And then there was Sanders

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “physicsguy” has an observation and a question:

Given what I’m seeing this morning about his west coast trip, I’m beginning to think we all need to worry a lot more about Sanders than HRC. A declared socialist and drawing huge crowds”¦I don’t like to think about what this means for the US. We all keep talking about the “drive over the cliff”; maybe we already did that and are now in free fall.

Neo: what’s your take on Sanders??

I agree that Sanders is a force to be reckoned with, and we discount him at our peril. Unlike the paucity of Bush-supporters in my life, I’m acquainted with a lot of Sanders-supporters.

A lot. After all, I’m in New England, and here he matches the viewpoint of a great many people, especially among those liberals who have become disaffected with Hillary and still think Obama’s a great guy who has done wonderful things for the country.

Sigh.

I consider the election of de Blasio in New York as a portent of possible things to come with Sanders, who is somewhat of the same ilk, although older (and Jewish). I would never discount him, and although I don’t think he could win the election, it would not shock me if he was nominated and if he did win. The left is very strong right now in this country. The electorate is somewhat like the slowly-boiled frog in terms of socialism: many people have gotten used to the idea and it no longer frightens them, even if they don’t understand it very well. Sanders has that 60s-ish appeal; let’s all do good in the world! Make peace not war!

So yes, Sanders is one of those “be careful what you wish for” candidates.

Let’s talk about polling

The New Neo Posted on by

One thing I’ve noticed is that all of the post-debate polls I’ve located so far (except two that only deal with Iowa; see this and this) are online polls.[* see below]

Now, they’re not the sort of online polls that have no science whatsoever to them, where anyone can vote over and over and they’re easy to game (usually by Paul-supporters, although I don’t see them having the same enthusiasm for Rand as they did for Ron). These recent post-debate online post-debate polls are better than that; for example, they try to weight their subjects as regards party affiliation, etc. But as unreliable as ordinary polls can be, these tend to be even more unreliable.

So I doubt that we know all that well who has really gotten a bump from the debate, who has fallen, and who has remained the same, although we know what people on blogs are saying and what the pundits are writing. We also know whose coffers are getting an infusion of money (Fiorina) and who is going broke (Perry, who I predict will drop out fairly soon if that report is correct).

Putting that aside, here’s a question I’d like to see answered in future polls: who did you vote for in the last presidential election? I have a completely untested theory that quite a few of those who say their favorite candidate is Trump and that they will vote for him in the primary are people who previously had been so turned off by politics and the GOP that they quit voting a while ago. I would predict that perhaps a third of them hadn’t voted in 2012 (or wrote in a candidate), and hadn’t planned to vote in 2016 except for Trump’s candidacy.

Another question that interests me regarding polling is one that was broached by commenter “beth”:

There is an interesting thing about these polls and even Steven Crowder has picked up on it, can you find anyone who says they are voting for Bush? I can’t. Do any of you know anyone? How in the heck is he in 2nd and 3rd place?

Beth is voicing what I’d call the Pauline Kael fallacy (actually, the pseudo fallacy, because Kael was somewhat misquoted). Just because you or I don’t know a single person who is supporting Bush doesn’t mean such people don’t exist. Actually, I hardly know anyone who votes Republican to begin with, but the few I know are not Bush-supporters.

However, Bush has a lot of money, so somebody out there likes him. There are still quite a few moderate Republicans around, and in fact I know one of them quite well, although I haven’t talked to her recently and I certainly haven’t talked to her about the election. But she is what used to be known as a “country-club Republican.” She was raised a Republican in a very country-clubby family and still lives that sort of life, for the most part. She’s also what you might call a Republican LIV; doesn’t pay all that much attention to politics but almost always votes and votes Republican.

As I said, I don’t talk to her often and haven’t talked to her this election cycle. But if I had to guess, she’s a Bush supporter. She’s not alone in her political viewpoints and background, either. That’s where his support comes from, I believe—that and the Chamber of Commerce-ers (a certain amount of overlap there, I’d guess). I believe the polls are accurately reflecting those groups, although they’re not groups whose representatives you find on blogs all that often. They’ve got better things to do, especially in the summer: golf, sailing, drinks on the patio, you know the drill.

I’ll have to remember to ask her next time I see her, because now I’ve gotten curious.

So, do you know any Bush-supporters?

[ADDENDUM: Nate Silver has an interesting take on the Trump polling figures and what they mean.]

[* Commenter “jack” has offered a link to a post-debate Rasmussen poll.]

Yes, I’ve been writing a lot about Donald Trump lately

The New Neo Posted on by

Why?

It’s not just that he’s been the talk of the news cycle for a while now, although he has. It’s not just that he engenders a lot of discussion in the comments section, although he does. It’s not just that he’s a flamboyant personality who knows how to seize the spotlight, although he is.

It’s that his candidacy has acted as a sort of plaque discloser for some problems on the right that I’ve noticed festering—and often exploding—for many many years. I summarized some of what I’ve written on the subject here, but suffice to say it’s not new although it’s reached a fever pitch.

Now might be a good time to revisit this prediction I made right before the 2012 election:

One thing I believe is that, if Romney loses this election, the right will start tearing itself apart in anger. That’s another thing the left banks on, and””if indeed some of the polls are being rigged to favor Obama at present””it would also be one of the goals of such deception: to demoralize the right and cause the usual circular firing squad to begin. I already see some evidence of it in articles and comments from the right that accuse Romney of not wanting to win, of not going on the attack enough (as though that would elude the negative media spin), of not doing whatever it might be that the brilliant armchair strategists would be doing if they were running for president, an election they of course would win by dint of their brilliant strategy. If Romney loses, the RINO theme will rise again undiminished, and the hatred of the “Republican establishment.”

And then the aftermath of the election of 2014, and the impotence of the Republican Congress in the face of Obama, has exacerbated the feelings of anger a thousandfold. I’ve written before many times about what I think about that Congress, so I won’t repeat it here.

Right now I’ll just add that all of this is fueling the Trump fervor. Separating out that anger, and channeling it in the best way possible in order to produce a result that isn’t destructive towards conservatism, and that doesn’t end up helping the election of Clinton (or Sanders) in 2016, is my goal in all of this.

Hey, I’ve got an idea! Let’s find something each candidate once did that was not to our liking and reject them all

The New Neo Posted on by

Let’s excoriate Ted Cruz for changing his mind on fast-track. Let’s do the same to both Rubio and Walker on amnesty. Let’s ignore their stated reasons for doing so. And by all means, let’s resurrect a post-9/11 speech Carly Fiorina gave fourteen years ago when as CEO of Hewlett-Packard she praised the ancient civilization of Islam (not the present one) in ways that very much reflected what George W. Bush was saying at the time, based on the work of Bernard Lewis and others. Let’s ignore everything else she’s said in recent years about Islamic terrorism, because of course that earlier speech on ancient Islam represents her real views on the matter of what to do with terrorists today.

And oh, while we’re at it, let’s ignore everything Donald Trump has said recently—not a few years ago or decades ago, but very recently—about matters such Pam Geller and how she “taunted” people and should have found something better to do than the “draw Mohammad” contest, as well as how single-payer health care in Canada is a great success. The statements about Geller were made by Trump in May of 2015, and the one about Canadian single-payer was made during the Fox debate this past Thursday.

If anyone other than Trump had said what Trump said in his answer about single payer last Thursday, conservatives (and even the “let it burn” crowd) would have rejected that person as a viable candidate. Health care insurance is a huge issue, not a tangential one, and Trump’s statement was recent, not years ago. Trump’s statement displayed an unfortunate but not uncharacteristic combination of error, misdirection, inconsistency, confusion, braggadocio, and vagueness (characteristics which also are on display in his policy on amnesty).

It seems obvious to me that, at least generally speaking, recent statements are more indicative of a candidate’s current thinking and judgment as well as his/her future plans than older ones are (and the older the statements, the less relevant they tend to be). In other words, to be clear, let me say that I care less about what Trump said 15 years ago about how great Canadian single-payer was than what he said just the other day. What’s more, certain subjects are far more important than others: for example, even if Fiorina happens to continue to think that Islamic civilization from the 800s to the 1600s was pretty inventive and creative (as she did in her HW speech from 14 years ago), that is relatively unimportant to me and evidence of very little as long as right now she speaks out against Islamic terrorism, calls it evil, and is determined to fight it. Which she does, conveying great conviction.

But perhaps even more importantly, I don’t understand this business of getting angry at a candidate for flip-flopping, otherwise known as changing one’s mind. To never change one’s mind is to risk being ossified, stubbornly clinging to outworn or outdated points of view in the light of new learning or new information. Of course, sometimes when people change their minds it is disingenuous. But that needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, using evidence from the candidate’s demeanor and history of betrayals or breaking his/her word. There’s nothing inherently disingenuous or wrong about changing one’s mind, however (take it from me; I’ve changed my mind on a lot more than they have).

Most people change. They change over time. They learn things. They realize things. They grow older and perhaps wiser (one hopes wiser). Our job is to sort out sincere changes from insincere manipulative ones, not to reject every single person who’s ever changed his or her mind, or believed or said something we are not in 100% agreement with. We are human beings, and the perfect is most definitely the enemy of the good.

But if you’re really determined to look back at what candidates were saying a decade and a half ago, and to hold it against them, let’s actually take a look at Donald Trump’s words on health insurance policy back in 1999 and 2000 (and on abortion, if that’s a big issue for you):

“If you can’t take care of your sick in the country, forget it, it’s all over. I mean, it’s no good. So I’m very liberal when it comes to health care,” he said. “I believe in universal health care. I believe in whatever it takes to make people well and better.”

Asked if he thought it was an entitlement, Trump affirmed he did indeed believe it was one from birth.

“I think it is. It’s an entitlement to this country, and too bad the world can’t be, you know, in this country. But the fact is, it’s an entitlement to this country if we’re going to have a great country.”

Speaking with The Advocate that year, Trump said he’d fund his universal health care plan with an increase in corporate taxes.

“I would put forward a comprehensive health care program and fund it with an increase in corporate taxes,” Trump said.

In his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, Trump also spoke favorably of the Canadian health care system and said he “we need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan, as many individual states are doing.”

On Dateline NBC that year, Trump also mentioned he was “totally for choice” when it came to abortion.

“I hate the concept of abortion,” said Trump. “I hate””, I hate anything about abortion, and yet, I’m totally for choice. I think you have no alternative, too.

Trump had a short third-party run for the presidency in 2000, by the way, and his support for single-payer was clearly stated:

…I would press for universal health care…I would put forward a comprehensive health care program and fund it with an increase in corporate taxes…I like the Canadian system, although their health care is not the best. If you combine their system with the quality of our health care, we could provide cradle-to-grave health care for everyone.

I don’t know about you, but that indicates not only a support for single payer, and a lack of knowledge of the major flaws in the Canadian system, but a far more profound misunderstanding of (a) what the effects of increased corporate taxes high enough to fund single payer health care would be on the business life of the US; and (b) the inherent contradiction between our high quality of health care and a single payer system. Trump’s entire statement back then makes me wonder (and I can’t believe I’m saying this about Trump, of all people) if Trump understands the things that give capitalism its strength.

However, as I said earlier, I don’t care all that much what exact position Trump held on single-payer fifteen years ago—that is, if he could give a cogent and intelligent reason for a change of mind, and showed understanding of the entire system and a clarity of thinking about it then or now. Quite simply, he did not show these fundamentals then and far more importantly he does not show them now, and he demonstrated that in the debate last Thursday.

About Trump’s “blood out of her whatever” remark

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m getting rather tired of talking about Trump. But he certainly knows how to get publicity. For example, there’s a predictable furor right now about Trump’s remark that during the debate Megyn Kelley had “blood coming out of her whatever.”

But IMHO the discussion focuses on the wrong thing, as these furors so often do.

To clarify: I don’t care whether Trump was insinuating that Kelly was having her period, or if he instead meant that there was blood spurting from her nose or her ears or her—whatever. I don’t much care if he was being sexist, although he might have been and that’s a drawback in the world in which the Democratic charge of “war on women” is able to stick and garner votes. Actually, however, I’m more inclined to consider him pretty much an equal-opportunity insulter who is perfectly capable of saying something roughly similar about a man.

What do I think this particular discussion should be focusing on? Just this: in this instance and in others, Trump has shown himself to be remarkably thin-skinned, and the quality of his attacks is simple schoolyard stuff, mostly name-calling and bluster failing to coverup the fact that he doesn’t have a substantive retort. He seems almost incapable of demonstrating qualities I would want in any president: logic, clarity of thought, pointed and convincing attack and argument. When under pressure, nearly all the man has is savage, mocking bluster, the more outrageous the better, although that does appeal to those who hunger for it.

But that’s not a demonstration of strength, it’s a demonstration of weakness. And Trump continues to remind me of none other than Obama in his propensity to strike out at criticism with low blows, and of course with the extent of his narcissism.

Let’s take a look at what Trump actually said about Kelly:

“Well, I just don’t respect [Megyn Kelly] as a journalist,” Trump told CNN via phone interview. “She gets out and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions.”

“You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes,” Trump continued, “blood coming out of her whatever.”

“In my opinion, she was off-base,” he concluded. “She’s a lightweight. I couldn’t care less about her.”

I have no idea what Trump meant by her “whatever,” although it certainly makes sense that some people think he was insinuating something about her menstrual cycle. But just for the sake of argument let’s take him at his word and stipulate that’s not what he meant at all. It (and his entire quoted reaction) remains a mindless response, devoid of substance, and that would be true whether it had been directed at a man. Kelly may be many things, but although her questions were not what I would have asked, they were not ridiculous, nor were they off-base, and she has proven time and again she’s no lightweight.

Nor is Trump the least bit convincing when he asserts he “couldn’t care less” about her. He very clearly does care.

More importantly, this was not an isolated incident of Trump’s inability to think of a criticism that isn’t basically a schoolyard taunt when he perceives he’s been shown to disadvantage by someone. Many of his supporters see this as an alpha male quality; I don’t see it that way at all. It’s the mark of a weak thinker and a weak person. Compare and contrast to someone like Reagan, an “alpha male” who skewered his opponents with class, dignity, and substance. Compare it even to someone like Newt Gingrich (who long-time readers here know is not one of my favorite politicians, to say the least), who actually is a fighter with the ability to not only strike out verbally but to use his brains while doing so.

Why support Trump when there are other non-establishment, bona fide conservatives in the race?

The New Neo Posted on by

Those people on the right who are mad at the establishment and continually frustrated by it, and are therefore supporting Trump, puzzle me for the following reason: this election cycle they finally have a very good chance to elect what they’re been saying they want, a stalwart conservative and/or political outsider who is a conservative, far more conservative than Donald Trump, and yet they are rejecting that chance.

That is why I see Trump support as an eruption of satisfying yet mindless anger more than anything else. If the support given to him were instead thrown behind a conservative, it is my opinion that that person would beat Jeb Bush and others for the nomination, hands down.

For example, there’s Ted Cruz. Cruz is not any sort of establishment insider. He is in his very first term as Senator, having been elected in 2012 as a Tea Party candidate after primarying the establishment candidate, and with the support of anti-establishment types like Mark Levin.

Before that, Cruz basically had a career as a lawyer, including as associate deputy AG in the DOJ and Texas Solicitor General. In the latter capacity, he was the lawyer who pled the Heller case before the Supreme Court (successfully, I might add) and won a case arguing the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments monument, as well as one involving redistricting in Texas—all conservative causes.

Cruz is not only a very brilliant man, but in addition to that his conservative credentials are impeccable. The GOP establishment in DC hates him just about as much as Trump supporters hate the GOP establishment. He’s hard-hitting, outspoken, and articulate in discussing conservative causes. He has also kept his campaign promises to the right at the cost of a great deal of personal criticism in the press and from the party.

So, what’s the problem with Cruz for you? Truly, what’s the problem? Why aren’t you all supporting him? I’m very serious about this question. He would seem to be the perfect candidate.

Then there’s Carly Fiorina, whose credentials are nowhere near what Cruz’s are. But her ability to communicate a similar degree of fight as Trump is coupled with more brains and delivered with style and flair and class without sacrificing force. Her arguments are nearly unanswerable (as you could see from that Chris Matthews takedown). What’s more, as a woman she is uniquely positioned to do two things that Trump couldn’t do nearly as well: argue with Hillary without looking like a bully, and appeal to women. She is far more conservative, with a far more conservative history than Trump, and what’s more she’s very rich herself and not as beholden to her donors as most. In addition, she is not a Washington insider or a member of the GOP establishment, and has never held elective office although she did do better than most conservatives in California when she challenged Boxer for her seat. So if for some reason Cruz doesn’t suit you, why not support her and send some money her way?

Oh, but maybe if Trump is elected he’ll just say “you’re fired!” to the entire Republican Congress. Is that your fantasy? Or maybe it’s that Trump got so much money he’ll foot the bill to build the Mexican wall himself? And to buy the land along the border, too? Is he such a leader that he can wave a magic wand and make it happen? Because I see absolutely no leadership qualities in him; I see a blustering, bombastic narcissist with very thin skin. Do you also like his “me, me, me” approach, a braggadocio that annoys you so much when Obama does it? Because to me it sounds very similar.

I don’t see how Trump could get elected, if he were somehow to be nominated. Maybe you disagree with my prognostication, or maybe you don’t care if he’s elected or not. Maybe it’s enough to you to try to keep some RINO from being elected instead, and to you they’re all RINOs, even Cruz who’s spent a great deal of his life fighting for conservative causes and fighting for them well. Maybe the main thing you want to do is to punish the GOP with a loss. Ah, that’ll show them!! Because your abandonment of a candidate like Cruz, the truly conservative alternative, means that someone like Jeb could easily get the nomination instead. Then you’ll complain, and blame the GOP for nominating such a loser when instead you might have gotten behind Cruz and made him a winner, as happened in Texas.

In sum, it seems to me that in your anger you are stabbing yourselves in the back. This requires a certain amount of gymnastics, but it can be accomplished nevertheless.

Caroline Glick on the Obama, the Iran deal, and the Jews

The New Neo Posted on by

Caroline Glick writes:

…Obama’s appeasement policy toward Iran has been going on since he took office six-and-a-half years ago…

Every time Obama has sided with the mullahs against domestic opponents he has played the Jew card in one way or another. He has blown more anti-Semitic dog whistles than many in Washington even realized existed.

Now the stakes are far higher than a mere sanctions bill. Obama has gotten his deal with Iran. And he’ll be damned if he allows it to go down.

So it is open season on Israel and its supporters.

This all could have been predicted in 2008 by anyone who took a look at Obama’s history. Therefore, those who excoriate Jews for nevertheless supporting Obama in 2008 and 20012 have a point. But please remember that “the Jewish vote” contains a huge number of secular Jews who are not only not religious but whose “faith” amounts to leftism, and that the left has become strongly anti-Israel for the last forty-five or so years. Talking about “the Jewish vote” as though it had anything to do with Judaism or support of Israel is like including everyone who was born into a Christian family but left the Christian church in “the Christian vote.”

That aside, Obama is also a liar and a double-crosser, and he takes the Jews for fools and patsies and marks:

In the president’s words, opposition to his deal comes “partly from the $20 million that’s being spent lobbying against the bill,” and “partly from the same columnists and former administration officials that were responsible for getting us into the Iraq war.”

One of the ironic things about this statement is that while AIPAC studiously avoided taking a position on the Iraq war, (while both of Obama’s secretaries of state and his vice president supported it), two years ago Obama strong-armed AIPAC ”“ against the wishes of its members ”“ to lobby Congress to support his plan to bomb regime targets in Syria. He then left AIPAC high and dry, with its credibility in tatters, when he changed his mind at the last minute and did nothing…

The point is demonization…By casting aspersions on the motives and character of his opponents Obama seeks to end debate on the merits of his plan in order to force Democrats to support it.

And that, more than anything, is why it’s at least a possibility that Obama may actually be genuinely angry at Chuck Schumer’s rejection of the deal rather than just pretend-angry, even if it ends up that there aren’t enough votes in Congress to make that rejection stick. Schumer not only said no to the deal, but he composed a defense of his “no” position that makes it clear that he has good reasons for opposing it, and he is one of the most prominent Democrats in Congress.

Schumer’s position legitimizes opposition to the Iran deal by Democrats, at least in the eyes of some of the public. The rest will just dismiss him as a Jew with dual loyalty, a position that Obama has hinted at for years for American Jews who oppose his policies.

Dershowitz on the Iran deal and Congress

The New Neo Posted on by

Alan Dershowitz opines on the “treaty vs. agreement” dispute regarding the Iran deal:

The Framers of our constitution probably would have regarded the nuclear deal with Iran as a “treaty,” subject to a two thirds ratification by the Senate. At the very least they would have required Congress to approve the agreement by a majority vote. It is unlikely that it would have allowed the President alone to make so important and enduring an international agreement.

If President Obama doesn’t treat the Iran agreement with more respect, all his arguments today are beside the point. The agreement won’t have the force of law.

Then Dershowitz goes into the history of Congress’ treaty power and the Founders’ intents concerning it. Then he has the following to say about the Corker-Menendez bill:

While a majority of the House and the Senate voted for this exceptional set of rules for approving the Iran agreement, it was only to assure themselves that they would have any say at all in the matter. President Obama’s position was that he could make the “executive” agreement without Congressional approval.

It occurs to me that, among other things, the Republicans in Congress did not communicate at all well to the public what the Corker-Menendez was about when they passed it so that their base—and anyone else who might be listening—could understand it. They tried, but it involves a rather complicated point of law and procedure and precedent—although there really is no precedent because no president has ever done such a thing. So basically, Congress was flailing around to try to get some tool to stop him, because they realized they could call it a treaty and unapprove it but that course of action would probably have no power or meaning. Nor did they think they were giving up the right to do this in addition, even if they did pass Corker-Menendez.

Dershowitz goes on to point out what he sees as one of the weaknesses of Obama’s position:

An agreement, as distinguished from a treaty does not have the force of law. It can simply be abrogated by any future president. In the end, the court of public opinion decides important policy decisions that may affect us all

But smart as Dershowitz is, I think Obama has outsmarted him on this one. Unfortunately. By signaling a lack of determination to continue the sanctions several months ago, Obama cued the rest of the world on plans to dismantle them, and to vie for the lucrative business opportunities that Iran presents. In addition, if the next president is a Democrat and/or if Congress becomes majority Democrat, either would be extremely disinclined to change the status quo. What’s more, if before the next election Iran violates the treaty and secretly advances its bomb-making capacity, that horse will be out of the barn. The same with its capacity to wage terrorist war with the huge amount of windfall money the deal will give it.

In other words, the deal can be abrogated in the future. But time cannot be turned back, and many of its consequences will already have taken place.

[NOTE: Among other things, Dershowtiz ought to feel like a fool on this issue, because even as late as the 2012 election he supported Obama and explicitly defended the president’s position regarding Iran and nuclear weapons.]

Further reflections on the Trump phenomenon

The New Neo Posted on by

Donald Trump’s popularity has been the talk of the political world.

To me it reflects two things more than anything else. The first is that politics has become dominated by the idea of celebrity. The second is that many people are very very angry at the political establishment and its failure to reflect and act on the will of the people. Although Trump’s popularity mainly reflects the strength of that anger on the right, the anger is also felt on the left and in the middle as well.

Trump combines both traits I just mentioned: celebrity and a channeling of the anger. That makes him a sort of perfect political storm.

I don’t trust Trump*. I believe he’s another narcissist who doesn’t necessarily say what he means and/or mean what he says. Even though he’s not a career politician, I still don’t trust him. The only thing that might give him more trustworthiness than the average politician is that he’s not beholden to anyone for money at this point. But his narcissism and his showboat tendencies could very much get in the way.

Beyond any issues of trust, though, and even if he is extremely sincere and means what he says, as an outsider he has no history of any ability to get people in government to do what he says. It’s all very well and good to say “When I’m president I will get it done”—but how? I don’t even see a glimmer of a plan in his rhetoric.

This campaign has more conservative talent than in any past year I can think of. Walker, for example, has shown a remarkable ability as a conservative to get things done in a blue state, and he doesn’t appear to be a narcissist. He’s not catching on as much because people are mad at politicians in general, and because he’s not a TV personality like Trump, and because he doesn’t speak with his bluster. Carly Fiorina is an outsider like Trump and she knows business, and she is actually saying things that are very much like what Trump is saying, and she’s saying them with a quiet authority. And Ted Cruz is a true conservative who is a brilliant man and a good speaker.

But none of these qualities cut it very well with the angriest and most frustrated portion of the electorate. They like and want what Trump is selling.

For years I’ve been reading posters who feel this anger, on this blog and others. To a certain extent I share it. I just don’t have the same reaction to the anger that I feel. I think the surge for Trump is an emotional, “let’s stick it to the man” urge, something like the urge the left felt in the 60s or like the Perot phenomenon in the 90s only more so. I don’t think it will lead to anything good. If Trump is nominated I don’t think he would be elected. If elected I don’t think he’d be a good president (although believe me, if he is nominated or elected I sincerely hope I’m underestimating him and I’d be happy to say I was wrong).

I think those who support Trump are shooting from the hip and feel a certain emotional satisfaction, but are throwing away one of their best chances since Ronald Reagan to elect an actual conservative as president. Maybe they don’t care. Maybe they really do want to “Let it burn.”

As for the debate last night, I think Trump did more poorly than I expected. His furrowed brow and pursed lips could not disguise the fact that he seems to be a murky thinker, full of bluster and sound bites and “I can do it” but not much else except to act as a conduit for discussion of the politically incorrect, which I recognize as a plus. But I want much more than that from a candidate and from a president.

[* NOTE: This is one of several reasons I don’t trust Trump. I’ve noticed, too, that quite a few of his supporters are willing to forgive or ignore anything he’s done, because they like the way he sticks it to the establishment.

60s stuff, as I said.]

[ADDENDUM: An example of Trump’s thin skin, here. Trump supporters will no doubt love it.]

Does Schumer’s opposition to Obama on Iran mean the override will fail?

The New Neo Posted on by

I believe it does, but I sincerely hope I’m wrong, wrong, wrong.

A few days ago I wrote some predictions about what I thought Schumer might do:

Prediction: Schumer will cave to Obama. Or he will take the weaselly option mentioned here, voting to override Obama’s veto of a Congressional bill to continue sanctions and block the Iran deal’s lifting of them, but being careful to not bring along enough people with him to make an override stick.

I still go with that “weaselly” prediction, if the Senate is voting under Corker-Menendez, that is. However, having read the text of Schumer’s declaration of intent about this, I note something that makes me think he is talking about something else: voting with the forces that disapprove of the Iran deal. He doesn’t limit his discussion to one about sanctions (which is the topic of Corker-Menendez); he speaks of a resolution of disapproval.

Would this be a vote on the Iran deal as a treaty—something I’ve said several times is a course that the Senate did not rule out by passing Corker-Menendez? It’s unclear. If I’m reading Schumer correctly, he seems be anticipating that there will be a vote on the issue of disapproval of the deal, although he also speaks of sanctions. But he does not mention the vote being a vote on a treaty and in fact carefully doesn’t mention the word “treaty” at all.

From Schumer [emphasis mine]:

Ultimately, in my view, whether one supports or opposes the resolution of disapproval depends on how one thinks Iran will behave under this agreement…

But if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement…

Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.

For all of these reasons, I believe the vote to disapprove is the right one.

Why am I emphasizing this “vote to disapprove” business? A vote to continue sanctions under Corder-Menendez needs 2/3 approval in order to override a presidential veto that is inevitable, and that’s a very high bar. A vote to disapprove, however—well, what is that? Is it the same as voting on the Iran deal as a treaty, and failing to approve it? I’m having trouble finding out exactly how it would go. This article seems to think that a vote to disapprove would be subject to a presidential veto, and would need 2/3 to ultimately pass. It’s also speaking about a vote of disapproval in the House, however, and the House can’t vote initially on the Iran deal as a treaty because the House doesn’t have the treaty approval power under the Constitution anyway; that’s the Senate. And Chuck Schumer is a member of the Senate.

All the articles I’ve been able to find in a quick Googling that talk about a Congressional approval or disapproval vote for the Iran deal have to do with a vote in the House, and they assume that the president could veto it (see this, for example). So I haven’t been able to find an answer to the question of whether this is the same sort of bill Schumer is talking about in the Senate, in which case his vote wouldn’t matter so much unless a large number of Democrats come along with him and succeed in overriding an Obama veto. It he’s talking about a treaty approval vote in the Senate, however, a 2/3 override would not be necessary and his vote against would be far more meaningful.

More here:

The likely next leader of Senate Democrats, Schumer (N.Y.) said his three-week reading of the proposal left him unconvinced. “There is a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one,” he said, referring to the nuclear pact…

While his opposition is significant, Schumer did not signal whether he would actively rally undecided Democrats to also oppose the deal.

Even if an override is needed and that override fails, though, it’s possible that this still was somewhat of an act of courage by Schumer in that it may have made it more difficult for him to take over Harry Reid’s position, as he had long planned:

Schumer’s decision brought condemnation from some Obama allies who are still upset with his proclamations that the timing for pushing the president’s health-care law through Congress in 2010 was wrong politically.

“The base won’t support a leader who thought Obamacare was a mistake and wants War with Iran,” Dan Pfeiffer, the former Obama adviser, wrote on Twitter late Thursday, embracing the president’s line that the only way to otherwise curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions was war.

It really depends on whether Schumer has already cleared his position with the leadership and with Obama and already knows an override would be necessary and that it would fail. In that case, he would be allowed to vote against the deal and the word would get out that he did it knowing his vote was not fatal, which could preserve his chances to take on Reid’s role. Personally I don’t care whether Schumer or some other Democrat becomes the head of the Democrats in the Senate, but I’m rather sure that he cares.

By the way, note that the new way for the left (including, of course, Obama) to refer to a vote of disapproval of the deal is that it’s a vote for war, by those who want to go to war with Iran.

[ADDENDUM: One more thing—Schumer could vote to disapprove but then vote not to override. I think that’s a less likely course of action, however, than a consistent vote to disapprove and to override along with an override failure.]

[ADDENDUM II: Ace reacts to the White House’s Dan Pfeiffer’s tweet putting Schumer down: “Well, according to White House henchman, [Schumer is] just a dual-loyalty Jew who wants War with Iran.”

Pfeiffer’s tweet was as follows: “The base won’t support a leader who thought Obamacare was a mistake and wants War with Iran.” By the way, although it’s somewhat irrelevant to the matter at hand, Schumer never said Obamacare was a mistake; he said that the timing of its passage was a mistake. But misrepresenting what Schumer said is typical White House mendacity in dealing with someone it wants to discredit.

And Ace quotes Fred Fleitz as writing, about Schumer and the Iran deal and the White House:

The reason the Schumer defection matters is because it puts the lie to the Obama administration’s shameful claim that opponents of the Iran deal are partisan extremists who want war with Iran. Schumer’s announcement is a powerful indication that opposition to this terrible agreement is in fact principled and bipartisan.

True, but it won’t matter, because the leftist and liberal LIV troops will pick up the White House meme and run with it. Note, also, that Obama doesn’t just indicate that those who oppose him will inadvertently cause war with Iran, it’s that they want war with Iran and seek war with Iran. And he and his lackeys are just as willing and eager to say this about a member of their own party who might deign to cross or criticize them. The Menendez thing is an indication of what they are willing to do to a true opponent who is a Democrat. Democratic opponents are actually more dangerous to them than Republican ones, in many instances, for exactly the reason that Fleitz points out.

Dan Pfeiffer’s rhetoric and what appears perhaps to be the Liebermanization of Schumer is starting to make me wonder whether Schumer has been cleared by the leadership for what he’s doing, or whether it might actually be what I doubt it is, a shot across the bow by Democrats against Obama. Dare I hope?]

Fiorina: watch this…

The New Neo Posted on by

…and see why Fiorina’s star is rising. Doing what she does best:

How she manages to hold her own like that, put Matthews in his place, barely come up for air, and not sound like a shrew is something I don’t understand. But it’s a wonderful thing to see.

Please spread it around. I would dearly like to see it go viral.

Also, in case you think that this is some new persona for Carly, take a look at this video from her 2010 campaign in California. Even though it’s true-blue California, she refuses to condemn the Tea Party as “extremists” and…well, just take a look. I’ve cued it up to start at a place where the real fun begins (by the way, the short, gray “do” is because she was recovering from chemo):

Several people said that Fiorina’s appearance today on “Morning Joe” was excellent. I haven’t yet had time to watch the clip (and I can’t find an embed code), but I think this is the appearance they might be talking about.

Sure enough, right on cue, there are people going around dropping criticisms of Carly everywhere. She failed at Hewlett-Packard and was fired. She outsourced. When she worked for McCain in 2008 she spoke in favor of this and that cause that he supported and that she opposes now. The long knives are out, predictably, because she is now considered a serious and viable candidate.

The Republican “debate”

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, that was different.

My impressions:

John Kasich: A snooze. I have no idea why he is one of the top 10.

Chris Christie: Didn’t enhance his standing, which is already low. He just doesn’t wear well.

Ben Carson: I thought he showed a nice relaxed sense of humor and was also hard-hitting at times, and acquitted himself well. Whether it’s well enough to move up in the rankings I haven’t a clue. Obviously an intelligent man.

Mike Huckabee: The same people who supported him before will continue to support him.

Jeb Bush: Dreadful. I didn’t like him to begin with, but it seems to me he should lose support because of his weak and mealy-mouthed showing here. He came across as a liberal, which is not going to appeal to the GOP electorate this year of all years.

Rand Paul: No, no a thousand times no. Although the libertarians who like him will continue to like him.

Scott Walker: A bit weaker than expected, and somewhat dull, but about halfway through he started to do better and better and had a strong finish. That midwestern blandness makes it hard for him to shine in the prize-fight-like venue.

Marco Rubio: I thought he did better than expected. Solid but not fabulous.

Ted Cruz: I have always thought him smart and articulate, and a fighter. As a seasoned debater, he’s very polished, perhaps a little too polished. But I think he was probably the winner in this particular debate, clear and focused, and avoided a descent into attacking the others or seeming mean-spirited.

Donald Trump: Yes, I saved him for last. I have no idea what Trump supporters thought of his performance; I’m not a Trump supporter, although I understand how sick people are of political business as usual. I tried, when watching him, to evaluate him as though I didn’t already think him a narcissistic blowhard. I don’t know whether I succeeded in being objective. But it seemed to me that he did very poorly. The format emphasized his worst traits, and made him seem formulaic, full of himself, unnecessarily and reflexively combative, and emphasized the more problematic stances he’s taken in the past: single payer healthcare, contributions to the Clinton Foundation, throwing around his money to get political favors, coming late to the Republican Party (and party).

UPDATE 11:52: Fox commentators seem to think that Bush and Christie did well. I beg to differ. Perhaps they’re just trying to boost them both, but I don’t know what Republican voters they’re talking to.