that addiction is a disease, not a moral failing.  Since people do choose to use illegal and destructive substances in the first place, I don't think it’s correct to absolve them of moral responsibility in these situations, as if random citizens just happen to come down with heroin addiction after being bitten by Brazilian mosquitoes.  Christie (and others) have asserted that Rubio’s stance against abortion (not favoring exceptions other than to save the life of the mother) is too extreme, and this was brought  up at the debate.  Rubio explained his position and pointed out that the Democrats are the real extremists on the issue, and then Christie had a chance to have his say.  The position that an anti-abortion law (which, of course, can only be hypothetical as long as Roe vs Wade remains in effect) should allow exceptions in cases of rape or incest is a common one among pro-life politicians, but it seems to me that Governor Christie justified it in a very unsatisfactory way, characterizing the termination of a pregnancy resulting from one of these situations as an act of “self-defense.”  This description seems to disregard the basic purpose of the pro-life movement:  protecting the lives of young, developing human beings, who are innocent even it their fathers have committed terrible crimes.  I think that Senator Rubio was on much more solid, consistent ground here, and, in any case, I don’t think it is helpful for Republican candidates to criticize one another as being “too pro-life” -- I’m sure we’ll hear more than enough of that from the Democrats down the line.  

While the last debate was, happily, a no-Trump zone, the national front-runner returned to the stage in New Hampshire.  The on-air commentators thought that he had a good night, but I think that is only the case because people continue to hold Donald Trump to very low standards.  Yes, he avoided any complete meltdowns and didn’t spend the whole evening insulting and attacking everyone, and there may have been one or two sensible things (such as the problems caused by recent condemnation of the police) buried in his rambling statements.  However, he still was very self-centered and vague in many of his answers, citing his terrific companies as evidence he has the temperament to be president and saying that his health care plan would be something “much better” than Obamacare.  His continued and aggressive defense of eminent domain was a low point, especially as he tried to talk over and deny the facts when Jeb Bush pointed out that Trump had tried to use the courts to take the property of an elderly woman for a private casino parking lot.  Trump still did take a few cheap shots at Bush and Cruz, and the audience, for that matter, when they expressed disapproval of him, but he didn’t seem to face much tough questioning from the moderators or his opponents.  It will be interesting to see if Trump really does have strong support from the voters as the primaries continue, because it still makes no sense to me for large numbers of people to believe that this man is the best choice to be President of the United States.

As for Trump’s main recent challenger, I think that Ted Cruz probably didn’t have quite as good a night as he might have hoped.  The early focus on the controversy concerning his staff circulating reports before the Iowa caucuses suggesting Ben Carson might not be continuing his campaign (based on an initial news byte from CNN) cannot be helpful to Senator Cruz.  We can’t know all the details about what happened in that situation, and I wouldn’t think that the results would have been greatly affected, because Carson’s supporters would be unlikely to just assume what they were being told by the camp of another candidate was true and because Carson’s percentage of the vote was actually a little higher than his recent poll numbers.  Still, attention paid to this incident rather than to Cruz’ come-from-behind victory with huge voter turn-out on Monday is unfortunate for the Senator, especially if, despite his apology to Carson, people come to believe he accepts questionable campaign tactics.  After Iowa, Donald Trump first seemed to take his second-place finish fairly well.  He then went on a Twitter rant alleging that Cruz had “stolen” the election and insisting that the results should not stand, before claiming a couple of days later that he didn’t really care about that any more.  In response to these wild changes of attitude within such a short time, Senator Cruz had, rather logically, stated that Trump does not have the temperament to be president, although he may have used a bit too much hyperbole in suggesting that Trump might “nuke Denmark” in a fit of pique.  At the debate, the moderators asked Cruz, twice, about this assessment of Trump, and, for whatever reason, Cruz would not take the opportunity there to explain this aspect of Trump’s unsuitability for the highest office in the land, only saying that the voters would judge the temperament of every candidate.  I’ve expressed frustration before with the unwillingness of Trump’s competitors to criticize him or take him on, particularly when they are with him at the debates.  I think this particular instance was especially problematic for Cruz, because Trump called him on it, not only pointing out that Cruz had not answered the moderator’s question, but also citing this as an example of the reason the country would be able to “win again” with Trump as president:  others back down when facing him.  Sigh...  The night was certainly not all bad for Cruz, as he gave solid responses to questions about foreign policy and defense, immigration enforcement, the ways presidents can use authority, and other issues and also shared a memorable personal story about the impact drug addiction had had on his family.  While it makes perfect sense for Cruz to point out that he was able to win in Iowa while taking a principled stand against the ethanol mandates that are considered so important to that state, I thought that it was probably not the strongest choice around which to center his closing statement.  All in all, I think that Senator Cruz had a fairly steady night that should not hurt him with those inclined to look favorably on him, but I’m not sure if anything happened to give him a significant boost of support heading into Tuesday’s primary and beyond.

Briefly, I thought Jeb Bush had a fairly good performance, although he seemed to have articulated things somewhat better at the previous debate.  I did appreciate his willingness to engage with Trump on eminent domain, since most other candidates seem to avoid conflict with Trump at these events, and Bush’s references to returning some power and responsibility to the states were a positive addition to the discussion.  The ABC commentators had lots of good things to say about John Kasich and thought he had his best night.  I didn’t see much difference from the last couple of debates, although he did present one or two of his responses in a more rousing fashion this time.  He seems like a nice enough guy who has a good record in government, but I’m not sure that his message of bringing people together, including across party lines, is what Republican primary voters are seeking or what would be most able to defeat the Democratic nominee in November.  I felt bad for Ben Carson Saturday evening.  It was terribly unfortunate that he didn’t hear his name called during the initial introductions calling the candidates to the stage, and he likely felt that he was being ignored or slighted, especially after Monday’s events.  I hope that someone made sure to let him know what actually happened (and even showed him some video to prove it.)  During the debate, he had some worthwhile things to contribute, and I especially liked his answer regarding the contrast he could draw in a contest against Hillary Clinton based on honesty, integrity, and character.  On a more general note, I was underwhelmed, to say the least, by the answers of all three candidates (Rubio, Bush, and Christie) asked about the potential registration of women for the Selective Service.  Overall, I did appreciate the fact that the questioners at this debate covered many different issues, although they may have selected a few obscure ones while still leaving out some big things.  We did hear from everyone quite a bit, but I’m not sure how evenly the time or questions (in number or friendliness) were distributed among the candidates. 

It has certainly been an eventful week in the world of the presidential campaign.  While Donald Trump did have significant support in Iowa, thankfully, the voters there ensured that he will not have an unchallenged electoral romp to the Republican nomination.   Ted Cruz’ victory on Monday and Marco Rubio’s strong showing put them both in good positions going forward, but things were not all positive for them over the last few days, as Cruz had to deal with questions about his staff’s actions and Trump’s allegations of election theft, while Rubio was the favorite target (including at the debate on Saturday) of many opponents seeking to surpass him in New Hampshire and elsewhere to gain consideration as legitimate contenders.  After Iowa, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Rand Paul left the presidential race, and I wish them all well in the future.  Meanwhile, Donald Trump continues to have a large polling lead in New Hampshire, and, if he has a big victory there, who knows how things will play out in future state primaries -- he may be able to reclaim his “winner” image and use it along with his national frontrunner status to dominate much of the race, especially if his competitors spend most of their time and energy bashing each other.  I hope that this does not happen, but we’ll know a lot more by the time the results are in on Tuesday night   Then, we can once again take stock of the way Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and the others are faring with the voters.  One state down, one right around the corner, and “only” forty-eight more to go.  I’m afraid it’s going to be a long, exhausting year before we even get to the general election campaign!

South Carolina January Republican Debate

After what already seems like a long campaign, the first actual primary and caucus votes are now drawing near.  As a result, any new developments and events in the race at this point seem to take on added importance, so the high-profile debates from now on will likely get even more attention.  After watching last Thursday’s FOX Business Republican debate from South Carolina, I have a lot of thoughts related to the candidates and the contest for the nomination -- too many for one post, I think.  Therefore, I will try to limit this piece to some fairly specific comments and observations about the happenings of the evening.  My intention is to follow up soon with some more general thoughts and impressions about a couple of the candidates and the state of the primary race.

During the early part of the debate, most of the candidates were basically on the same page and getting along, as they focussed on disagreements with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats.  I appreciated that portion of the event, which reminded me of the first Republican debate last year.  I rather like being able to hear multiple capable conservatives discussing ideas and acting like they are all on the same overall team, and it makes me rather wish that there were some way to select a nominee that didn’t lead to these good candidates eventually attacking each other to try to secure a victory.  Unfortunately, there has been a lot of conflict and criticism among the candidates during this campaign, and this was reflected in some notable clashes in Thursday’s debate.  I’ll comment further on some of those, and I do continue to think it is problematic that Republican presidential primary contests tend to inflict damage on the images and reputations of the candidates.

As I’ve made quite clear since last summer, I think that Donald Trump is a completely unsuitable choice for the Republican presidential nomination.  I’ve kept hoping that something might change in the race or the treatment he’s received in conservative media that could dislodge him from his frontrunner status.  Very recently, some campaign hostility broke out between Trump and Ted Cruz, and I was anxious to see if Cruz might (finally) criticize Trump during this debate and if that might possibly have a negative effect on Trump’s poll numbers.   The end of the apparent Trump/Cruz non-aggression pact was largely precipitated by Trump raising questions about Cruz’ eligibility to serve as president, and this topic was raised near the beginning of the debate.  I thought that Senator Cruz handled the issue of his status as a “natural-born” citizen just fine, explaining that, when he was born in Canada, he was an American citizen because of his mother's American citizenship.  He pointed out that Trump had said a few months ago that his lawyers had looked at the issue and found no problem with Cruz’ eligibility, and he also suggested that Trump was only bringing up the question now because Cruz’ standings in the polls, particularly in Iowa, have improved.   Trump in the end basically acknowledged that this was the case, and I don’t think his contention that new opinions from well-known lawyers, such as liberal Lawrence Tribe of Bush vs. Gore fame, have now made him revisit the issue was very convincing.  Therefore, I would say that Cruz probably benefitted from this exchange during the debate, although I don’t see how it could be the case that it would have put the issue to rest, as some have suggested.  It seems that some people (notably, some of Donald Trump’s supporters) now do believe, or at least think it is possible, that Ted Cruz does not meet the Constitution’s qualifications to serve as President of the United States, and I don’t think their opinions will change just because Cruz assured everyone that he does.

Later in the evening, Senator Cruz did (at long last) attempt to point out that, although he’s saying (some) different things now, Donald Trump has a considerable history of expressing liberal views.  Cruz referred to an interview Trump gave some time ago in which Trump explained having these positions and opinions by saying that he was from New York and that those were “New York” values.  Proceeding from this basic equating of “New York values” with liberal values, Cruz suggested that those values are not in line with those of Republican voters.  Donald Trump responded, at a lower level of volume and brashness than usual, by recalling the way New Yorkers handled the horror and extreme challenges of the September 11 attacks and also said that he found Cruz’ remarks about New York to be offensive.  While I don’t think bringing up the devastating terrorist attacks really addressed the points Cruz was trying to make, I do think that Trump’s response would probably be effective to many viewers, especially those who weren’t aware that Cruz’ remark that “not a lot of conservatives come out of Manhattan” was actually a response to the line Trump has been using for some time to question Cruz' religion and claim that “not a lot of Evangelicals come out of Cuba.”  Unfortunately for him, in the end, this exchange did not turn out well for Senator Cruz.  (It has also apparently been turned into a big issue since the debate, which is one of the topics I would like to revisit later.) 

Donald Trump actually seemed to have toned things down during some other portions of the debate as well.  As a cynical anti-Trumper (if that is a word), I’m not sure to what extent that might have been a planned strategy and an acting performance, but it may well have made him come across as more reasonable and more plausible as a presidential candidate to some people.  Of course, there were also times when he bragged about his poll numbers, his great business success, and his confidence that he’ll win, and he did still give some incoherent answers, most notably about potential tariffs on goods from China.  Still, much as I hate to say it, I think there’s little doubt that this was Trump’s best debate performance by far.  (That does not, of course, mean that he’s any more qualified to be president than he was before.)

Ted Cruz’ conflicts on Thursday were not limited to those with Donald Trump, as he was also involved in heated exchanges with Senator Marco Rubio.  Rubio raised some substantive issues about Cruz’ tax proposals, such as its inclusion of what has been characterized by many people as a European-style “Value Added Tax.”  Cruz stated that his “business tax” is not actually a VAT and defended his plan.  This subject, along with intelligence gathering and others, is one where voters will need to examine the specifics of the candidates’ positions to determine which they agree with the most.  Later in the course of the debate, Senator Cruz criticized Senator Rubio’s involvement with the proposed comprehensive immigration reform bill from a few years ago, which since that time has been perceived as his greatest area of vulnerability in terms of disagreement with many Republican voters.  Rubio responded with a long list of instances and topics on which he said that Cruz had changed his positions, and he concluded by saying that this showed political calculation rather than consistent conservatism on Cruz’ part.  Cruz denied the truth of many of the accusations and once again pointed out that Rubio’s position on immigration remains one that is very unpopular among many on the Right.  Now, there are usually omissions, selective references to past records, and even somewhat stretched interpretations, along with genuine differences of opinion, when one politician criticizes another, and I believe that those factors played a part in the various conflicts in Thursday’s debate as well.  Yet, it seems to me that there is also some truth in the criticisms that, for example, Rubio and Cruz leveled at each other, but there are also plenty of reasons to defend the merits of each of these men as good candidates and solid conservatives.  I’m not sure what viewers with no particular attachment to either senator will make of their exchanges, but I wouldn’t expect the debate to change the views of those who already have formed positive or negative opinions about either or both of them.   Again, I think that it is unfortunate that Republican candidates and their supporters often wind up helping the other side (liberals/Democrats) by highlighting each others’ weaknesses.  Sigh...

Marco Rubio did not limit his criticisms on Thursday to Ted Cruz.  He also had plenty to say in opposition to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, gun control proposals, and our current interactions with Iran, among other things.  Some have said that Rubio was “angrier” than usual, perhaps in response to the polling success of candidates like Trump, who are mainly known for harsh rhetoric.  I’m not completely sure what to make of that assessment.  I do think that Rubio focussed more on disagreements with the way things are going than on the positive vision of the future that his campaign has touted at other times, but I’m not sure that this was entirely new at the most recent debate.  I seem to recall thinking that this has been the case in earlier events as well.  I believe that Senator Rubio’s statements about the problems he sees and the things he would intend to do differently are usually quite strong and eloquent, so they are often welcome and necessary, but I also think that he should take care not to omit the more optimistic aspects of his message that distinguish his candidacy from those of some others.

One other specific recipient of criticism from Marco Rubio during the debate was Chris Christie.  Rubio charged that there were several issues and instances where Christie had, to one degree or another, been on the same side as Obama, Clinton, et al.  Christie essentially flatly denied all of Rubio’s assertions.   While I would note that a couple of the things Rubio said might have been worded a little more carefully, and Governor Christie might well have been able to give somewhat mitigating explanations for some of them, it seems to me that the actual record does not support his outright denials at all.  Citing a previous complimentary comment from Rubio, Christie also suggested that Rubio was only attacking him now because he thought it would help him in the polls.  The New Jersey Governor then said that he wasn’t going to change his tune in a similar fashion before adding a few positive comments about Rubio.  This is all well and good, but it rather ignores the recent spate of negative things that Christie has been saying about Rubio on the campaign trail, including labeling him as weak and stating that he is not doing his job due to missed votes in the Senate.  As he has before, Christie seemed to do pretty well in the debate itself, portraying himself as someone who takes successful action rather than just talking about things and who will give straight talk to the people at home, even about tough issues.  I don’t know to what extent viewers will be swayed by his forensic skill, even if it perhaps relies more on creative license than honesty at times.

Ben Carson contributed some humor to the proceedings and made a few good points, remaining a likable man on the stage, but perhaps not seeming very likely to be the successful nominee.  To me, this was John Kasich’s best debate.  He seemed less angry and not completely at odds with everyone else this time.  I still don’t think he has much chance of doing well in this election, but I think it was easier to understand why he’s been a popular Republican Congressman and Governor in Ohio for many years, and he might have some worthwhile things to contribute to the conversation about various issues.

As for Jeb Bush, I think that he has continued to improve in his debate responses, but it does not seem that this type of event shows him at his best.  He did make some good points, among them identifying some of the problems with the positions Donald Trump has taken regarding Muslims entering the United States and tariffs on imports.  Interestingly, at times it almost seemed to me that Governor Bush sounded a little like a Republican party consultant rather than one of the candidates, hoping that Trump would reconsider some of his positions and cautioning people to take the negative charges being leveled among the candidates with a grain of salt, as they are just a common part of the primary process.  Perhaps, despite his continued hope to be the nominee himself, he’s also feeling (possibly way in the back of his mind) that it’s not particularly likely?  If so, I may be one of a small minority, but I continue to feel considerable sympathy for Governor Bush, as I think he was rather unfairly characterized and dismissed before the campaign even began.

(Well, so much for keeping this post to any sort of manageable length!)

In conclusion, I thought that the debate was pretty well run and contained some valuable material for the continuing evaluation of the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, although there do seem to be many topics that never seem to get much discussion at any of these events.  Overall, I don’t know if anything that took place in South Carolina last Thursday will drastically change the state of the primary race, and that concerns me in itself, because maintenance of the status quo means that Donald J. Trump continues to be the national frontrunner as the election draws ever closer.  More specifically, I worry that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, perhaps the opponents with the best chances of presenting a challenge to Trump, may have been damaged, at least somewhat, by last Thursday’s verbal battles with each other, as well as with Trump and Christie, respectively.  Also, since Trump had been sailing along so successfully even with completely horrible debate performances and while being left alone by his chief rival, how high might his poll numbers go with a much improved presentation on the debate stage and after being able to withstand (and possibly even triumph over) new criticism from Senator Cruz, the champion debater and experienced litigator?  I shudder to think about it, but I am very afraid that a Trump nomination is becoming more likely all the time....

Milwaukee Debate & Other Recent Developments

A lot has happened in the world in the last couple of weeks, much of it far more important than the details of the primary election campaign.  Still, I’d like to take at least a brief look at the most recent Republican debate and a few other things related to the race.

The Fox Business debate held in Milwaukee was an improvement over previous events in giving much more attention to substance.  Because there are differences among the candidates regarding various issues, there were some interesting exchanges, and the responses and comments made by the participants should give potential voters more to consider in forming their opinions and candidate preferences.  (If, that is, the members of the public are actually concerned about and interested in policies and ideas, which, unfortunately, doesn’t seem to always be the case.)

Regarding the early debate for those not doing as well in the polls, I still think it’s unfortunate that some of these candidates have never had a chance to “compete” with the others in the prime time event.  People who are far better-qualified and prepared choices than anyone on the Democrat side (and than some in the Republican field) seem to have been summarily dismissed by voters without serious consideration, which is a shame.  Rick Santorum keeps plugging away, pointing out both his prior conservative accomplishments in the Senate and the distinguishing aspects of his current platform that are especially aimed at helping American workers/labor.  I’ve admired Senator Santorum for a long time, so, even though I’m not necessarily in agreement with all of the items in this latter category, I feel he has earned a fair hearing in the race.  I thought that Chris Christie did a good job of sticking to his main message that it is crucial to focus on stopping Hillary Clinton and that he believes he is the best person to “prosecute” the case against her.  He did this even while facing quite a bit of criticism from Bobby Jindal, who kept hammering the point that voters should choose to elect, not just any Republican, but one who would actually do things that he promises, especially cut government spending.  It seemed to me that Jindal didn’t make the most effective use of his time by coming back to this same theme in pretty much every response, when he could have used the opportunities to detail more of his accomplishments and proposals.  Since the debate, Governor Jindal has ended his campaign for the nomination, which means that three men who all have very successful records as governors and would seem capable of doing a solid job if elected President have now dropped out of the Republican race quite early in the process.  Meanwhile, candidates lacking experience, a strong grasp of issues, and/or a reasonable temperament continue to be favored in the polls, and I really must once again question the choices that Republicans and “conservatives” have been making in regard to this campaign.

I’m not sure how much of an effect the prime-time debate might have on the fortunes of the various candidates.  John Kasich once again spoke a lot.  He seemed to be on quite a different page than most of the field on many issues and to be criticizing the more common Republican positions, and I really don’t think this will help him win over voters.  Rand Paul also presented some more unique views, but he did do a better job of presenting his points than in previous debates.  He doesn’t seem likely to have a huge surge of support in the polls, but he did add additional dimensions to the discussion and serve as sort of an on-stage “fact-checker” at times.  Carly Fiorina did fine, pretty much as she had before, but I don’t know that we heard anything new or that she stood out as she might have in the first couple of debates.  This may be about the only time I say this, but I personally agreed with Donald Trump(!!) that she was interrupting too much, and I certainly didn’t think it made sense for some people to say that it was “sexist” for him to mention it.  As for Mr. Trump himself, he still gave many answers that were vague (about his fantastic plans and experiences) or rather puzzling (about China and the trade deal being discussed, for example.)  He was less hostile and insulting toward his opponents, which was a positive thing, but, unfortunately this mood did not last long, as he attacked other candidates at length in a speech a couple of days later.  Ben Carson was pleasant and made some thoughtful general statements, but other answers, particularly about foreign policy, didn’t seem very strong.  In recent weeks, there were quite a few stories in the media questioning the accuracy of some details in Dr. Carson’s biography, etc.  I rather wonder if these efforts, especially since they did not wind up demonstrating any clear falsehoods on his part, actually had the effect of helping Dr. Carson.  Many people felt that he was being unfairly criticized or targeted and therefore rallied to defend him, but, beyond that, time spent researching incidents from Carson’s youth is time not spent examining statements he’s made or positions he’s taken on current issues (such as strategies for combating ISIS or dealing with illegal immigration) that might not inspire confidence in voters.  Jeb Bush’s performance in Milwaukee was much better than at the previous debate, but he still seemed a little hesitant.  He should be more forceful, but not by trying to attack his opponents, which I think has only hurt him in the past.  Rather, while Governor Bush’s position on the issue will not help him with many Republican voters, I thought that his strongest presentation might actually have been on the immigration issue.  He unapologetically stated what he felt, and I think that is the direction he needs to move in general in sharing his views on various issues.   Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio once again were solid performers, although I did think that they both had some more shaky moments than in the earlier debates.  For example, Sen. Rubio misspoke about the primary importance of the role of parent  (not President) in defending his proposed child tax credit expansion, and Sen. Cruz hesitated while listing the five government agencies he would propose eliminating, and then mentioned the same one twice.  Still, both of these men have demonstrated considerable preparation and knowledge in all of the debates, and they deserve to be serious contenders for the nomination.

I am a little concerned about the way individual past votes or comments of candidates (especially those currently serving in the Senate) have recently been brought up, possibly out of context, to suggest that they are weak on national security, illegal immigration, refugee policy, etc., and I hope that the candidates themselves, as well as others, will be careful about the way they use and discuss these details.  While we should certainly examine the records and statements of those running for the presidential nomination, we should not be too quick to label or categorize someone as wrong or unacceptable based on one or two comments or votes with which we might disagree.  Otherwise, because no one is perfect, we’ll likely wind up in a situation where we’ve eliminated everyone as unworthy of our support.  We need to look at the candidates’ histories, characters, and current proposals as a whole in determining which person would be the best choice.

In the time since the debate, the terrorist attacks in Paris and elsewhere have understandably drawn more attention to candidates’ views and experiences related to issues of national security, fighting terrorism, etc.  So far, it does not seem that the shift in focus has caused significant changes in the polling rankings of various candidates, but I certainly hope that voters will think very seriously about all of these grave matters before selecting a nominee, and eventually a President, to be entrusted with the enormous responsibilities of the office.