THE ONE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION FROM THE SEPTEMBER GOP DEBATE

9/18/15

One can make plenty of observations regarding Wednesday night’s GOP debates:

• Donald Trump has some chinks in his electoral armor and his opponents are starting to find them.
• Jeb Bush has a pulse.   That his supporters are touting as a huge positive for his campaign the evidence the debate provided of that pulse’s existence shows how much trouble the fair haired boy of the GOP establishment is in.
•  Marco Rubio did a pretty good job but, for some reason, the punditocracy didn’t notice.  He might be the establishment’s alternative if Mr. Bush should continue to fail to live up to what look like cut from whole cloth expectations.
• Mr. Rubio, if he is to inherit Mr. Bush’s well moneyed support, will have to somehow transcend Chris Christie, who performed quite the Lazarus act on his presidential hopes Wednesday night.   Christie was terrific, especially when lambasting the front runners for their obsessions with themselves and positioning himself as an establishment Republican who can still speak for the middle class.
• Rand Paul’s sensible, sober approach to foreign policy clearly disqualifies him for the nomination of a Party that equates to treason the exercise of caution, prudence, and Constitutionality when putting the lives of young Americans on the line.
• You can stick the proverbial fork in Scott Walker. 
• If the American people were yearning for the Fred MacMurray (the good, My Three Sons Fred MacMurray, not the double dealing, caddish, scheming, Double Indemnity and The Apartment Fred MacMurray) approach to life and politics, John Kasich would be a shoo-in.   But that approach became passé when yours truly was a small child.   Too bad.
• Ben Carson is probably too smart, and too much of a gentleman, to be president.  Also too bad.
• The debate was too long.   Even those of us who have yet to overcome our silly addiction to politics were getting bored as the debate moved into the third hour.

While those are all, at the risk of sounding a touch braggadocious, searingly insightful observations, we can only draw one inescapable conclusion from Wednesday night’s debate:  Carly Fiorina is going to be on the GOP ticket.  If she is not at the top of the ticket, still something of a long shot, she will be in the vice-presidential spot.

Mrs. Fiorina is clearly bright, articulate, forceful, and, despite Mr. Trump’s apparent opinion, attractive.  And she is a woman, which certainly has its attractions whether or not Hillary Clinton heads the Democratic ticket.  (See “Something(s)about Hillary,” 9/8/15.)  Mrs. Fiorina is also a cancer survivor, which not only shows courage and grit but is, ironically, a big plus in the increasingly emotional electoral climate we face.  The establishment is more than comfortable with this former corporate chieftain and the social conservatives also like her for her strong pro-life positions.  

Mrs. Fiorina only has two obvious drawbacks.   The first is that her record in corporate America is, to put it charitably, worse than mediocre.   However, the American people seem to be coming to the (correct) conclusion that even someone who did far less than stellar work in a real job is a better choice than someone who has spent his or her life in and around electoral politics, i.e., who has made his or her living having his or her hindquarters smooched and who consequently is terrified at the thought of having to work in the private sector, or even in a public sector job with responsibilities that transcend preening for the cameras, for a living.

The second drawback is that Mrs. Fiorina, unlike Messrs. Kasich, Rubio, Walker, or Bush, has no chance of bringing a swing state, or any state, into the GOP Electoral College fold.   California isn’t going to go GOP regardless of who is on the Republican ticket.   But enhancement of the electoral map by selection of one’s running mate is an overrated strategy, as evidenced by Bill Clinton’s selection of Al Gore, Barack Obama’s selection of Joe Biden, and Ronald Reagan’s selection of George Bush as their running mates.   Each of these veeps either didn’t bring his state into the fold or was from a state that was already solidly in the fold.   Running mates have an appeal that transcends their home states.   This is especially true in the case of Mrs. Fiorina.

OBAMACARE: CAN THE REPUBLICANS OPEN THE GIFT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE JUST HANDED THEM?

11/8/13

As I pointed out a few days ago (THE OBAMACARE ROLLOUT 'S ECONOMIC IMPACT:  “YOU THINK THIS COUNTRY’S IN BAD SHAPE, JUST WAIT ‘TIL I GET THROUGH WITH IT!”, 11/6/13), the debacle at least the initial rollout of ObamaCare has done more damage to the economy than most people think, and certainly far more than the non-event government shutdown about which so many economists continue to wring their hands.   The political consequences of the ObamaCare defecation show, however, are at least as profound, transcend party politics, and will have their own impact on the economy.

The overwhelming reaction to the increased prices, the sieve like jalopy of a website, and the general overall confusion and uncertainty associated with the ObamaCare startup is a now pervasive feeling throughout the land that we have an incompetent in the White House, a guy who never had a real job, is not as smart as he and his most ardent supporters suppose (Nobody is, by the way.), and is in way over his head.  This is damaging to the Democratic Party, for sure, but also is bad for the country and for the economy.  The consequences of a rudderless ship of state for business and consumer confidence and in international political and economic affairs can be devastating.  Money likes to go to where it is treated well and, barring that, at least likes to go where it has a reasonable idea of how it will be treated.  So the follow-on effects of the problems ObamaCare is facing have the potential to be more long lasting and widespread than they appear at first glance.

In the less important, buy maybe more fun, realm of partisan politics, the ObamaCare travails have done incalculable damage to Mr. Obama and the party he heads.   Those middle ground voters are not only being socked with the stress inducing consequences of the ObamaCare rollout, but they are now coming to the conclusion that the whole idea of ObamaCare was a mistake, a costly experiment in social engineering by a group of people who have no idea of how Mr. and Mrs. America live their lives and how challenging those lives have become.  They are disgusted and ready for a change.

The first opportunity to act on these feelings of disgust will come in the Fall of next year.  The bigger opportunity will come in the Fall of 2016.  Both are a long way off in realistic political terms.  But even at this early juncture, one overwhelming conclusion is that if the Republicans cannot capitalize on this dropping of the ball by Mr. Obama and his cohorts, they ought to just fold up the tent and go home.  This is a huge opportunity that, thankfully for the Republicans, did not rely on any skill or intelligence by the GOP; it was a pure gift to a party that, given its political obtuseness, needs to subsist on gifts.

Can the GOP capitalize on this?   Recent history would indicate that it can’t.  But maybe the Republicans can capitalize if they realize that the reason they now have a chance is that the people are tired of incompetence.   So rather than emphasize arcane issues in which many, if not most, people think government should be at best only ancillarily involved, perhaps the GOP ought to emphasize competence…the ability to get things done, an ability long and sadly lacking in Washington.   People are not ideological; people want results.  They may or may not want much from government, but they want government to deliver what it promises.  Government’s part in the life of the populace may not be a major concern in people’s lives, but people certainly want government to do its part, whatever it may be.

Is this an argument for a certain recently re-elected governor from New Jersey who has shown a distaste for ideological arguments paired with an ability to achieve results?   At least at this point, certainly.   If the GOP wants to win, it better nominate the big guy from Jersey.  If it wants to live in an echo chamber, constantly rehashing arguments most people don’t listen to, it can nominate one of the ideological warriors from Congress and continue to get a charge from listening to its imagined unappreciated brilliance.

THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION IN 2016: HILLARY IS NOT INEVITABLE AND JOE IS ALWAYS LOTS OF FUN

8/19/13

This morning’s (i.e., Monday, 8/19/13’s, page A1) Wall Street  Journal reports in a front page story that Vice-President Joe Biden and his team are laying the groundwork for a presidential run in 2016.  Mr. Biden is busy visiting places like New Hampshire and Iowa (to fulfill “longstanding commitments,” of course) while his people are considering strategic moves, including possibly starting up a “leadership PAC” that would spread money around to various Democratic politicians in order to curry their favor for a possible Biden run.

The conventional wisdom (which, by the way, isn’t always wrong despite the derisive connotation it carries, but I digress) holds that Mr. Biden is wasting his time, that he has no chance at wresting the nomination from the nearly already coronated Hillary Clinton.   While I am making no predictions, and if I had to bet at this juncture I would bet on Hillary’s getting the nomination, and probably the White House, the latter especially if the GOP continues to pursue its death wish by refusing to nominate Chris Christie, I would not be so quick to conclude that the Democratic nomination battle is over before it has started.

For those with short memories, we heard the same bullroar back in 2008.  It was Hillary’s nomination for the asking, everyone should just fold up their tents, or not even erect their tents, and go home.   She was the certain nominee.   But no one apparently told Barack Obama and his team.

To put a local and more recent spin on it, remember when, just a few months ago, Lisa Madigan was the sure Democratic nominee for governor of Illinois?   Unfortunately, while Ms. Madigan was primping and preening for her coronation, Bill Daley stepped in and made it a fight.   Either the prospect of such a fight, or the prospect of being governor of Illinois as it slides further down into its fiscal sinkhole, dissuaded the inevitable Lisa from running.   See, inter alia, my 7/16/13 piece, LISA MADIGAN WON’T RUN FOR GOVERNOR:  WOULD YOU WANT THE JOB?  Lisa Madigan is no Hillary Clinton, but Lisa’s dropping out teaches us much about making presumptions when it comes to politics…or anything.

On a more prosaic note, I get a chuckle when I hear one of the strongest objections to Joe Biden’s candidacy or objections to his becoming president…his age.  Mr. Biden will be 73 in November, 2016.  Hillary will be 69.  Yours truly thinks neither is too old to be president, but, even if you think that way, what practical difference is there between 69 and 73?   Either they’re both young enough or they’re both too old.

Again, as a former Republican president was fond of saying, make no mistake.   I am not predicting a Biden nomination.   I am merely arguing that we should not be making wholesale assumptions in 2013 about an election that will take place in 2016.   Hillary is not inevitable.

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

CPAC: CAN’T PLACATE A (GENUINE) CONSERVATIVE

3/17/13

The annual bleating of banalities known as the “Conservative” Political Action Conference (“CPAC”) has finally wound to a close.   So what is a genuine conservative to make of this parade of pabulum?

First, any “conservative” conference that eschews Chris Christie while embracing Sarah Palin is guilty of gross misrepresentation to those of us who believe in the sane and reasoned application of conservative principles to the challenges of government.  (See my 2/28/13 post CHRIS CHRISTIE AND CHUCK HAGEL NEED NOT APPLY.) Further, excluding the most popular conservative in the country while highlighting a national laughingstock, a walking, talking tribute to the rejection of reason and intelligence in favor of naked, unchecked emotion and gormless reaction shows why the “conservative” movement has effectively committed suicide in this country but is somehow convinced that it must dig an even deeper hole to bury its own sorry carcass.

Second, who in the world can spend an entire three days listening to political speeches?   The terms “substantive” and “political speech” have become inherently contradictory over the last, oh, fifty or so years after skating on thin ice together since the dawn of time.   And how can a “conservative,” who, at least in the past, by definition rejected the efficacy of political solutions in a free society and a free economy, eagerly seek salvation from…politicians and government?   Even yours truly, who admittedly spends far too much time thinking about politics and government, cannot listen to a politician, even a rare politician for whom I have a modicum of respect, expel hot air for more than, say, three minutes or so.  To sit there and listen to these carnival barkers for three days and to call one’s self a conservative should induce some soul-searching among those who attend such events.

Third, even when something even remotely substantive emanates from these gab-fests, it is inherently contradictory and hypocritical.   The “conservatives” propose lower taxes at the federal level, which is great, though it doesn’t address the real problem, grist for a later, but hopefully not much later, mill.   But then they fail to produce any substantive, realistic, or remotely workable, plan for reducing spending.  (See, inter alia, my 3/13/13 post, ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS OF MEDICARE:  MR. RYAN STAYS IN WASHINGTON.)   And even if they should somehow achieve a miracle and actually cut some domestic spending, the War Party representatives of the CPAC crowd will find some way to blow such savings, and then some, on what they laughingly call “defense” but what is really international proboscis insertion into places where we are unwelcome and in which we have at best limited interests and even less business.  (See, inter alia, my 2/1/13 post JOHN McCAIN, CHUCK HAGEL, AND DEFERRING TO HISTORY.)

So, at best, the conservative call to cut taxes amounts to not paying our bills in favor of passing our expenses onto our children and grandchildren, which I never thought of as a conservative principle.  And, yes, the Laffer Curve works; I am one of its more ardent proponents.  But the Laffer Curve is an economic principle, not a miracle elixir; these deficits are too big to grow our way out of.

At the expense of being accused of further apostasy (Get in line.), it was the great conservative hero, Ronald Reagan, who told us that it was okay not to pay our bills, that deficits didn’t matter, that we could cut taxes and spend on the military and on entitlements ‘til our hearts were content and everything would be just fine.   Thus it was the Gipper and the genuine “conservatives” who followed him, some of us skeptically some more wholeheartedly and unabashedly, that set us on the path to the fiscal quagmire in which we are currently sinking.  Just look at a chart of debt to GDP since World War II if you don’t believe this.  

Fourth, what about the social agenda of the CPAC?   I, for one, agree with about 70% or 80% of the “conservative” social agenda.  I do differ with the growing “conservative” fixation with gays and have long suspected that it is a case of, as Shakespeare would say, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”   Do these guys perhaps some doubts about their own sexuality?  But I digress.  I also am alarmed that opposition to abortion has rather quickly morphed into a genuine uneasiness with, or outright hostility toward, contraception, which I find even more inherently contradictory than “conservatives” spending their weekends listening to lectures on how government can improve their lives.

Regardless, however, of where one stands on the social issues, if one is a conservative, one should be alarmed at the notion that the government should dictate conduct that does not infringe on the rights of others.  Yours truly is fine with the “conservative” social agenda when it amounts to opposition to the government playing for the other side but parts company when that agenda becomes advocacy for the government taking the field. 

The social issues are important cultural and moral issues, but are at best third rate political issues.  At least this conservative’s response to such discussion, regardless of which side is being advocated, amounts to “Why in the world are we talking about these things?”   Unfortunately, one gets the impression that many of the CPAC participants, and many who have highjacked the once noble tea party movement, are instead demanding that we waste even more time and effort on these sideshow political issues.

Finally, I was heartened to see that Rand Paul was the winner of a straw poll that asked CPAC participants whom they favored for president in 2016.  Though even thinking about the 2016 race at this juncture seems inherently not conservative, yours truly loves the horse race aspects of politics, especially since the stakes are all fool’s gold anyway; no politician, or at least no successful politician, is going to work to reduce the influence of government regardless of what s/he says.   Mr. Paul, perhaps seeing a real shot at the GOP nomination in 2016, is perhaps getting too cozy with the “limited government ends at the shore” approach of large swaths of the GOP, but his philosophy is in the right place.  Whether it is at all workable in a society that has grown very comfortable with big government is another issue.

The second place finish of Marco Rubio, though, is at least a little troubling.  Mr. Rubio seems to be fine fellow, and I was especially heartened that in his first speech as a senator-elect, he blasted George W. Bush (the man who gives LBJ perhaps decisive competition in the race for the not at all coveted title of “Worst President in U.S. History”) at least indirectly, as much as he went after the Democrats.  But I have the same problem with Senator Rubio that I have with Paul Ryan (See only my latest screed on Mr. Ryan, 3/13/13’s  ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS OF MEDICARE:  MR. RYAN STAYS IN WASHINGTON), i.e., how can “conservatives” get so excited about a guy who has never been off the public payroll?  As I told a young friend last night, in a perhaps not all that rare instance of my not showing sufficient restraint in discussion of the issues of the day, “If he had ever done anything other than s--k off the public t-t, I’d kind of like the guy.”  In Mr. Rubio’s defense, sort of, he is too young to have accomplished, or learned, much in his life in any case.   (On the other hand, when I was his age, I, too, thought I knew a lot more than I did.)  The same criticisms can apply to the guy in the White House, but I thought conservatives had a different, better approach to government and a more reasoned attitude toward the worthiness of experience beyond the public sector.

CHRIS CHRISTIE AND CHUCK HAGEL NEED NOT APPLY

2/28/13

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, long time champion of lean, efficient, and limited governance and stalwart opponent of pubic employee unions’ efforts to highjack state and local government, was, er, disinvited to something that calls itself, still with a straight face, the “Conservative Political Action Conference (“CPAC”).”  

Former Senator Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran and genuine war hero who favors a defense policy that defends and a foreign policy that cultivates foreign friends and encourages reason over hysteria, was confirmed as Secretary of Defense…but with only four votes from senators from the Republican Party, which still laughingly calls itself the conservative party.   See my 2/1/13 post JOHN McCAIN, CHUCK HAGEL, AND DEFERRING TO HISTORY, only the latest in a series of posts here and at the now defunct Rant Political that argued enthusiastically for Mr. Hagel’s confirmation.

What is going on in the “conservative movement” and the Republican Party?   Why are such good men with solid values, deep seated beliefs in the primacy of the people over their government, and optimism about and confidence in the American people (misplaced in yours truly’s opinion, but that is another issue) no longer welcome among the self-styled keepers of the conservative flame?

One “conservative” beef with Mr. Christie is that he, never a poltroonish type given to the hemming, hawing, and equivocating that characterizes most of the invited guests at CPAC, very clearly let it be known that he was fed up with Congress’s delay, or worse, in passing a relief package for his state of New Jersey and other areas affected by Super Storm Sandy.   Another complaint about Governor Christies is that he appeared too chummy with President Obama when the President toured New Jersey in the wake of Sandy.

Admittedly, the “Sandy relief” bill that emerged from Congress was a crummy bill.  It was loaded with provisions and spending that had little, if anything, to do with Sandy.   But that only reinforces Mr. Christies’s point.   The reason the bill took so long to, and almost didn’t, become law is because the Congressional popinjays insisted on seizing on the hardship of those affected by Sandy to get taxpayer money for their districts.   If they just passed a clean bill, relief would have gotten to the affected areas sooner and at a lower price.   But they didn’t pass such a clean bill.   And Mr. Christie realized that his constituents needed help right away.   He didn’t put Party ahead of his state and his job serving that state.  

And, yes, Mr. Christie was courteous toward Mr. Obama when the President visited Sandy ravaged New Jersey.   Since when is civility and gentlemanliness not a conservative value?    Does calling one’s self a “conservative” require that one be so consumed with hated for the president of another party that one treats that president with coolness, or contempt, when he is there to help in a time of need?   Is it a mark of honor and “true blueness,” if you will, to dump on the president of the United States, especially when he holds the key to getting relief to people who badly need it?   Mr. Christie has a job that makes him responsible for the welfare of the people of his state; unlike that of, say, Paul Ryan, a hero of the “conservative” movement, Mr. Christie’s job does not consist of preening for the cameras and assuming that the American people are badly in need of the type of wisdom that can only be gleaned from a lifetime of bloviating from Washington.   See my 1/26/13 post, PAUL RYAN:   MORE PAP AND PABULUM FROM THE MASTER OF HYPOCRISY.

Mr. Hagel’s unpardonable sin was finally seeing the light and opposing George Bush’s excellent adventure in Iraq that has already cost us billions of treasure and the incalculable value of thousands of American lives and will cost of us for generations not only in dollars but in enmity throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds and the legions of aspiring terrorists that will result.   Mr. Hagel also has the temerity to suggest that perhaps we think before going off on ill-considered crusades designed primarily to enrich those who bankroll the lifelong ego trips those who attend CPAC call careers.   (My words, not Mr. Hagel’s.  He is too circumspect to say the things that I can say.)   The War Party is now firmly in control of the foreign policy apparatus at the likes of CPAC and those who, like Mr. Hagel, favor a foreign policy grounded in the principles of limited government and careful consideration of national interests are no longer welcome.  CPAC’s view of the world can be summarized by the admonition to shoot first, aim later, and keep the campaign (?) cash flowing from the “defense” contractors.   Who needs a skunk like Mr. Hagel at such a wonderful garden party?

I’ve spent most of my life as a conservative.   That started to change as Ronald Reagan, after a pretty good start, decided that we could give ourselves goodies without paying for them and started us on the fiscal train wreck from which we are currently suffering.   The change picked up as the despicable George W. Bush decided that big government was just fine at home and was especially advisable overseas and that score settling, or who knows what, rather than national interests, should be the guiding light in foreign and military policy.   Now the banishment of Mr. Christie and Mr. Hagel, two of the few people in public life whom I respect and admire, has completed my metamorphosis.   Into what, I don’t know.   But if the people who find Messrs. Christie and Hagel so dyspeptic are “conservatives,” I know what I am not.