Thoughts on the Pre-Iowa Debate

This past Thursday, the last Republican debate before the primary voting begins was held in Iowa, hosted by FOX News.  Thanks to Donald Trump’s announcement that he would not participate and would instead hold his own event in Iowa, there was probably as much attention paid to peripheral issues as to the debate itself.  I was looking forward to the prospect of a new and improved Trump-free debate, but I wouldn’t have been all that surprised if Mr. Trump had come barging down the aisle with a marching band 15 minutes into the proceedings to make everything fabulous and terrific again.  Thankfully, that didn’t happen, giving us more of an opportunity to hear what the other candidates had to say about various issues.

On a side note, I was disappointed to learn that Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum had decided to attend Trump’s event after their earlier debate concluded.  Considering their levels of support in the polls, perhaps they just felt the need to take any available opportunity to appear before a crowd in the last days before the caucuses, but it is unfortunate that two long-time social conservative leaders chose to associate themselves with Donald Trump at this time. 

Overall, I thought that the moderators conducted an interesting and informative debate.  I realize that it wouldn’t be possible to cover everything in a couple of hours, but it seemed that, once again, there were many important topics that were either mentioned only briefly or not brought up at all.  Perhaps there would have been more time for discussion of things like entitlements, government spending priorities, judicial appointment philosophies, etc. if there were fewer questions related to the race itself, electabililty, criticism from opponents, and so on.  These subjects aren’t irrelevant, but they should probably take a back seat to the candidates’ views on actual policies and problems facing the nation.

Donald Trump has complained about his treatment by FOX, and Megyn Kelly in particular, since the first debate and cited this as a reason for staying away this time.  The FOX moderators have actually tended to spread their tough questions around among the candidates, but I don’t think the difficulty level was even close to equal for everyone.  Pressing Chris Christie, for instance, to name something that could be eliminated from the federal budget can’t compare to the pummeling inflicted on Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz by playing video montages of their past inconvenient immigration-related statements and leaving them to try to explain how those square with what they are saying now.  This was rather painful to watch and potentially harmful to the Senators.  In the interest of fairness, perhaps FOX should also have shown a representative collection of Donald Trump’s contradictory or distasteful statements -- there would certainly be plenty from which to choose.  Even though he wasn’t present and his supporters may not have been watching, he is still a candidate in the race and viewers would have gotten a more complete picture of the field.  It doesn’t seem right that, by sparing Trump from the challenges of video vault journalism, FOX News may well wind up rewarding him for criticizing them and skipping their debate, especially since avoiding potential pitfalls at the event may have been Trump’s real goal all along.

I’ll just say one more thing about the moderating of the debate.  Judging from the audience reaction, I wasn’t the only one who didn’t appreciate the rather biased-sounding wording when, in posing a question to Jeb Bush, Chris Wallace referred to Jeb’s brother “getting us into two wars.”  As for Governor Bush himself, his debate performances have been improving as the campaign has progressed, and this one was his best yet.  I don’t know how much the absence of his nemesis had to do with it, but Bush seemed pretty strong and confident, and perhaps this will earn him a second look from some voters.

Returning to Senators Rubio and Cruz, I don’t think that Thursday night went as well for either of them as they would have liked.  In addition to the difficult immigration segment discussed above, they also faced considerable criticism from each other and the other candidates.  Also, Cruz had an awkward squabble with Wallace over the rules, and his joke (alluding to Trump) about leaving the stage if asked any more mean questions didn’t seem to work very well.  Rubio and Cruz did make good points during the debate, too, and both are still strong candidates.  Hopefully, people will give more weight to those positive things than to the negative aspects of the evening.

By the end of Monday, we’ll have the first results of the 2016 primary season.  While I still have a day to do a little wishful thinking before reality takes over, I’m hoping that the people of Iowa will make good decisions and cast their votes for qualified, worthy candidates rather than for the “outsider” showman that’s been leading the polls for so long.  If someone other than Donald Trump is the victor in Iowa, perhaps the leads he’s had in other states can be overcome as well.  If Trump wins, though, I’m afraid he may well dominate the primaries and caucuses, and that would be a terrible outcome.  I’m sure I’ll be doing a lot of finger crossing Monday night....

Can the Craziness of the Republican Primary Race be Stopped?

I suppose that nothing in the world of politics should surprise me any more, but I continue to be amazed by this year’s presidential primary races.  It’s odd enough that, on the Democrat side, an Independent socialist is opening up leads in the early voting states while his opponent, the former First Lady and Secretary of State, is under investigation by the FBI.  To me, though, that’s nothing compared to the Republican contest, where the latest developments continue to defy all logic and have left me feeling more exasperated than ever.

Since Sarah Palin, the former vice-presidential nominee known as a favorite of conservatives, was among those having meetings and discussions with Donald Trump last year, it wasn’t a shock when she announced her endorsement of him a few days ago, but I still think it’s unfortunate that someone with her reputation and potential influence would choose to take this public step to boost him over other more worthy candidates.  Also, although Donald Trump’s success to this point has been largely attributed to a view of him as an “outsider” campaigning against Washington and traditional politicians, this week there were multiple stories about current and former Republican officeholders expressing increasing acceptance of the idea of Trump as the GOP’s nominee and, specifically, a preference for Trump over Ted Cruz in that role.  This is both disappointing and absurd.

It would seem obvious that the Republican nominee should be, oh, I don’t know, an actual solid Republican and at least generally conservative.  Some likability would be nice to appeal to the general public, as well.  Yet, for this upcoming crucial presidential election, from an initial field of seventeen candidates, many with stellar records, the voters and the party seem ready to hand the nomination to the person with the least claim to this description.  (Based on the way this race is going, it would seem that, if Republicans were in a movie universe and had the opportunity to select a hero to save them from a dire crisis, Captain America, Luke Skywalker, Prince Charming, Spiderman, and many others would be ignored as we chose instead to swooningly make Gaston from Beauty and the Beast our champion.)  Over the years, Donald Trump’s affiliation has changed back and forth among the Democratic, Republican, and Reform Parties;  he has given a large portion of his donations to Democrats; and, on many, many issues he has taken liberal positions, only some of which he has very recently claimed to have reversed.  Besides this, rude and insulting rhetoric has been a notable characteristic of his campaign.  How any reasonable Republican or remotely conservative voter could even consider choosing Trump as their standard-bearer over the other candidates, I just don’t know.  Yes, you can find imperfections in any of them, although you have to look more closely in some cases than in others, but that’s no excuse for casting them all aside to embrace the option with the most deficiencies and, arguably, the least qualifications.  Wait -- could it possibly be the case that Trump’s flaws are so overwhelmingly glaring that they’ve completely blinded his supporters like a flood of “classy” neon lights?

In any case, I think that many categories of people have played roles in Trump’s enduring status as the frontrunner with a commanding national lead, and I can only hope that things will change for many of them before it’s completely too late.

Let’s begin with perhaps the most obvious group:  the members of the public who cheer Donald Trump at his big rallies and support him as their choice for president when responding to polls, undeterred by anything he may have said or done.  I know that I’m not “supposed to” criticize these folks, but why shouldn’t they be expected to make responsible decisions based on all of the readily available information?  I understand that there have been many reasons to be disappointed by the actions or lack of results of elected Republicans (although I also think some criticisms and expectations have been excessive), but that doesn’t justify rallying to someone lacking the qualifications, policy positions, record, or character to be a good president just because he has never held office, criticizes those who have, and isn’t afraid to say whatever he wants to, even if it might be offensive to some others.  

Now for the newcomers to the “Trump’s OK” party:  people who are part of the so-called “establishment” that Trump supporters so vehemently oppose.  With some large donors, strategists, members of Congress and other officials, former party leaders, etc. now making it clear that Donald Trump isn’t their last choice, it’s very interesting to see the reasons they are giving for this judgment, none of which, as you might imagine, I find at all convincing.

I have two comments on the Trump over Cruz aspect of this issue.  First, the discussion of this matchup seems to include an assumption that none of the other ten candidates still in the race have any chance, even though we still have had no actual voting.  Why get ahead of things in this way, and, if you think that Cruz would be a poor choice, why not try to persuade voters to support one of the other “mainstream Republicans” you think would be better without resigning yourself to accepting Trump?  Second, to whatever extent this preference relates to personal issues with Senator Cruz, I think that  everyone really just needs to put that aside for now and think about the importance of the ideas and policies that should define the Republican Party and it’s nominee rather than about cordial interactions with individuals.  They can all go to relationship counseling later, if necessary.  Besides, Donald Trump is spending his campaign hurling plenty of insults at the intelligence and competence of those in the government, so I don’t quite see why they wouldn’t hold this against him, as well.

Some have speculated that Trump would be more likely to win in a general election, but he’s fared poorly in related polls in the past.  This could change, since Hillary Clinton continues to face legal trouble and since Trump appears to have some magical ability to turn unfavorable views around even while behaving in an incredibly obnoxious fashion.  Plus, because I see Trump as really a Democrat in pseudo-Republican clothing, I suppose it isn’t that far-fetched to imagine some significant number of Democrats voting for him, but how would electing someone because he agrees with Democrats be a real victory for the Republican cause??  It’s also being suggested that others in the Republican Party (Congress, advisors, etc.) might be able to “coach” Trump, make deals with him, or persuade him to take up their policy proposals because he doesn’t have a particularly detailed platform of his own.  I think there is a chance this might to some extent be true.  Trump obviously is willing to change his tune on most things, even within a day or so, if he gets the idea it will benefit him to do so; he does brag all the time about his wonderful deal-making skills and intentions; and he could certainly use some assistance in the policy department.  However, considering Trump’s history, I think it is also very possible that any new shifts of opinion or policy that he would make after securing the nomination would be in the liberal direction and that he’d be at least as likely to work out arrangements with Democrats as with Republicans, especially if Democrat voters were to play a considerable part in his election.  Also, Trump has an oversized ego and, were he to become the nominee or even president, would have done so basically by getting popular support from the people when almost no one thought he could with a message essentially consisting of “making the country great again” through his fantastic leadership and ability to be a “winner,” in contrast to the “stupid” people running the country now.  He might well consider himself to have a big mandate from the public to do whatever he thinks fit, without the need to take advice from any conventional politicians.

So we have this contradictory situation:  so many people supposedly support Donald Trump because they see him as a political outsider who would be a strong, independent leader and totally disrupt a Washington “establishment” that they’ve come to despise; but, at the same time, many members of that very “establishment” see Trump as a moldable politician with whom they could work and get along.   Maybe both of these groups need to step back and reconsider their assessment of a man being perceived so differently by so many people.  It seems that a lot of observers are projecting whatever they want to believe onto Trump, rather than objectively looking at him, his record, and his statements, and that is no way to choose a presidential nominee.  I don’t think it’s really possible to know what such a wild card as Donald Trump would truly do as President of the United States, but I do know that I don’t want to find out, and I think it’s very unwise of some Republicans to suggest that taking such a risk is not such a bad option.

The mainstream media has, of course, contributed to Donald Trump’s success by providing so much coverage of him and his campaign and treating his statements and poll numbers as the focus of the race most of the time.  This isn’t particularly surprising, as they will do whatever gets them good ratings.  My problem since Trump entered the race has been with portions of the conservative media, particularly some columnists and hugely influential talk radio hosts.  In my opinion, it is shocking that they ever treated someone with his track record of un-conservative positions, some of which he has retained even now, as an even remotely acceptable option for the Republican nomination, especially since they’ve had no trouble branding others with much more conservative credentials as unworthy “moderates.”  I think that, if they had dismissed or been critical of Trump instead of defending him and providing complimentary treatment of at least some things about him, fewer members of their audiences would have gotten behind Trump’s campaign.  I’ve never been able to understand the reason for the way these members of the conservative media have treated Donald Trump.  They can’t possibly really think he’s the constitutional conservative candidate they’ve been calling for for years, can they??  They may well have appreciated what they saw as his challenges to political correctness and the way his supporters seemed drawn to his outsider status because they were upset with the way conventional politicians  have been handling things.  Did they perhaps seek to avoid alienating Trump fans in the hope that this desire for major change could be encouraged but channeled into support for someone they did see as a more ideal candidate, like Ted Cruz?  They have recently expressed their dissatisfaction because Trump has, predictably, now turned to attacking Cruz, and, whatever the reasons for their handling of Donald Trump’s candidacy, I wonder if those conservative media figures who’ve been giving him a positive reception have any regrets about it now.

One would think that Trump’s opponents, at least, would be doing all they could to dethrone him from his perch as the front-runner, but, most of them don’t seem to want to take him on, although they’re quite willing to criticize each other.  I have cut them a little slack on this for a while, because it may have been a reasonable decision from the standpoint of self-preservation.  After all, when other candidates like Rick Perry or Bobby Jindal tried to make an emphatic case against Donald Trump last year, things did not go well, and they had to drop out of the race very early in the campaign.  Most of the time, Jeb Bush seems to have been about the only one to offer serious opposition to Donald Trump, and I give him credit for that.  In the last couple of weeks, Ted Cruz has finally begun to point out Trump’s lack of conservatism and the problematic positions he has taken, but, since Cruz avoided making these criticisms for the last several months and even offered generic compliments to Trump, I’m not sure how effective his arguments will be now.  As for the others, although Trump has seemed to be almost completely immune to any criticisms, I think it is now past time for the remaining candidates to step up and make a serious effort to defeat Trump in the primaries and caucuses.  In my opinion, they should join Cruz in challenging Trump, but I’m afraid some of them may instead see the new Trump/Cruz conflict as an opportunity for Trump to help them by damaging or eliminating their main competitor for non-Trump support.  To me this is short-sighted, both because anyone wishing to win the nomination is going to need to actually beat Trump, not just everyone else, and also, more importantly, because the good of the country should take precedence over any of the individual candidates’ political ambitions and having a more serious, qualified, conservative nominee than Donald Trump is a first step toward securing a better future for our nation.

So far, though, with recent polls showing Trump may have regained the lead even in Iowa and maintained his dominance nationally, it would seem that the “inevitability” of a Donald Trump nomination is like a speeding locomotive gaining more and more momentum, and I’m not sure what, if anything, might be able to stop it.  (Where’s Superman when you need him?)  What’s especially troubling, though, is that it appears the will and desire to even try is dwindling away.  This week, National Review did publish a symposium consisting of many writers’ pieces giving their arguments “Against Trump,” but the magazine has received some criticism for the decision to issue this collection of articles, and there is no way to know what effect it may have.  I, for one, appreciate NR’s undertaking, and I hope that primary- and caucus-goers will give thoughtful consideration to all of the relevant facts and arguments about the candidates before actually casting their votes over the next few months.

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....

Clinton vs Trump: Is there a Winning Side?

This may never happen here again, but I’m going to start out with a little bit of a defense of Hillary Clinton.  Of course I don’t agree with her liberal policies or her dishonesty about things like her e-mail server and what happened in Benghazi (hey, I said it was a little defense,) but I do think that some statements for which she’s been criticized during this campaign have been blown out of proportion.

For example, Mrs. Clinton recently said that she wouldn’t keep schools open that weren’t doing a better than average job.  Yes, you can say that, taken literally, this could mean that she’d have to close the lower-performing half of all schools after every assessment, which obviously would not be a practical way to handle education.  However, isn’t it possible to think instead that an evaluation system might assign letter grades to schools for their performance and that, since “C” has traditionally been defined as an indicator of average work, any mark of C+ or better would be considered “better than average?”  Would it really be that unreasonable to expect all schools to strive for such a grade and to hope that only small numbers would fail to reach it, and isn’t it very possible that Hillary Clinton was referring to something along these lines in her remarks?

Also, much was made of Hillary Clinton’s reference to Republicans as her “enemies” in one of the Democratic debates.  I must confess that I did not see what all the fuss was about.  The candidates were specifically asked about enemies in relation to their political careers, so I do not think it follows that only terrorists or regimes like Iran would be truly acceptable answers.  In addition, Mrs. Clinton is certainly far from the only person, on either side of the aisle, to view or treat those with whom they disagree politically in a hostile way, whether or not the term “enemy” is actually used.  (Just listen to all of the invective directed at the “Washington establishment/cartel/elite” these days.)  So, I find it a little odd that Hillary Clinton’s comment would be deemed outrageous during a campaign in which going out of one’s way to defy political correctness without worrying about offending people seems to be the ultimate virtue to many.  Besides, while some fellow politicians or party operatives may just be colleagues or opponents with whom you disagree or compete, some others are political enemies seeking to destroy your reputation, career, or initiatives in whatever ways they can.  Hillary Clinton very likely has first hand knowledge of this both as a target and an aggressor, and Republicans would be wise not to dismiss the notion of serious threats from political opponents.

There have been other instances as well, but these should suffice for now.  In general, I would advise others who are not fans of Hillary Clinton that, since she is so wrong about so many issues, there is no need to parse every little thing she says in such a way as to render it ridiculous or offensive.  After all, to find those qualities, we can just look to her stated positions on things such as the successes of Obamacare, absolute support for abortion on demand, and public funds for Planned Parenthood.

My take on the recent spat between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump probably does not fit with the common conservative/Republican view of the matter, either.  I don’t think that Trump should be defended, way less cheered, for tossing gratuitous insults at his opponents, especially when he does so in particularly crude fashion.  Since it shouldn’t be “OK” to treat others -- male or female -- this way, I personally don’t think it’s really necessary for Hillary or others to try to counter Trump on “sexist” grounds, especially since doing so may well just reinforce the notion that he’s fighting against “political correctness” and increase his support among his fans. I realize that Hillary Clinton may not be the most sympathetic target of Trump’s enthusiastically negative rhetoric or have the most standing to complain about it, considering her past involvement in efforts to discredit her own opponents and those of her husband, but that doesn’t mean we should condone everything said against her.  Yes, despite Bill Clinton’s shameful behavior, Hillary did defend her husband and make derogatory remarks about the women who were involved with him or who made serious accusations against him, and people can certainly criticize her for that.  However, if certain criticisms of Mrs. Clinton cross acceptable lines, I think it is fair and possible to point that out without excusing any wrongdoing on her part.

We’ll have to see how things develop, but I’m really not convinced that Donald Trump’s assertion that Hillary Clinton bringing up the issue of sexism makes Bill Clinton’s many scandals “fair game” is such a brilliantly victorious point for Trump.  For one thing, the public certainly didn’t seem to believe that Bill Clinton deserved political punishment as a candidate or a sitting President when the allegations of harassment and assault and the other tabloid-worthy stories were much more recent.  Will they really choose to take these things out on his wife now?  Might they even be annoyed by a return to “old news” and want to “move on” once again?  Also, Donald Trump doesn’t seem particularly well-suited to critically discuss Bill Clinton’s record toward and with women.  Clinton’s sleazy (and possibly criminal) behavior apparently didn’t bother Trump before, since he chose to compliment, support, and donate to the Clintons until fairly recently.  Plus, Donald Trump is far from a shining example of moral rectitude and marital fidelity himself, as demonstrated by his own messy history with wives, girlfriends, and less than tasteful comments about women.  Wouldn’t it seem potentially risky to deliberately bring this general subject to voters’ attention?  (I know, I know, presumably not for Trump, since basically everything helps him in the polls...)

Really, though, shouldn’t social conservatives, in particular, be averse to voting for someone like Trump?  I don’t know if those in that category willing to support him don’t care about personal character anymore, or if their assumption, which I hope isn’t true, is that everyone else in politics has similar skeletons in their pasts, too, even if we haven’t yet heard about them, or if there is some other explanation.  Whatever the reason, I find it unfortunate that we seem to keep lowering our expectations of (at least some of) those seeking the highest offices in the country, and Donald Trump’s support among those calling themselves conservatives continues to be puzzling and disappointing.

The prospect of  a general election campaign between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald Trump is not a pleasant one.  There is plenty of ammunition for attacks and negative advertising against both of them, and, as a conservative, such a contest would give me no good choice to support.  Since the party nominations have not yet been decided, I can only hope that Republican voters will ultimately make a wiser choice and prevent this match-up from becoming a reality, but I must admit that I am not at all confident about it.

Can Conservatism Withstand Current Forces?

From the beginning, this year’s Republican primary campaign has been rather surprising and filled with intra-party conflict.  There seem to be multiple notions attempting to change the direction and attitude of the GOP in different  ways.  I hope that I’m just being overly pessimistic, but I am genuinely worried about the possible consequences the current battles may have for the party, conservatism, and the country (and, therefore, the world, actually.)  That’s overly dramatic, I’m sure, but I do believe that this situation is a very serious matter.

One trend stems from the idea that the Republican party has not acted in a conservative-enough fashion, even when elected after promising to do so, and that it has been making a big mistake in selecting candidates thought to be more moderate, particularly as its presidential nominees.  Therefore, strong efforts should be made to bring about different actions and results in the future.  This drive seems to me to have begun with good intentions and conservative goals but to have made some unproductive and unfair choices in pursuit of positive change.  What I've found troubling is the increasing tendency of some conservatives, notably some talk radio personalities and columnists, but also many members of the public, to keep redefining what the Republican party and conservatism should be and do in such ways that fewer and fewer people qualify for the labels.  There have indeed always been some Republicans who are quite liberal, especially on certain issues, and some who have tended to side with Democrats when voting in Congress or to criticize mainstream conservative positions in the media.  It is understandable for conservatives to express frustration with these politicians and to work to elect better alternatives.  Now, however, regardless of a person’s overall record and views, it seems that any small disagreement with the “true conservatives” is enough to warrant branding as a “RINO” and excommunication from the conservative movement, even for people whose conservatism would not have been questioned just a short time ago.  The most obvious example of this right now is probably Paul Ryan, and I may well discuss that gentleman some more another time, but at the moment I’d like to focus on the presidential race.

An important thing to note, of course, is that the above rule does not apply if your name is Donald Trump, in which case agreeing with conservatives (somewhat and only as of very recently) about just one or two issues is enough to make you acceptable as a presidential nominee.  Welcome to Wonderland!  The remarkable success of Mr. Trump’s campaign so far seems to illustrate the strength of another attitude currently exerting its influence on the Republican primary race.   Many people seem to feel that our current political parties and methods of operation are completely incapable of doing things the way they should be done and that our elected officials are incompetent, corrupt, and/or not working in the real interest of the people and the country.  As a result, drastic change is needed, starting with a completely new type of presidential candidate who comes from outside the system and is willing to say things others won’t.   I think there are multiple problems with this mindset.  It’s a pretty big risk to make someone with no experience or record in government President of the United States, and, if the experiment doesn’t go well, there could be far-reaching negative consequences.   Also, those advocating for wholesale change in government don’t really seem very concerned about the specifics of the transformation they might bring about by electing a particular candidate.  Attempts to point out areas in which a non-traditional candidate’s positions are not consistent or conservative are dismissed or criticized, and many of the problematic views and statements are even defended.  Supporters do not want to hear anything negative about ‘their guy,” who must be a good choice because people who don’t feel the current Republican party and it’s elected officials are their enemies are against him.  This doesn’t seem the most reasoned way to approach the hugely important decision of selecting a President, and people should not assume that something “new and different” is necessarily an improvement.

Since this summer, I’ve been disappointed by the treatment received by most of the candidates running for the Republican nomination this cycle.  The field, especially at the outset of the campaign season, contained a veritable “who’s who” of current and former conservative governors and legislators, along with a couple of actual “moderate” candidates like George Pataki.  But, instead of appreciating actually having multiple good conservative options from which to choose this time, a large segment of the Right opted instead to ignore, dismiss, or even attack most of these qualified candidates as unsuitably conservative, often while supporting or defending the candidate with the most liberal views and history (Mr. Trump.)

Before the campaign really even got underway, much of the energy of the change-seekers on the Right was devoted to criticism of Jeb Bush, the candidate perceived to be a potential front-runner and favored candidate of the so-called “establishment” of the Republican Party.  It is perfectly reasonable for Governor Bush’s views on things such as immigration to lead conservatives to prefer other candidates, but here again, labeling him as some barely right-of-center moderate doesn’t seem to fit with his actual overall record or policy proposals, and I don’t think that he deserves the animosity that has been directed towards him in relation to this primary race.  As Jeb Bush slipped down to single digits in the polls months ago, one would think that his detractors might have been satisfied and moved on, but he still seems to be the focus of disproportionate negative attention, especially in response to any critical comments or questions raised about Donald Trump.

For a long time, the polls showed all of the experienced, successful conservative politicians struggling to gain any significant level of support, and several of them, all accomplished governors, dropped out of the race at a very early stage while the popularity of  “outsider” candidates soared.  Finally, two Senators, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, had an increase in their polling numbers, and it seemed that perhaps they might be a couple of traditional candidates with a chance in the race.  Many of the “anti-establishment” figures in conservative media have always been most supportive of Cruz, but for a while, at least, Rubio still seemed able to get a respectful hearing and civil treatment, even though he also has an immigration position that is not in favor among most conservatives and Republicans.  More recently, though, I’ve heard his name spoken contemptuously on talk radio, and, no matter the totality of his record, he seems to have joined the ranks of those banished from the “conservative” fold, another casualty of the ever-shrinking circle drawn to include only “true” conservatives.  I’m not sure exactly what precipitated the harsh new attitude towards Senator Rubio, but it seems likely to be a result of the growing perception that he might be the still-viable candidate likely to be most appealing to the conventional or ”establishment” voters and leaders of the party, along with the more direct competition seen to be developing between Rubio and Cruz, the favorite candidate of many conservative opinion leaders.  In any case, I find it unfortunate.  I think that it would be far better for us to approach the upcoming primaries and caucuses by examining and comparing the views, proposals, and relative merits of multiple conservative candidates than by dismissing most of the participants in the contest as unacceptable sell-outs not even worthy of consideration.

What seems especially puzzling to me is the way that this movement to seek “true conservatives” has been coexisting with the wave of support for Donald Trump, who is clearly not in that category.  I understand that many of his supporters were not really involved in politics before, and many do not necessarily consider themselves very conservative.  While these people are still making what I’d consider a poor choice, for them there may be no contradiction in supporting Mr. Trump -- they may either agree with him or be interested only in having someone they see as a leader in charge, not in the details of specific issues.  However, for long-time conservative advocates, such as leading talk show hosts, to argue over and over again that what we need to move the country in the correct direction is to elect genuine constitutional conservatives, but then to also bend over backwards to defend the candidacy of someone like Donald Trump, whose first instincts on basically everything have been liberal and who doesn’t seem to have much concern for many Constitutional principles (including limits on executive power, private property rights, multiple aspects of freedom of speech, and many others,) is inexplicable to me.  How can the same people who find Ted Cruz to be basically the only acceptable candidate who’s actually worked in government also be OK with the idea of Donald Trump as nominee or even president, when the two are at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum in the Republican field?  The willingness to speak bluntly (at least sometimes, in Senator Cruz’ case) seems to be the main characteristic they might be thought to have in common, and I certainly hope that’s not being seen as a qualification overriding all other factors in choosing the Chief Executive.

I’m not a fan of either of the trends discussed here that are currently tugging conservatism in different directions.  I agree that more conservatism -- actually articulated and acted upon -- would benefit our country, but I don’t think the way to gain support from more of the public for conservatism in elections and policy discussions is to push away people who’ve already been on the team.   Far worse, however, would be to give up on these goals entirely by awarding the presidential nomination to someone who, no matter how certain defenders might try to spin things, is not at all conservative.  While we may not be achieving conservative victories now, if neither major party is even attempting to stand for conservative principles or policy proposals, our national politics and world view will likely lurch much farther left very quickly, and no good can be expected to come from that outcome.  I don’t know how the elections or the conflicts within conservatism and the Republican party will play out over the next year, but I certainly hope that people will make thoughtful choices that do not result in the destruction of conservatism as we know it.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Note:  Since this post, first published on December 27, became so lengthy, I thought it might be best to leave it at the top of the page a little longer and take a bit of a holiday break.  Happy New Year!

The CNN Las Vegas Debate

This past week, the Republican presidential candidates participated in yet another debate, this one focussed on issues of foreign policy and national security.  There was rather a lot of substantive discussion, which is a good thing, and several of the candidates performed well.  At this time, I’d like to mention just a few observations related to the CNN debate in Las Vegas.

Regarding the format, I think that debates devoted to one broad category of issues, like national security or the economy, allow for some more detailed examination of important subjects.  However, some potential voters will not watch all of the debates, and, for those perhaps only tuning in to one event as the actual voting draws near, it might be beneficial to have a forum in which the candidates discuss a wide range of topics to give the public a better idea of their overall positions and philosophies.

Jeb Bush has had a tough time so far in this campaign, so I was glad that he had a good night in Las Vegas.  He was solid during the actual debate and also got in a couple of effective one-liners directed against Donald Trump.  I especially liked his quip that he wasn’t sure if Trump was getting his information from TV shows on Sunday morning or Saturday morning.  (Come to think of it, having Yosemite Sam and Foghorn Leghorn as policy advisors might explain a lot...)  When asked about others’ proposals or statements with which he disagreed, I thought that Governor Bush managed to present himself as a reasonable alternative without seeming apologetic or lacking in strength, and also to articulate his own ideas for the issues under discussion. Unfortunately, he did stumble a bit during both his opening and closing statements.  Maybe he let the pressure of the big moments he’d prepared for get to him.  In any case, while I don’t know if Jeb Bush still has a real chance in the race, at least I think he can feel good about his most recent debate performance as a whole.

Chris Christie does seem like someone who could plausibly be seen as a Commander in Chief, but I’m not sure that he’ll have that much opportunity for success in this year’s large field of good candidates.  During the debates, I don’t think that Governor Christie should be so dismissive of policy discussions among other candidates.  Many of these issues and details are important, and the particulars of the laws enacted by Congress do have a large effect in determining what prosecutors and governors like Christie are able to do when, for example, surveilling or investigating suspected terrorists.  On a more positive note, I will also say that, especially for someone known as rather a blunt-talking “tough guy,” Governor Christie showed himself capable of considerable restraint.  Standing right next to Christie, Rand Paul accused him of being likely to start World War III and then threw in a gratuitous reference to the New Jersey bridge scandal, but Christie stayed calm, basically ignored Paul’s comments, and just continued making the points he wanted to convey.

It almost seemed as if Marco Rubio had a big target on his back during much of the evening.  The moderators often set up direct, conflicting exchanges between him and Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul joined in with criticism of Rubio on multiple occasions.  Overall, I thought that Senator Rubio held his own and kept his cool under pressure, but some of what was said about him, along with renewed attention on his immigration views, could potentially hurt him in the race.  Still, throughout the debate, I think that Rubio once again did a good job of sounding prepared and knowledgeable and making a case for his positions and past votes, and I continue to think that he would be a very strong nominee.

Ted Cruz could also be a good nominee and conservative spokesperson, and it seems that things have been going his way lately, with polls showing him leading in Iowa.  He always has pretty good performances in the debates, and I’d expect those most inclined to support him liked much of what he had to say on Tuesday.  In the debate exchanges with Senator Rubio, particularly on the immigration issue, I think that Senator Cruz may have come out with somewhat of an advantage, especially because Rubio was put on the defensive, fending off criticism, much of the time.  However, I do think that Senator Cruz may have come across as less than clear or even as evasive on a few occasions, including when discussing his stance (past and present) on legalization of immigrants and when asked why he wouldn’t publicly say the same things about Donald Trump’s candidacy that he’d said at a private fundraiser, and that’s not an impression likely to be helpful to him.

I’m not sure how much point there is discussing anything in particular Donald Trump says in a debate.  In this case, he still often sounded very vague and sometimes, as when asked about the nuclear triad, didn’t seem to have any idea what the question meant.  In addition, he expressed ideas of questionable practicality and constitutionality (such as shutting down parts of the Internet to deter terrorist recruiting), falsely denied statements he’d previously made, and demonstrated (again) that the sincerity of the things he says is frequently in doubt by complimenting and praising opponents (Ben Carson and Ted Cruz) he’d harshly criticized and insulted as recently as two days earlier.  Yet, most of the other candidates didn’t seem willing to express criticism of Trump at the debate, and the usual rules of politics don’t seem to apply to him.  So, people will give Mr. Trump credit if one or two of his answers are more coherent than usual, and his supporters will presumably continue to keep him at the top of the polls, as they have since he first entered the race.

As I’ve stated before, I really can’t comprehend the way the public is viewing this primary campaign, but based on the way things have been going, I’d guess that this debate won’t really have much of an effect on the standing of the national frontrunner or of any of the candidates who’ve been polling in the single digits.  I am concerned, however, about the impact recent developments, including this debate and its aftermath, might have on Senators Rubio and Cruz.   Maybe things will remain basically unchanged in the race, or perhaps one or the other will benefit, but I do worry that the conflicts between them could wind up damaging both candidates.  I hope that this is not the case, as both men are capable and qualified contenders for the Republican nomination -- and, if they should fall out of favor, I’m afraid that victory for someone extremely unsuitable would become even more likely than it already seems.

Donald Trump: More of the Same

After writing at great length in my last post about some of my many issues with the continuing success of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, I had hoped to be able to concentrate on some other topics for a while.  However, since Trump-centric discussions have been pretty much everywhere during the past week, I guess I might as well talk about him some more, as well -- though, hopefully in a shorter burst this time.

I’m not going to spend a lot of time on the controversy of the week -- Mr. Trump’s suggestion that no foreign Muslims should be allowed into the U.S. until the government “figures out what’s going on.”  If that means until our leaders and bureaucratic agencies accomplish the daunting task of developing an extremely accurate way to determine which prospective immigrants or visitors could possibly commit or support terrorist activities at some point in the future, the temporary ban might last quite a long time indeed.  I will say that I do not think that the proposal would be unconstitutional, because our Constitution doesn’t grant rights, such as freedom of religion, to everyone in the world.  (It could be dangerous, though, to give the Supreme Court a chance to weigh in on something like this and risk having them fabricate an inventive ruling that applicants for admission to the U.S. may not be disqualified for things that would be considered protected speech, exercise of religion, etc. for American citizens.)  I also think that, if a temporary moratorium on entrances to the country were to be adopted, it might be less problematic to make it universal rather than limited to one religious group.  After all, Trump’s suggestion that people would simply be asked their religion at, for example, an airport, doesn’t seem to be a particularly accurate way to verify such information.  In any case, even though these types of policies may be legally permissible, that does not mean that they would necessarily be wise or that they would not create or exacerbate as many problems as they solved, and their consideration should not be taken lightly.  I also agree with those who have said that Trump’s announcement this week of his proposal regarding Muslims entering the country was likely prompted by recent poll results suggesting a lessening of his lead, especially in Iowa, where one poll showed Ted Cruz was now ahead.  Based on the pattern of the last several months, it wouldn’t be surprising if Mr. Trump figured that the best way to divert attention from that development and refocus it on himself was to say something controversial, and it worked.  Odd as it may sound, this seems to just be business as usual for the Donald Trump campaign.

I’ve said (repeatedly) before that I’ve found it stunning that any sizable group of people would consider someone like Donald Trump their top choice to be President of the United States.  From a certain perspective, though, I suppose that I should not be surprised at all, as Trump’s popularity fits in with the trends seen in the last couple of presidential elections.

Barack Obama was able to win twice despite lacking prior experiences showing particular qualifications to be president and even though some of his main positions and proposals (such as “Obamacare”) were opposed by a majority of the people.  Many of his supporters were devoted to him, and policy details or any critical information about Obama were not important.  This has been called a “cult of personality,” and that seems to be a fitting description -- just remember the accounts of the enthralled crowds at Obama’s campaign events in 2008, complete with people fainting when overcome by the awesome experience of being in his presence.  Obama encouraged people to view him in this way when he spoke of the amazing changes that would happen if he would be elected -- why, the entire planet would be healed as the sea levels would fall if he were victorious.  In both of Obama’s elections, people disregarded potentially damaging facts about him, including, in 2008, his past associations with people like Bill Ayres and Jeremiah Wright and, in 2012, the events and lies surrounding the Benghazi attack.  None of this mattered to many voters -- Obama was their guy.

Similarly, Donald Trump’s supporters this year are unmoved by any arguments against him.  Even if they describe themselves as Republicans and often as conservatives, they are not dissuaded by his past (or present) support for liberal positions, his lack of experience with foreign policy and other presidential matters, or his vague and shifting views during this campaign.  Any rude or insulting comments he directs at reporters,  a captured POW, an entire state of voters, or his opponents are acceptable, because he’s standing up to the oppressive political correctness problem in the country, even if he’s reiterating and amplifying the very attacks (as in the case of Ben Carson) these same people criticize the media for using.  I’d imagine that having a pre-established fan base from his television show, along with general celebrity name recognition, didn’t hurt Mr. Trump in establishing his campaign.  Now, it seems that most of his backers will stick with him no matter what he says or does, and whichever position he takes on a given issue is fine with them.  As for Donald Trump himself, he certainly does not downplay his own importance.  He says that media members tell him he is the best interview and that even his opponents compliment him on his winning debate performances.  If he is elected, he will “make America great again” and negotiate tremendous deals with other countries.  It isn’t necessary for him to provide a lot of specifics regarding any of his plans, because he has assured us that he will bring in fantastic people to handle every issue.

While in office, Barack Obama has continually claimed more power for himself.  He has issued a great many executive orders, even in cases where he had previously admitted that he didn’t have the authority to do so.  This week, Donald Trump said that, if he were president, he would sign an executive order mandating the death penalty for anyone convicted of killing a police officer.  Now, I’m certainly unhappy with all of the police-bashing that’s been going on the last couple of years, and support for law enforcement from the Oval Office would be a welcome change, but this suggestion might be rather too broad.  Whatever the merits of the idea, I can’t see how Mr. Trump’s proposed executive order would possibly be within the president’s authority, as it would seem to be usurping the powers of local, state, and federal legislatures and courts.  Republicans and conservatives have often criticized Obama’s power grabs and unlawful executive orders -- are many of them now OK with the idea of a mega-powerful chief executive circumventing the separation of powers established by the Constitution as long as the one in charge is (at least momentarily) affiliated with their party?

So, on one hand, Republicans nominating a quite liberal, deliberately abrasive reality-show celebrity (yes, and businessman) with no government experience as their presidential candidate would be a rather novel development.  But, on the other hand, a victory for Donald Trump would just show once again that the American people have developed a preference for presidents who, to put it nicely, have very high self-esteem and are willing to assert (or exceed) their authority to accomplish their goals.  We’ve already had two terms of a, as Bobby Jindal might put it, narcissistic egomaniac in the White House with Barack Obama.  The election of Donald Trump would only give us a third, and that type of continuity hardly seems desirable.

What's Trumping logic?

My consternation at Donald Trump’s success upon entering the Republican primary race actually drove me to start writing here this summer, but, while he has continued to hold a lead in the polls for the last several months, I have tried to remain (relatively) calm and refrain from addressing the topic at length again. After some of the things I’ve heard and read lately, however, I can no longer help myself.  So, here I am, once again trying to make some sense of the incomprehensible.  It’s difficult to know how to approach a phenomenon that seems almost unbelievable, but I’ll begin by mentioning and responding to some of the recent comments and news items that have prompted this post.

I’m usually at work during Rush Limbaugh’s radio program, but on the Friday before Thanksgiving I happened to find myself in a car with someone who was listening to his show.  Rush was defending Donald Trump against stories in the media suggesting he might be interested in having a database to register Muslims in the U.S.  While discussing Mr. Trump, Rush said that the media has not been able to destroy Trump because it didn’t create him.  A couple of days later, I saw Rush on Fox News Sunday saying that Donald Trump is providing a great service by showing Republicans that they do not have to be afraid of the media or of being politically incorrect.

• First of all, I really would not be at all sure that “the media” is trying to “take out” or ruin Donald Trump at this point.  They get good TV ratings or more hits on their websites, etc. when they cover him, so why would they want that to stop any time soon?  Also, I’d guess that they probably still do not view Mr. Trump as one of the Republicans most likely to do well in the general election.  So, from a partisan standpoint, I wouldn’t expect the media to try to harm him during the primary season -- why make it more likely for Hillary Clinton to face someone they see as a stronger opponent?  Once the Republican nominee is officially selected, there will be plenty of time for attempted media sabotage of whomever is chosen.

• Also, while there may be occasions like this one, where reporters or others ask Trump questions that have a good chance of eliciting controversial answers from him, most of the time this is quite unnecessary, as Mr. Trump seems delighted to make blunt or even outrageous statements of his own accord.

•  Finally, I cannot see that Donald Trump’s ability to succeed to this point despite a plethora of media coverage of his “politically incorrect” campaign would be generally applicable to other Republican candidates.  I find it hard to believe that most candidates would retain their support if the news was filled with reports about them continually making rude and insulting comments about practically everyone, constantly changing their positions on issues, and making or supporting proposals that might alienate large portions of the public.  This type of “Teflon” resilience is possible, for Trump or any other politician, only if his or her supporters are willing to provide it.  Trump’s segment of the Republican electorate certainly seems willing to stick with him no matter what he says or does or what is said about him, which, in his case, I do not thing is a good thing.  If Republican voters in general and conservative media figures would be willing to extend that sort of unshakable loyalty to any (or even most) Republican candidates, it would certainly be a new development, because in the past there has been what I would consider an often unfortunate tendency to abandon Republicans facing criticism or even to join in with it, even when the people in question are much more deserving of defense.

On the radio program mentioned above, Rush also talked to a young Trump supporter who stated that he and other people he knows just laugh at things in the media about Trump.  This caller said that he doesn’t want a “scripted president” but instead wants  someone who “speaks for him.”  All of this support for Trump on a conservative talk show was too much for me to deal with, and I couldn’t contain my exasperation, at which point I was asked by my fellow auto occupant (and family member) if I thought Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama were better than Trump.  Sigh...   Jumping ahead a bit, a week later, Mark Steyn was filling in for Rush Limbaugh and took a call from someone critical of the desire of the (so-called) “establishment” to take down the frontrunner in the race.  He asked, “Don’t they want to win?”

• In reference to Rush’s caller, once again, I think it would be wiser for potential voters not to simply discount stories about candidates without any attention or thought.  Beyond that, though, I find it troubling that people would want to claim that Donald Trump is “speaking for” them.  If we’re seeking a spokesperson, wouldn’t it be better to look for one who is at least moderately civil, consistent, coherent when discussing issues, and, hopefully, conservative?

• To respond to the question from my dear relative (and I will mention that she actually prefers a candidate other than Trump,) I think it is the wrong thing to ask, especially now, and it is certainly not a sufficient argument for having Donald Trump as the Republican frontrunner.  Barack Obama is rather irrelevant to the discussion, since he is not, thankfully, running for reelection again.  (Unless, of course, he decides to pen another really creative executive action eliminating presidential term limits and then phone all of the media outlets to tell them about it.  But, I digress...)  As for a comparison of the relative merits of Trump and Hillary Clinton, I honestly cannot say that I am confident Trump would be preferable.  Not that long ago, he praised and supported Hillary, and he changes his stated opinions on many things very frequently.  How, then, can we think we have any real idea what actions he would take or goals he would pursue were he elected President?  I will confess that I see Mr. Trump as really being much more of a liberal Democrat than a conservative Republican at heart, so, in a contest with Mrs. Clinton, there would basically be a draw in my mind.  That being said, even if we were to stipulate that Trump would at least be better than Clinton, this is not the time to raise such a point.  If he does eventually win the nomination (insert involuntary shudders here,) it would make sense for those advocating his election to use this reasoning in attempting to persuade other voters to support him.  For now, though, we still have 14 candidates in a primary race for which the actual voting has not yet even begun.  Rather than settling for someone who meets a bare minimum standard of being a bit better than the Democrats, shouldn’t we be trying to select the strongest candidates who are likely to do the best job as President and who might actually try to govern according to some basic conservative principles?

• Finally, a couple of points in answer to Mark Steyn’s caller regarding “winning.”  First, I think that it is still difficult for many of us to accept the idea that large numbers of people could find Donald Trump to be a valid option for President of the United States, so we do not just assume that the nation as a whole would be willing to elect him even if enough Republicans vote to give him the nomination.  The American electorate obviously has been known to make very unwise choices before, having, for example, recently elected Barack Obama twice.  So, they may well go along with the idea of a brash reality show in the White House, but there is also a chance that they may take a more traditional, staid approach when deciding whom to consider “presidential.”  Secondly, are we to consider it a “win” as long as someone with an “R” next to his or her name on the ballot is elected, no matter what his or her philosophy, policies, or actions may be?  I think that we should aim higher than that and seek to nominate someone who will at least try to move the political conversation and policy goals of our country in the right (and Right) direction, and, I’m sorry, but I don’t believe Mr. Trump is the man to do that.

To top all of this off, a little over a week ago, I read the news that, even after Donald Trump had given an even more bizarre performance than usual at one of his appearances and after voters were expected (by some) to “get serious” as they focus more on things like security in the wake of the recent terrorist attacks, Trump’s lead in the latest polls had actually increased, and Republicans in a survey were saying that they trusted him the most to deal with almost all of the issues listed.  More recently, I did see an item this past weekend claiming that Trump had dropped sharply in a poll, but it stated that he’d been at a high of 43% a week before.  (I had never before seen news that Trump had gained that much support, which is a good thing, because if I had, I might well have gone into complete shock.  If there really was such a poll result earlier this month, I would think it must have been an anomaly.)  This item said Trump was now down to 31%, which is about the figure I’d read when his numbers recently went up, so, the way I see it, Trump was still enjoying what I’d consider remarkably positive results.  It may well be that I’m the one who has lost touch with reality, but I just can’t help feeling that a large portion of the electorate has gone completely mad!

• In general, it seems rather odd for the public to put its trust in someone with no real relevant experience or qualifications who mainly just expresses multiple vague and ever-changing opinions about foreign policy and other issues, but this seems especially reckless regarding matters of national security.  Why would voters choose to rely on a person who thinks he can wait to become knowledgeable and prepared about these issues until it’s time to take office; who has criticized other candidates for making harsh characterizations of Vladimir Putin, with whom he thinks he can have good discussions; suggested that we should just let Russia deal with ISIS in Syria; and so on?  Because they see him as the “tough guy?”  I think that’s a flawed perception of him, but, in any case, I don’t think the terrorists are going to abandon their goals and plans and slink away because someone casts particularly creative or withering insults in their direction.

• In addition, I find it quite troublesome that even reports about Donald Trump’s lengthy “speech” in Iowa a couple of weeks ago apparently do not give his supporters pause.  If he can go on a rather unhinged tirade against other candidates (including Ben Carson and Marco Rubio) and even call the voters of Iowa stupid for the egregious error of failing to always keep him, the Great & Powerful Trump, on top in their polls, and this results in a greater number of people thinking he is the man they want to make the leader of the free world, what does that say about the qualities the American people (or at least Republican primary voters) want in a president?  And, from a practical standpoint, this begs the question:  is there anything Donald Trump could possibly do or say that might cause fans to rethink their support?  I’m afraid that the answer may be no, and that is a very disheartening thought.

I was definitely initially stunned by Trump’s popularity in the Republican presidential primary contest, but, once it was established, I have not been among those who were confident it would fade.  I have certainly hoped fervently that this might happen, but, until there is actual evidence that people are regaining their senses, I see no reason to assume the public will suddenly make a more reasonable choice.  There is still some time left before the actual primaries and caucuses begin, though, so maybe, just maybe, the political landscape of the campaign can yet change and allow a superior candidate to prevail in the end.  We’ll just have to wait and see -- and, in my case, possibly write some more on related topics in an attempt to cope with politics-induced distress. 

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.

CNBC's October Republican Debate

Much has already been said about the Republican debate held in Colorado last week.  Probably the most prominent characteristic of this event being discussed has been the questionable handling of the proceedings by the moderators.  They were, especially in the prime-time portion of the evening, over the top in asking hostile questions, phrasing queries in ways most likely to cast a negative light on the candidates, and treating those on the stage rather rudely.  Still, the debate was another opportunity to see and hear for a couple of hours from those running for the Republican presidential nomination, and I think that it’s worth taking time to note some impressions about the candidates in addition to directing deserved criticism at the team from CNBC.

Donald Trump

As others have noted, he was somewhat toned down last Wednesday.  The insulting of other candidates and making of faces was reduced, but he did go after John Kasich quite a bit at the beginning of the debate and more than once mentioned that he wasn’t going to criticize other people on the stage about something, even though he certainly could.  Perhaps he figured that he could take a break from spreading negativity about his opponents that evening since the moderators were already taking on that task.

I still find the topic of the bankruptcies of Trump’s companies to be a glaring fault that should be a problematic issue for voters, but many others must not see it that way.

In response to a question related to immigration, Trump claimed he had not said what the moderator attributed to him regarding Marco Rubio and Mark Zuckerberg. By the time the moderator was able to find her source and point out that the statement was on Trump’s website, people may have dismissed this as another falsehood or mistaken point from the moderators.  Trump’s comments about increasing visas for tech workers and allowing more international students to stay after they graduate from American colleges might not be appreciated by some of the people whose support for him centers on the immigration issue.  While inviting more legal immigration doesn’t offend the rule of law the way amnesty-type policies for those who come (or stay) illegally do, there are still concerns about the effects increased levels of immigration may have on jobs and wages for Americans and current legal residents, on costs for government services such as education and health care, on the assimilation of newcomers into American culture, and so on.  I understand that Mr. Trump (once again) completely changed his tune in appearances the next day, presumably after realizing (or being told) that his statements in the debate could be problematic among his supporters.  Will this latest flip-flop and/or the notion that Mr. Trump was not even familiar with the opinions and positions attributed to him on his own website cause anyone to re-think their support of his candidacy?  Who knows?  But, many other inconsistencies and controversies haven’t seemed to dissuade his fans up to this point.

Ben Carson

Dr. Carson continues to seem like a nice man with good intentions, but I’m not sure that he gave us much information or clarification about the policies he would favor.  Over the last several weeks, Dr. Carson has been subjected to a lot of overblown criticism in the media, etc. about various comments he’s made, which seems to have actually caused him to gain support from many people who want to combat political correctness and the “outrage” it can generate.  I do think, though, that we need to be careful not to just regard every question or challenge (for example, about the amounts of revenue to be expected under his tax proposal) posed to Dr. Carson as an unfair “gotcha” question that doesn’t merit a thorough answer.

Carly Fiorina

Mrs. Fiorina once again had a pretty good debate, but, to me, she didn’t seem to stand out as much this time,  maybe because we’d already heard some of the things she was saying or perhaps because more of the other candidates were able to take the opportunity to present themselves well, too.  I’m not sure how those of us who are not experts on the world of technology business can really evaluate how good a job Mrs. Fiorina did as a CEO, but, since this part of her background is important in judging her qualifications to be the country’s Chief Executive, it is an issue worth our attention.

Jeb Bush

Unfortunately, this was not a good night for Governor Bush at all.  He still seemed to have trouble presenting his points clearly and assuredly, and actually probably took a couple of steps backward in this regard from the previous debate. Of course, I’m sure it doesn’t help a person’s confidence to start the evening answering questions about your greatest weakness and your dropping poll numbers.  Cutting into the conversation to add to the Senate attendance-related criticism the moderator had already raised with Marco Rubio was a painfully poor choice for Gov. Bush.  He needs to turn things around in a major way, and I can only hope we’ll be able to see a much improved performance at the next debate.

Marco Rubio

I thought that Senator Rubio had another successful night in Colorado.  He communicated well and also managed to keep his cool even when facing hostile questions and criticisms.  His characterization of the mainstream media as a Super PAC for Democrats was memorable and should be popular with many Republican voters.

Ted Cruz

Obviously, Ted Cruz’ rebuke of the moderators for the antagonistic nature of their questions was one of the most notable exchanges of the night and will resonate with many people who do not like the way Republicans and conservatives tend to be treated by the media.  Beyond that, though, the debate was a very good one for Senator Cruz.  He has demonstrated before that he is knowledgeable and well-spoken, but this time he also seemed to come across as more “relatable” and better connected with the audience than before, which should be a big plus for him going forward.

Rounding out the field

Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie each had a few good lines and moments.  John Kasich seemed to get quite a bit of time to speak, but he also seems to often be on a different page from most of the others and from what I’d think most Republican primary voters are seeking.  It appeared that Rand Paul didn’t get that many chances to talk, but he may also have been the rare person on stage who was asked some more straightforward questions about policies.  As for the four candidates in the earlier pre-prime-time debate, while I agree much more with a couple of them than the others, I think that they all did a credible job of articulating their views and really should have a full chance to make their cases to the public along with the rest of those running for the nomination.  I’m not sure what debate arrangements would have been the most fair with the very large field this campaign cycle, but the two-tiered setup we’ve seen so far doesn’t seem ideal.

Conclusion

Some candidates definitely have much more reason than others to be pleased with their individual performances last Wednesday, but, in general, despite the way the debate was handled by CNBC, the GOP field may benefit from what happened at the event.  Besides managing to get at least a little substantive discussion of things like entitlement programs and tax reform onto the airwaves, the candidates pushed back against the negativity of the media (as represented by the moderators) and rallied support from a sympathetic audience, both in the venue and watching at home.  It will be interesting to see how things go for the group when they gather for debate number four in Milwaukee next week, so we will all have to stay tuned.