A plausible summary of the housing bubble

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s Megan McArdle on how the housing bubble and resultant crisis happened:

In fact, according to a new paper by Fernando Ferreira and Joseph Gyourko, subprime loans accounted for only a bare majority of defaults at the beginning of the housing crisis. Between the third quarter of 2006 and the third quarter of 2012, twice as many prime borrowers lost their homes as subprime borrowers.

This is not a phenomenon that can be simply explained by liar loans, predatory lenders, or any other narrative that neatly loads all the blame onto a few greedy and heedless lenders, or a somewhat larger number of hubristic and speculative borrowers…

Once upon a time, there was a country with a housing market that started to rise. As the market started to rise, housing defaults started to fall. They fell not because people had gotten wiser about borrowing, or better at managing their money, but because borrowers in a rising housing market virtually never need to default; they can always simply sell the house, walking away with whatever equity is left over after paying off the mortgage.

Lenders loved this. “Splendid! If default has become less likely,” the lenders said, “we do not need to worry so much about things like down payments or credit histories. Who cares if they can’t pay the mortgage each month; if they get into trouble, they’ll just sell the house and pay us.”.

McCardle goes on to explain that requiring bigger down payments could have eased the crisis somewhat when house prices started to fall (or at least stopped rising), as they inevitably would. Why did the pundits and prognosticators and people making the loans not see that they inevitably would fall some day? Well, there was money to be made in the meantime, and lots of it, so the push was on. But McArdle lists another reason:

When prices had been in a long, gentle rise for decades, high down payments looked like expensive and unnecessary insurance against something that rarely happened. They looked like a barrier keeping historically disadvantaged groups, like minorities and immigrants, from accumulating wealth the way that prosperous native white families had. They looked like something that regulators and bankers had needed to require before they got so darn smart about managing credit risks, and credit markets.

Everyone, from buyers to regulators, had reams of data telling them this. Who are you going to believe: years and years of statistics, or some crabby dude muttering about the Great Depression? The Great Depression was so long ago that men wore hats and the Beatles were not even gleams in their fathers’ eyes.

It just so happens that I had grown up hearing—not “some crabby dude muttering about the Great Depression”—but my very own mother muttering about the Great Depression. The Depression was going full bore when she was in college. For her entire life thereafter, she remained a political liberal (FDR was the greatest, in her opinion), but you’d have to look long and hard to find someone more fiscally conservative than my mother was.

Her family had had somewhat of a financial cushion, and that helped them weather the storm of the Depression without extreme hardship. My mother got a job in Manhattan as a secretary when she graduated from college, and she lived at home with her grandparents and parents all in one house. But the fiance to whom she’d gotten engaged broke up with her when he graduated from law school and could not find a job anywhere (he ended up as a career Army guy). Other people she knew had to drop out of school—sometimes high school—in order to help support their parents and siblings.

Since my mother lived most of her life in the same community in which she’d grown up and I was raised there, I knew these people, too. They were pointed out regularly to me and their tales of woe told me by my mother, who was a colorful storyteller. It wasn’t the sort of thing you’d be likely to forget, and so I didn’t.

Thomas Sowell: on emotional voting

The New Neo Posted on by

I have deep respect for Thomas Sowell and his work, and this column of his is no different:

It is easy to understand why there would be pent-up resentments among Republican voters. But are elections held for the purpose of venting emotions?…

Elections…have far more lasting, and far more serious ”” or even grim ”” consequences than emotional venting. The actual track record of crowd-pleasers, whether Juan Peron in Argentina, Obama in America or Hitler in Germany, is very sobering, if not painfully depressing…

Despite many people who urge us all to vote, as a civic duty, the purpose of elections is not participation. The purpose is to select individuals for offices, including President of the United States. Whoever has that office has our lives, the lives of our loved ones and the fate of the entire nation in his or her hands.

An election is not a popularity contest, or an award for showmanship. If you want to fulfill your duty as a citizen, then you need to become an informed voter. And if you are not informed, then the most patriotic thing you can do on election day is stay home. Otherwise your vote, based on whims or emotions, is playing Russian roulette with the fate of this nation.

Sowell is correct. But—

But elections will always turn partly on emotion. There are intangibles that determine our reactions to even the most experienced of leaders. The ideal candidate—my ideal candidate, anyway—has knowledge and executive experience, including experience in government, which makes a governor or former governor ideal. That candidate also, however, has a certain forceful and yet engaging personality that engenders trust (not blind trust, but trust) in the wisdom of his/her decisions for the future. It helps, too, if that person is eloquent, articulate, and yet sincere, as well as able to convey complex thoughts with a graceful economy of expression. And of course the thoughts that he/she expresses would have to agree with my policy leanings—not 100%, but a substantial amount.

It’s an order so tall few can completely fill it. I think Reagan came closest in my lifetime. And yet back when he was running, I was immune to his appeal because my politics at the time didn’t agree with his.

This election cycle, when I looked at the governors running for president on the Republican side I used to think “Walker’s the best.” After all, he had the admirable track record. He also seemed to have youth and energy, and what I’d seen of his speeches was, if not eloquent, then certainly eloquent enough.

But over time I’ve noticed that something is missing with Walker, and that “something” seems important. What is it? Is it something emotional, what I’ve referred to before as his “blandness”? Should that even matter, or does it represent a larger problem, one that would be a stumbling block in some way, or to winning election as president in the first place? It is disconcerting that a man known for his stubborn fighting nature seems so mild-mannered, so unlike someone who has done what he has in fact done. So the seeming contradiction (which may or may not be meaningful) in Walker confuses me, and that confusion causes me to back away somewhat from him and to look at the others.

What works for a governor at the state level is not necessarily the exact same thing we look for in a president. For one thing, states are relatively local and the country is not. For another, there’s foreign policy. We want a grander vision for a president, and I don’t know that that is merely an emotional need in us. I think it might be something that matters in a president.

What of the other governors? I thought Perry had promise, but that he was handicapped not only by his 2012 performance but by the fact that he conjured up too much resemblance to George W. Bush (even more than Bush’s own brother, Jeb). At any rate, it’s moot now. Kasich is deficient in that he’s too liberal for me, as is Pataki. Gilmore hardly registers at all and neither does Huckabee. Jeb Bush has the same deficits as Kasich, plus he comes across as weak. Jindal and Christie are conundrums, but in different ways. Jindal is obviously bright and quite conservative, but he just doesn’t project strength and I doubt he will ever gain traction in this election. As for Christie, I happen to like him (I’m from New York City, after all, and he speaks to me of home), think he’s smart, and believe he’s more conservative than people give him credit for. But I’m well aware that the base detests him and I don’t think he has much more chance of the nomination than Jindal does, although his numbers are somewhat higher.

A track record of proven executive experience isn’t enough. Agreement on political stances isn’t enough. Emotion and charisma isn’t—or at least shouldn’t be—enough. Knowledge and eloquence? Still not enough. What is enough? Some combination of all those things, plus depth of character, a ramrod spine, and an ability to project the quality of leadership. If a candidate has those things, I don’t care about a few flaws.

Some House Republicans are willing to play hardball

The New Neo Posted on by

Of course, they’re only in the House, so they wouldn’t be giving up anything.

Multiple House Republicans want Senate leaders to “go nuclear” over the Obama administration’s deal with Iran now that Democrats have stymied efforts to derail the accord by conventional means.

A small but growing number of GOP lawmakers say that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) should invoke the “nuclear option” to change Senate rules and prevent a filibuster on a resolution to kill the deal.

Their angst is intensified by their belief that Democrats will likely be able to block legislation withholding federal funds from Planned Parenthood, a standoff that increases the chances of a government shutdown.

Less than two years after Republicans railed against Democrats for changing the rules to prevent filibusters on most presidential nominees, McConnell has ruled out using the nuclear strategy.

But the call puts more pressure on the majority leader and illustrates Republicans’ growing frustration with their inability to score significant victories in Congress, even while controlling both chambers.

I say with regret that I believe these House Republicans are correct—“with regret,” because I believe that the cloture/filibuster rules once served a purpose, back when the parties weren’t so far apart and could actually get some workable compromises going. Those days are long gone. My reluctance also comes from the fact that even going to such an extreme as the House Republicans are suggesting would not result in anything but a series of Obama vetoes that will not be overridden. And yet, I believe it must be done. The issues are too huge, and the Democrats will not hesitate to do it themselves next time they get the opportunity and see an advantage to it.

Who are these Republicans in the House? The names of a few—Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), Steven Palazzo (R-Miss), Lamar Smith (R-
Texas)—are listed, but there are certainly more than that. Some of them want the rule ended entirely, but “others are calling for a more modest step to get rid of the procedural holdup only in specific cases, such as with the Iran deal.”

McConnell is said to be completely against it. I strongly doubt that he would listen to these House Republicans or care what they have to say. But what really matters is how many Republican senators agree with them, and what those senators are prepared to do about it. Till then, it’s just talk.

Finally, Obama says something I agree with

The New Neo Posted on by

trainheroes

President Barack Obama praised Alek Skarlatos, Spencer Stone and Anthony Sadler for teamwork, courage and quick-thinking actions…

The three sat attentively on an Oval Office couch and chair as Obama praised them as “the very best of America.”…

“It’s these kinds of young people who make me extraordinarily optimistic about the future,” Obama said…

That’s one of the reasons this story is heartening and satisfying, and offers encouragment about the generation coming of age in America today. These guys are in the mold of classic American heroes, and that includes their humility.

More on McConnell’s tactics in the Senate

The New Neo Posted on by

As expected, by refusing to vote for cloture, the Democrats shot down McConnell’s latest attempt to get a vote against the Iran deal.

Also as expected, McConnell has so far refused to exercise the nuclear option, which would merely get the bill on Obama’s desk but could not serve to override his inevitable veto.

And that’s where we stand.

I decided to start on a new post on this in order to call your attention to a relevant discussion in the comments section on an old thread that most of you may not be following any more. It’s really the whole thread, but the newer part I’m talking about starts around here.

I especially call your attention to my comment here, but I really think the whole thread is worth reading.

First post-debate polls

The New Neo Posted on by

It seems that a poll of Republicans who watched the debate last night showed Trump and Fiorina even at 22%, Rubio at 15%, Carson at 12%, and Cruz and Bush tied at 6%. That’s not a poll of who won the debate; it’s a poll for preferred candidate to vote for as nominee.

That indicates quite a difference between opinions before and after the debate. I have no idea if it’s representative, but it’s certainly interesting. It shows that preferences are still fluid and shifting, and they probably have quite a bit of shifting to go before it’s all done.

I found another poll somewhere a week or so ago (can’t seem to find it now—I’m doing this quickly—but I found another with similar results here) that showed which candidates are the most popular second choices for Republican voters. That may sound like it doesn’t matter much. But as candidates start dropping out if could matter a lot in terms of where those votes then go.

Trump does not seem to be the preferred second choice for many people; it seems that maybe you either like him or dislike him already. So the theory is that, as the field narrows, others will pick up votes from the departed candidates, and the most popular second choices are Carson, Rubio, and Fiorina, with all three almost even at around 12.4-13.7%. Walker is not too far behind at 9% and Cruz at 8.8%. Only then comes Trump, at 8.2%, and he is only slightly above Bush’s 7.7%.

All these second-choice figures were from before the second debate rather than after. I would imagine that Fiorina and Rubio may have increased their second-choice status because of their performances last night, and I can’t imagine that Trump enhanced his.

[Hat tip: Ace.]

This is why illegal immigration has become such a flash point…

The New Neo Posted on by

…and why someone like Trump, who emphasizes it, has gained so much traction with that.

People are angry at stories like this one, in which the illegal immigrant is presented as being a poor, beleaguered person (in this case a mother of young children) whose rights are being taken away:

On September 3, Blanca Borrego of Houston went for a scheduled appointment to see her gynecologist at the Memorial Hermann Northeast Women’s Healthcare clinic. She had two of her children with her.

Instead of seeing her doctor, she was arrested. This is why:

Borrego [is] an undocumented immigrant who overstayed her visa 12 years ago.

A search of Borrego’s possessions turned up a fake Social Security card, resulting in a felony charge for tampering with government documents. Borrego’s bond has been set at $35,000, which her family is unable to afford, and she now faces potential deportation.

But the writer and several organizations want us to feel sorry for her:

In a statement regarding healthcare for unauthorized immigrants issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in March of this year, the organization made explicit their support for a “basic health care package for all women living within the United States without regard to their country of origin or documentation.”

An estimated 11.3 million individuals living in the United States are undocumented, with women comprising 47 percent of this population…

Ana Rodriguez DeFrates of the Texas Latina Advocacy Network said in a statement that the arrest “raises serious questions about patient privacy and human rights of immigrant women in Texas.”…

“The sad fact is that many immigrant women in Texas, and across the country, already forgo needed healthcare, live with lumps in their breasts and daily pain, because clinics are inaccessible or put them at risk for deportation,” she said.

“This is an ongoing human rights crisis, and Blanca Borrego’s arrest shines a light on the struggles of immigrant women, who are routinely denied driver’s licenses, affordable healthcare, and other basic human and civil rights.”

Notice how drivers’ licenses and affordable healthcare (not just plain old healthcare) have become “basic rights” for everyone, even non-citizen lawbreakers.

The article’s commenters are not in agreement with these sentiments, to say the least. Every single comment I read expressed outrage. Of course, I certainly haven’t read them all; there are over 5,000 as I write this. But every single one I read seemed to come from a person who was breathing fire.

This one was informative:

Identity theft is a serious crime and should be punished. The clinic did not report her because of her immigration status. They reported her for showing a fake ID. Another article described what was not right about the fake licence. The state seal was in the wrong place,a hologram was missing and the letters were the wrong color. It wasn’t even a good fake. Give credit to the alert clinic worker who took the time to look closely. With that and the fake SS card she should serve a couple years in prison before being deported.

This was fairly typical:

What about the rights of the person whose SS numbers she’s illegally using? The economic and physical hardship they are enduring with their credit being destroyed and flagged as fraudulent? What about the rights of the thousands involved in accidents with illegals using fake IDs and no insurance? The need of a law abiding citizen who may have to be forced to forgo medical care because they now have to pay for it themselves, and the economic ramifications it has on all our insurance costs? What are the rights of the woman who may have been turned away from this medical office because this women took her place on the patient roll call?

What about the national security ramifications of people walking around with fake government papers, using our resources and having the ability to access secured facilities with ease?

You are a disgrace to journalism with a one sided article somehow ignoring all the people who suffer and will potentially suffer because of those who are breaking the law and committing fraud. This far outweighs the medical needs of those who can find care in their legal homes of origin should they need it.

The article, with its “undocumented” this and “undocumented” that, highlights the rift between the MSM and the people. The MSM and the left has been pushing the narrative that such a woman is a victim (complete with crying children) rather than a perpetrator. But the vast majority of readers aren’t buying it for an instant.

And this is a report of something that’s happening thousands of miles away, in Sweden, to immigrants with a different status. But it’s a related story nevertheless:

The bleary-eyed travelers arriving in Malmo’s glass-and-steel train station agreed on one thing: Sweden was a better place to go than Denmark, which has cut welfare benefits for refugees.

But many said Finland was even better.

“Why Finland? I tell you, because they give us the documents faster,” said Ghanem, a 23-year-old Iraqi, who like many making the journey declined to give his full name. They are worried about being identified by authorities and prevented from going to their preferred destinations. “Sweden, Germany, they will take one year, two years.”

Though the 28-nation European Union has common rules for how to receive asylum-seekers, the benefits provided once they arrive vary widely from one country to the next…

Most are aiming to reach wealthier countries in northern Europe, particularly Germany and Sweden, which stand out for their efforts to offer a generous welcome. However, German authorities say the expectations of people arriving are sometimes unrealistic.

“Germany isn’t just the country of milk and honey, where everything you would want flies into your mouth like a fried pigeon,” German Foreign Ministry spokesman Martin Shaefer said last week.

EU rules require member states to ensure “a dignified standard of living” for asylum-seekers. That includes housing, food, clothing, a daily allowance, and access to public health care, education and the job market while their claim is processed, which can take up to a year or more.

Getting benefits is now a big, big part of illegal immigration and of becoming a refugee (or claiming to be a refugee). A lot of the people engaged in that process are quite savvy about where they choose to go and what they will get after they’re arrived, and make decisions accordingly. They count on people such as Ana Rodriguez DeFrates to smooth the way, and to try to talk the citizens of the host country into seeing these benefits as rights and themselves as racist “nativists” for thinking there’s something wrong with this entire process.

A few reflections on last night’s debate

The New Neo Posted on by

No matter how they try to tweak the format, there are way too many people on that stage. Even if CNN were determined to be fair about air time and the content of the questions (which I don’t believe it is), it would be a daunting and perhaps impossible task to accomplish.

As it was, though, the agenda was pretty clear: continue to make Trump the center of attention, and try to pit the candidates mostly against each other. Both have obvious benefits for the Democrats’ cause.

I remain disappointed in Scott Walker. I had worried that his blandness would be his downfall, and I think he is heading for that denouement.

Just about everyone agreed that Fiorina did well, but I wish she’d shown a little more of her relaxed side. A well-placed smile or two (a feat of which she’s fully capable) would have helped. She usually has a good sense of humor and more warmth. I think she had decided she needed to impress with her seriousness for her first showing, and she accomplished that. I hope she switches it up a bit next time.

I though Rubio was better than last time and Christie better, although both of them have histories for which the unforgiving base will never forgive them.

There is something about Cruz that seems too studied, and a lot of people don’t like that, no matter how brilliant he also seems.

To me, Trump is a caricature of a snake-oil salesman and he embarrasses himself almost continually by repeating the same bragging phrases over and over and saying that someday he’ll actually learn something about the issues, doing his own version of St. Augustine’s “make me chaste, but just not yet.”

As for the Drudge poll, which he is leading by a lot, it can be completely gamed by a determined group, be they Democrats or Republicans. Anyone can vote. Anyone can vote over and over and over as much as that person wants (see “Note” below). The Ron Paul people dominated it last cycle. So any determined and patient group that wants Trump to have won it can engineer it so that he does.

That said, for all I know it accurately reflects the fact that Trump’s supporters think he did wonderfully last night. A great many of them are extremists who ascribe to a cult of personality. What you might say of Obama could be said of Trump: he could dismember a puppy on the stage and they’d only like him better, saying it shows how tough he is.

[NOTE: Last night when I tried to vote at Drudge, it appeared that I could vote over and over, which I had read was the case. Now I see that doesn’t actually happen, so I retract the statement that the same person can vote over and over. However, it still doesn’t make the poll valid, as the Ron Paul victories in 2012 show. A large and determined group can go there and overwhelm the voting, because not that many people actually vote there, and it’s certainly not a representative sample of anything other than people who want to go and vote at a Drudge poll.

As I said, the poll may be meaningless or it may have meaning in terms of what’s really happening with the voters out there. There’s really no way to know. But the sample can easily be skewed, and has been in the past.]

The Republican debates

The New Neo Posted on by

The undercard debate has started. I’ll be watching it off and on.

6:30: So far, the moderators are making it all about Trump.

6:38: They’re giving each candidate almost no time at all to answer.

7:48: Having seen most of it, I have to say they brought quite a bit of energy. Perhaps it’s the energy of desperation, but it was energy nevertheless. My summary:

Pataki’s going nowhere. Jindal may have helped himself by staking a position designed to take some of Trump’s support as the anti-GOP-establishment candidate. Lindsay Graham is a one-note candidate: stop ISIS and stop Iran (I suppose that’s two notes, but they harmonize). Santorum was Santorum.

8:20: They’re doing their introductions.

8:24 So far, once again it’s all about Trump. To me it seems that Trump is making an ass of himself, but to his supporters it probably seems like he’s hard-hitting and tough. Perhaps both are true.

Trump insults Rand Paul in a juvenile way, and Paul calls him out on it. Fiorina rises above the fray and talks about trusting the judgement of the American people. Trump also insults Pataki, who isn’t even there.

8:27: Now Trump’s attacking Walker, who is fighting back. Interesting. Again, to me Trump seems both juvenile, narcissistic, and largely destructive. If he really were a Democratic mole, what would he be doing differently?

8:32 I think that Jeb Bush actually landed a punch on Trump, alleging that Trump tried to give him money to get casino gambling in Florida, which he refused to do. I have no idea if this is true, but Trump seemed a bit discomfited.

8:52: Talking about Iran, Huckabee gives an impassioned speech. Talking about Obama’s red line and Syria, both Rubio and Cruz are very forceful in defending their votes “nay” to what Rubio calls Obama’s “pinprick” bombing proposal. This part of the debate seems to have a lot of substance—and again, Trump shows himself to be a lightweight.

9:03: Fiorina gives an impassioned speech about Planned Parenthood. Her intensity is remarkable; really quite fierce. She has somewhat of a Thatcheresque quality here.

9:50: Fiorina about Hillary, “Flying is an activity, not an accomplishment.”

9:54: It really has been clear that CNN wants them to attack each other, and the questions are framed to encourage it. It certainly does make for a debate that’s not a snooze.

9:57: Rubio shows passion. That’s what he didn’t do in the first debate, and I think it’s a good idea for him.

It also occurs to me, not for the first time, that the sheer number of candidates makes it hard for any of them to really stand out. Trump stands out because he’s unique (in my opinion, uniquely awful, and worse than ever in this debate).

10:01: Once again, Trump goes after Rand Paul in a petty, juvenile, cheap shot. Now he goes against Jeb, attacking his brother. Another cheap shot, to which Jeb actually has a decent response: “he kept us safe.”

10:03: It’s really difficult to see the pattern of how the moderators are policing the traffic and give-and-take among and between the candidates. I do notice (and I think it’s an objective observation) that they seem to be stomping on Carly’s time more than on some of the others.

I think the following candidates may have improved their numbers tonight: Rubio, Christie, and Fiorina. I think Trump hurt himself somewhat, although I say that with the caveat that many of his supporters seem to want to excuse anything and everything he might do, so perhaps nothing can hurt his numbers.

House to McConnell: go nuclear!

The New Neo Posted on by

The House doesn’t have to contend with cloture or the filibuster, so it’s easier for that chamber to pass legislation by a simple majority. Not so the Senate. The news that the Republican House would like the Republican Senate to jettison its own filibuster/cloture rules in order to join the House in trying to block Obama’s Iran deal is evidence that the usual split in the Republican Party between conservatives and moderates extends to a House/Senate split.

Some of you may say it’s all just “failure theater,” designed to make us think that at least some Republicans want to do as much as they can to stop the deal although they really don’t. Whether this is true or not, “as much as they can” isn’t really so much, because Obama can veto anything they pass and they don’t have the votes to override. That’s what happens when the majority party in both houses in Congress differs from that of the president but doesn’t have enough of a majority to override, and the president isn’t reluctant to use the veto if it comes to it.

I happen to think that there are a significant number of Republicans (I don’t know how many, though), particularly in the House, who mean what they say and are clearly frustrated with their leadership, and that this is evidence of it.

Also, I’ve been saying for quite a while that McConnell should end filibuster/cloture. There is little question in my mind that the Democrats will do it as soon as they have the power to do so and they stand to gain something from it. However, McConnell doesn’t appear to want to do it, although some rather surprising Republican senators are speaking out in favor of it (somewhat in favor, anyway):

Last week, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that he was “in favor of exploring” a rule change.

McCain hedged his support, however, warning that it “would set a dangerous precedent” and open “charges … of me being a hypocrite.” Yet the seriousness of the Iran deal “argues for us to look at any possible option that we can,” McCain said.

Still, McConnell has no plans to explore the idea.

“He does not support the nuclear option,” spokesman Don Stewart told The Hill in an email.

It’s easy to see why.

As McCain made clear in his radio interview, Republicans excoriated Democrats for changing the rules in 2013, and would open themselves up to charges of hypocrisy if they followed suit. Not to mention the likelihood that someday, Republicans will no longer be in control of the Senate.

“Open themselves up” to charges of hypocrisy? Don’t make me laugh. They are charged with hypocrisy all the time. The Democrats would not hesitate for a moment to open themselves up to such charges, if they had a particular legislative or political goal in mind. As I said, on the day when Republicans are no longer in control of the Senate, Democrats will jettison the rule themselves if they see a need to do so.

That said, I don’t think McConnell’s objection is a fake or theatrical one. This would be a huge, huge, and risky step (it’s not called “nuclear” for nothing), and to what end? To have Obama veto any bill that is passed?

So I don’t pretend that this isn’t a serious dilemma for McConnell. But the stakes in the Iran deal are too high, and the GOP has done too little. Their own supporters are heartily sick of their wishy-washy attitude, and they must do something. It doesn’t have to be this, but it has to be strong.

It would be even better if it were effective. But honestly, with the veto/override problem, I don’t see how that could happen. And by the way, even if the Senate were to vote on the Iran deal as a treaty (a course which I believe is still open to them), that vote could be blocked by the cloture rule and if the rule were done away with and they voted against approving the treaty, Obama would ignore it and the courts would uphold his point of view.

Here’s one of McConnell’s recent statements on the Iran deal vote, in which he proposes an amendment concerning Iran’s recognizing Israel and releasing the four prisoners. It amply demonstrates one of the many many problems with McConnell, his phlegmatic demeanor:

Why is CNN spending so much of its coverage on Trump?

The New Neo Posted on by

How much coverage? This much coverage:

When the GOP candidates assemble on CNN’s stage Wednesday night, they will be appearing on a network that has virtually ignored most of them, while spending vast amounts of time covering the now-frontrunner, businessman Donald Trump.

Back on August 23, CNN’s own senior media correspondent Brian Stelter on CNN’s Reliable Sources acknowledged, “Trump is the media’s addiction. When he speaks, he is given something no other candidate gets. That’s wall-to-wall coverage here on cable news. He sucks up all the oxygen.” Yet, even after that admission, CNN continued to elevate Trump far beyond his GOP peers.

A Media Research Center study finds that, over a two week period, coverage of Donald Trump’s campaign took up nearly 78 percent of all CNN’s prime time GOP campaign coverage ”“ 580 minutes out of a total of 747 minutes. All 16 non-Trump candidates got a combined total of just 167 minutes, much of which was spent comparing them to Trump.

So, why? It’s true that Trump is a fascinating political story. And it’s true that he’s a known celebrity and TV personality with a proven track record. So it’s legit to have quite a bit of coverage. But this seems extremely excessive, and I don’t think it’s an accident. The more attention Trump gets, the less the others get. There is very little question in my mind that CNN would like the GOP to self-destruct or at least lose an election that looks to be increasingly theirs to win if they can only muster up a bona fide candidate, and the powers-that-be at CNN think Trump is destined to lose the national if he is nominated, no matter who his opponent might be.

For the purposes of this post, it doesn’t matter whether they’re right or wrong in their prediction. I tend to think they’re right, but I confess I don’t know and that Trump could surprise me. But I strongly believe that CNN thinks he’d be a loser in the general, and they want him to be the Republican nominee, and they’re doing their best to see that’s exactly what happens because they feel they have some control over the outcome by shaping the news to benefit him right now.

Oh, and they also want their ratings to be as high as possible for tonight, and Trump equals ratings.

[ADDENDUM: Also this.]