Can We Send a Peace Envoy to Senators Cruz and Rubio?

As reflected in the South Carolina Republican debate last weekend and the campaigning that has gone on since then, things have gotten very heated in the presidential primary race, with lots of harsh rhetoric being exchanged among the candidates.  I've written before that I think it is generally counterproductive for Republicans to attack each other, and, not to steal John Kasich’s thunder, I think it would be far better if they would cut this out, focus on the plans and qualities they want to promote to the voters, and save the tough criticisms for the Democrats (including the one posing as a Republican and leading the GOP field.)  More specifically, I’ve become increasingly concerned about the way the rivalry between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio has been developing.  I’m obviously not a political advisor to these two senators, so I can’t tell them why some of the things taking place bother me so much or why I wish the growing negativity would stop, and I’ll just have to settle for expressing those thoughts here.

Let me start by saying that I think both Cruz and Rubio are strong conservative candidates, and I would expect either one to do a fine job if elected president.  They do, of course, differ on certain policy issues, as well as in their approaches to communicating with people and trying to accomplish things.  On substance, I would weigh the two pretty evenly, as I rather prefer Cruz’ position on immigration but tend to agree more with Rubio on national security and defense matters.  As for style, I appreciate Ted Cruz’ well-thought out statements and willingness to take tough stances when necessary, but Marco Rubio is also capable of making compelling arguments for his views and perhaps seeks more to also reach those not already on his (and conservatives’) side.  Over the course of this campaign, I have personally found Senator Rubio’s message and candidacy more appealing, but I definitely think that Senator Cruz is a very good choice as well.  I could enthusiastically support either should he become the nominee, and you can take all of these things into account when considering what follows.

There has certainly been no shortage of inter-party criticism throughout the campaign season, but things really seem to have escalated now that voting has actually begun.  I’d like to focus mainly on a few things that happened leading up to the South Carolina debate, during that event, and in the days since then, largely related to some of the testy exchanges that unfortunately took place between Senators Rubio and Cruz.  

Ted Cruz has for some time been hitting Rubio for his immigration record and positions, but in the days prior to the debate, he also criticized Rubio regarding social issues, suggesting that he had not been a strong enough proponent of traditional marriage and of defunding Planned Parenthood -- charges that upset Rubio and, in the latter case, prompted a statement from the National Right to Life Committee calling the claim misleading and defending Rubio’s voting record on the issue.  On stage last Saturday,Ted Cruz was asked a question regarding possible deportations during his potential administration.  Rather than answer it, he chose instead to turn the conversation once again to the unsuccessful comprehensive immigration reform bill for which Rubio had worked a few years ago, his (Cruz’) own efforts to stop that legislation, and other aspects of Rubio’s positions and history with immigration, including comments he said Rubio had made on Spanish-language television about Barack Obama’s immigration-related executive orders.

To me, with the exception of stepping in to counter some of Donald Trump’s attacks on George W. Bush, Rubio had seemed perfectly willing on Saturday to stick to his own answers without engaging in verbal combat with the others.  Naturally, though, when singled out for criticism, he responded, quipping that he didn’t know how Cruz would know what he’d said on Univision, since Cruz doesn’t speak Spanish; listing some shifts in Cruz’ own immigration statements from prior years to now; and then asserting that Cruz has been resorting to telling lies and making things up in his campaign, including about Ben Carson in Iowa and about Rubio’s record.  Oh, gosh...  My heart sinks when I hear this sort of bickering among those I see as the “good guys,” and I’ll share a few thoughts about both sides.

In a way, I think that the issues I’ve had with Ted Cruz during this race largely stem from one central disagreement, but it’s important because it involves one of the main themes of the senator’s campaign.  Cruz contends that people should back his candidacy because he is the strongest (or even the only) conservative in the race and tends to lump everyone else in as part of the “Washington cartel” that acts against the wishes of the grassroots members of the movement.  As someone who actually believes that the Republican field that began vying for this nomination contained many good, conservative candidates deserving of respect and support, Cruz’ characterization of the group did not sit well with me.  I didn’t  particularly appreciate all of his efforts to point out alleged “betrayals” of conservatism by various of his opponents, especially when, for months, he basically gave a pass to the least conservative person in the race, Donald Trump.  I’m glad that he eventually began discussing the problems with Trump’s track record and lack of conservatism, but I can’t help thinking that Cruz contributed to the viability of Trump’s campaign by seeming to ally with this “outsider” -- after all, if the very conservative Cruz thinks that Trump is “great,” he must be worthy of consideration for the Republican nomination, right?

I think that Rand Paul and Marco Rubio had a point when they said that Ted Cruz wants to inaccurately portray himself as the only conservative or the only one having a perfect record on various issues.  No candidate is perfect, so Senator Cruz shouldn’t feel he needs  to convince people that he is.  He should, however, admit it if he’s changed his mind about something and be prepared to explain why.  When discussing immigration, I think it might be wise for Senator Cruz to focus on the current positions offered by all of the candidates (which would still place him more in line with the views of pro-enforcement/anti-amnesty voters) rather than bringing up the bill before Congress back in 2013.  I understand that Senator Rubio’s role in that legislation is a fault against him for many Republicans, so extra references to it may hurt him, but some of the things Senator Cruz said at the time don’t fit with what he’s saying now, either, and I don’t think drawing attention to that benefits him.

To the broader point of identifying “true” conservatives, sometimes there may not really be a definitive conservative position on a certain issue right now.  How much information should the NSA be able to collect about people in America?  Should the need for a strong military mean that we increase defense spending dramatically even with our large debt problems?  There are legitimate differences of opinion among conservatives about some things, so any judgments about whether a candidate is or is not a conservative needs to take into account his or her entire record and views on all of the issues.  Often, though, Senator Cruz seems to equate disagreement with his position on an issue, or even a tactic, as non-conservatism or weakness.  In general, this again may not play well with voters open to multiple candidates, but it certainly seems to be an overreach in some cases.

For example, as mentioned above, Senator Cruz chose to criticize Marco Rubio over the effort to defund Planned Parenthood.  Now, just reading the headline referring to this prompted a very puzzled response from me.  Of all of the issues about which a conservative might choose to fault Senator Rubio, right to life matters seem probably the most bizarre selection.  Rubio has been quite outspoken about his pro-life convictions and considerable time had just been spent at the previous week’s debate discussing whether his views in this area are actually too extreme.  (And, I’d also note that Senator Cruz did not jump into that nationally-televised conversation to volunteer that he shared the same “extremism.”)  Still, even though Rubio has voted multiple times to defund Planned Parenthood, Cruz accused Rubio of not being willing to “stand and fight” and of not wanting to use Congressional authority to remove funding from the organization.  Apparently, Cruz’ was specifically criticizing Rubio for not being on board with Cruz’ preferred strategy (which might have led to a government shutdown over a budget fight) for achieving that aim, but it would seem people not hearing all the details might well be given the impression that Rubio did not want to stop giving taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood.  It’s not surprising that Rubio would find this particular line of attack especially objectionable, since it concerns something about which he and many other conservatives care deeply.  I may be missing something, but I can’t see how it can help anyone (other than liberals) for pro-life politicians to attack each other, especially concerning issues about which they essentially agree on the substance.

Senator Cruz often says that he will not engage in personal attacks and name calling, and I give him credit for that, especially in comparison to a certain billionaire opponent for whom insults are a leading campaign characteristic.  However, while Cruz thankfully doesn’t go around calling people ugly, stupid losers or other things unfit for repetition, I’m not so sure that calling someone only a “campaign conservative,” as a Cruz e-mail recently described Rubio, or labeling people as part of a hostile cartel in Washington isn’t name calling of a sort itself, although of a much more polite and reasonable variety.

Maybe because I have higher hopes for my preferred candidate, I was quite troubled by a couple of the things Marco Rubio said in the debate exchange with Ted Cruz.  The not speaking Spanish comment struck me as a bit of a cheap shot.  Especially because both senators, as conservatives, are sometimes accused by those on the left of not being “really Hispanic,” I’d think that Rubio would want to avoid any remarks that could be construed as playing into that narrative, even if he wasn’t deliberately making that suggestion himself.  I also found the Ben Carson Iowa reference unfortunate. Do we really know enough to just accept as fact that something deliberately wrong was done to Dr. Carson and that Ted Cruz ordered or even knew about it?

Now, I may just be too squeamish or “PC” about this next point, but I was uncomfortable with Rubio’s use of the term “lies” to characterize what Cruz has been saying about Rubio’s record and other matters. I suppose some people might say that it’s just a given that all politicians are “liars,” but it strikes me as a very serious charge for one candidate to level at another -- one that can call a person’s character and fitness for office into question and should not be made lightly.   Plus, while I certainly haven’t heard or seen everything the candidates have said about each other, for the most part, I think that Senator Cruz tends to choose his words very carefully to avoid saying things that are factually false, even if the conclusions he’s suggesting or drawing from them may be highly debatable. That’s not ideal, of course, but it does seem to be a pretty common tactic in politics (and courtrooms, presumably), and I’m not sure how many candidates completely refrain from employing it in some way.  I’m afraid it’s not unusual to mention some detail in a way that attempts to paint an opponent in the worst possible light, but sometimes I think trying too hard to do this may just distract from a basic point a politician could have made more easily.  When Senator Cruz stated in a rather ominous tone that Marco Rubio had said in a Spanish interview that he wouldn’t eliminate Obma’s executive order for deferred action on certain immigrants on his first day in office, the implication seemed to be that Rubio was trying to hide his real positions on immigration from the majority of the public by saying them in a language not everyone would understand or that he was saying one thing in English and another in Spanish, with the possible added suggestion that he wouldn’t get rid of the order at all.  Now, my memory may be failing me, but I recall seeing an interview a couple of months ago on one of the Sunday talk shows in which Senator Rubio said that Obama’s action regarding people brought to the US as children couldn’t be a permanent policy or go on indefinitely, which seemed to indicate that he would reverse the action sometime, but probably not immediately (although he said something different a couple of days ago, which is another issue.)  There was no real need to go off into a tangent about Spanish language TV, as any criticisms of Rubio’s stance could have been made just as well based on what he’d said in English, but it doesn’t seem that Cruz actually said anything untrue.

So, I would have been much more at ease if Senator Rubio would have instead said that Senator Cruz was “misrepresenting” or “distorting” his record, etc., and I hoped he’d back off of the “lying” accusation.  Alas, on Sunday, he used it again during appearances on multiple talk shows, and a few days later his campaign sent out an e-mail with the subject line:  “Ted Cruz is a liar,’ which also referenced Trump’s similar comments about Cruz.  (Later in the week, Rubio did seem more apt to use the somewhat less harsh phrase “making things up” in reference to Cruz.)  I’m sorry, but I have to say that, if anyone in this campaign clearly deserves to be called a liar, it’s Mr. Trump, who, along with fabricating countless tales about himself and others, frequently says something in an interview or a debate, even with millions of people watching, and then insists (sometimes even just the next day) that he did not.  Considering this, I certainly wouldn’t cite Trump’s opinion when questioning anyone else’s veracity, and I can’t really blame Cruz for negatively linking Rubio with Trump in regard to their criticisms of him this week.  I can fault Cruz for some other things, though -- such as not making sure his campaign doesn’t utilize photocopied pictures of Rubio with President Obama when he’s already being accused of dishonest political tactics.  Instances like that make it more reasonable for people to raise questions about a candidate’s truthfulness and tougher each time to make the case that he should be given the benefit of the doubt.  Still, I think that Rubio and others shouldn’t be too quick to assume that every allegation made against Cruz is true or to attribute any "trick" aimed at voters and candidates to him.  Anyone could post a false Facebook page, and I’d need quite a bit of solid evidence before believing anything Trump claims about robocalls or anything else, and I think that Senator Cruz may well not have deserved all of the criticism he's received in this area.

All of this being said, I completely agree with Senator Rubio when he says that he has to respond and attempt to correct the record when others say things about him that he believes are false.  I also am inclined to believe him when he says that he’d prefer to spend his time talking about his own plans and vision and to run a positive campaign.  In addition, it seems to me that Rubio’s appeal as a candidate is much stronger when he is being optimistic and forward-looking and sharing good humor, so staying away from negativity as much as possible would probably help him politically, as well.  With these things in mind, I would just suggest that he might be a bit more cautious when he does answer criticism or issue his own, lest he unduly contribute to a destructive campaign climate.

Now that Donald Trump depressingly has another big victory on his record from South Carolina, this time including winning even among Evangelical voters (about whom I can only shake my head in baffled dismay), it seems even more likely that it may be very difficult to stop him from winning the nomination. Also, with Jeb Bush making a graceful exit from the race, who will do his share of challenging Trump during the next debates?  Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio seem to be the remaining candidates who might have enough support to have some chance of overcoming Trump, but I’m afraid the chance may be slim, especially if they wind up destroying each other in an effort to become the competitor left to face Trump one on one.  Even if such a scenario were to come to pass, I don’t see it ending well, as, by the time the two-person race solidified, Trump would have collected who knows how many delegates and the “surviving” opponent would be weakened by the previous battles.  Plus, supporters of the candidate who did not last in the contest might not be particularly enthused about voting for his bitter rival in the remaining primaries.  So, with the South Carolina primary and it’s reputation for brutal campaigns behind us, is it too much to hope that perhaps we can have a less negative and more uplifting portion of the race ahead?  It would be nice if, going forward, the remaining candidates in the race would focus on sharing their ideas and positions on the issues and stressing the importance of electing a solid conservative president to lead our country.  I would also suggest a concerted effort to, truthfully and without stooping to Trump’s level of insulting discourse, point out the problems and constant changes in Donald Trump’s statements and record, especially those things that are inconsistent with the view many have of him as a “straight talker” who “can’t be bought” and will shake up the deal-making culture in Washington.  Perhaps Senator Cruz can construct a prosecutorial case against Trump’s fitness for the presidency and present it in a series of ads or in some other venue.  Can we have at least somewhat of a truce between Senators Cruz and Rubio?   Do they agree with those of us who feel it is imperative Donald Trump not be the nominee put forth to represent the Republican Party and conservatism in the general election, and are they willing to potentially put the larger good above their own individual interests and ambitions?  As someone who doesn’t think all political officeholders are hopelessly corrupt evildoers (presumably a big reason I’m not in Trump’s camp), I’m hoping (but not holding my breath) that there is a chance the answers to these questions could possibly be “yes” and that the remaining competitors for the Republican presidential nomination will endeavor to show us that they can be good candidates, good conservatives, and good people all at the same time.

Snap out of it, Republicans!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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....

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!