For One Day, Cruz Stood Above All

Last night in Cleveland, Ted Cruz stated

We deserve leaders who stand for principle who unite us all behind shared values, who cast aside anger for love. That is the standard we should expect from everybody.... If you love our country and love your children as much as I know you do, stand and speak and vote your conscience. Vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.









That had Governor Chris Christie fuming, or at least pretending to.   While the word "incredible" is used promiscuously and rarely to mean, "not credible," Christie's reaction truly was incredible as he maintained

It was an awful, selfish speech by someone who tonight, through the words he said on that stage, showed everybody why he has richly earned the reputation that he has on Capitol Hill.... I think it was too cute and I think you saw at the end of the speech that the crowd was waiting for him to do the right thing and realized that he wasn't going to do it

You can be forgiven for suspecting this was not the same Chris Christie, about whom it was written following his keynote speech at the 2012 Republican National Convention

Several political figures close to Mitt Romney made acerbic comments to reporters, making clear they thought Christie laid an egg while also saying they didn’t much care since Ann Romney was generally perceived as performing well. Several made eye-rolling references to what they regard as signs of the New Jersey governor’s considerable ego: The number of self-references in his address and an entourage of aides who they believe is too obviously trying to promote Christie fever for the future rather than help Republicans in 2012.

Sources close to Christie noted that Mitt Romney’s team saw the speech text about two weeks ago and barely changed a word, and thus had no standing to second-guess now....

In one prominent example of the poor reviews for Christie, Fox News anchor Chris Wallace noted how long it took for the speech to mention Romney and called it “the most curious keynote speech I have ever heard. … For a moment, I forgot who was the nominee of the party.”

Of course, Christie then was applying to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2016. This week, he was applying to be President Trump's Attorney General and the prosecutor, judge, and hanging jury of Hillary Clinton.

Yet, it is Ted Cruz who is "selfish."    During the campaign, Donald Trump threatened to "spill the beans" on the Senator's wife as he posted an extraorinarily unflattering photo of her, after which Ted labeled Trump "a sniveling coward." Later, the eventual nominee would suggest Cruz's father had a hand in the (John) Kennedy assassination; when he left the race, Cruz recognized Trump as "utterly immoral," as well as a "serial philander" and "pathological liar,"

Cruz's decision not to endorse Trump, however, strikes Chris Christie as selfish. The Governor added “I don’t understand how someone can present themselves as a person of integrity and then come into this room tonight and give that cute speech." Earlier Wednesday, I had argued

Tonight we will discover whether Ted Cruz, under mounting pressure from individuals who believe ideology and family must give way to the need to nominate a man the leader of his party publicly called out for racism, will support Donald Trump for President. We will learn whether Ted Cruz endorses an utterly amoral, sniveling coward.

Ted Cruz's ideological philosophy is as wrong as that of almost anyone. (Scott Walker accounts for the "almost.")  But as for integrity, he showed a lot more than the other politicians in Cleveland. As Charlie Pierce puts it

Cruz left the stage with no little dignity. (According to CNN's Dana Bash, he got confronted several times in the hallway by outraged Trump supporters.) He is one of the few people who have spoken here who can honestly say that. And I most emphatically include the candidate himself.










Share |

It Could Be Worse

In the Huffington Post, journalist/producer Joe Seidner writes

There is one question it would be wonderful for someone to ask Donald Trump at the Republican debate on Sept. 16:

What is wrong with you?

Seriously. Many of us want to know. It doesn't matter whether it is asked by one of the journalists or a fellow candidate or a heckler in the audience. It just needs to be asked.

Trump is a serial exaggerator, as Seidner notes, who is wont "to call everything about him the best, and to deem everyone who disagrees with him the worst" and  is "a sucker puncher who initiates attacks, a low blow artist, who divides the world into those who agree that he is great and everyone else who will be flattened."  Seidner wants the candidate to

Tell us in his own words. Ask him the question. Directly. What would he say? No doubt, "Nothing's wrong with me. I'm almost perfect." Or, "I'm rich, have a beautiful wife, fabulous children, a great life. What's wrong with you?" But it would be interesting to ask.

Oh sure, Trump is the egomaniacal,  insufferable braggart Seidner paints him as.   But the question of "What's going on inside the mind of someone who...." is a rhetorical question which can almost as easily be asked of the other candidate most Republicans think have a realistic chance of being their party's nominee. Ed O'Keefe of The Washington Post on Friday reported

Jeb Bush was the only announced presidential candidate to participate actively Friday in an event commemorating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- and he spent a few brief moments noting the work of a certain previous president.

Joining local military veterans and high school students in the town square here, Bush read the names of several dozen people killed in the terrorist attacks at New York's World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in Shanksville, Pa., but only after pausing to reflect on his brother George W. Bush.

"I'm proud of the president of the United States at the time, who unified our country in a way that was desperately needed and created a strategy to keep us safe," Jeb Bush said before reading several pages of names.

John Ellis Bush isn't the only Republican, not by a long shot, to claim President George W. Bush kept the nation "safe" from terrorism. However, other than perhaps Dick Cheney, he is the most prominent one, is running for President, and now has done so at an event honoring the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks.  The occasion commemorated the event which was the ultimate in endangering the United States- and President Bush's inability and/or unwillingness to do anything to prevent it. John might have noticed that, were he not delusional, dishonest, or crassly political.

Following Bush's decision to launch a war against Iraq while falsely implying Baghdad had something to do with the terrorist attacks, Bush did- briefly- help unify the nation.   Nonetheless, as events in the Mideast unfolded and the region became more unstable, that unity not only evaporated but reversed, leaving a fractured, disillusioned country.

So we can condemn Donald Trump all we wish, even consider him entertainment sideshow as unfortunately the Huffington Post has.  However, as Conor Lynch has observed,

That being said, if we take a look at Trump, beyond all of the controversial remarks from him and his supporters (i.e. “Go back to your country!”) and the despicable attack on immigrants, it becomes quite clear that a president Trump would actually be less dangerous than, say, a president Walker. In fact, just about every other major GOP candidate is probably more threatening to progress than Trump.

That is especially true of Scott Walker, whose campaign appears to be imploding, but also of John Ellis, still a clear and present danger (photo from AP/Jim Cole).

This blog will be on hiatus for a few days. Please come back late Thursday or early Friday.





Share |

Here Is Another Nice Mess He Is Getting Us Into

The surge in Iraq worked. No, not in the conventional sense, but in a political sense. Strategically, it was a failure, as Stephen Walt explained in 2009:

The surge had two main goals. The first goal was to bring the level of violence down by increasing U.S. force levels in key areas, forging a tactical alliance with cooperative Sunni groups, and shifting to a counterinsurgency strategy that emphasized population protection. This aspect of the surge succeeded, though it is still hard to know how much of the progress was due to increased force levels and improved tactics and how much was due to other developments, such as the prior “ethnic cleansing” that had separated the contending groups.

The second and equally important goal was to promote political reconciliation among the competing factions in Iraq. This goal was not achieved, and the consequences of that failure are increasingly apparent. What lies ahead is a long-delayed test of strength between the various contending groups, until a new formula for allocating political power emerges. That formula has been missing since before the United States invaded — that is, Washington never had a plausible plan for reconstructing a workable Iraqi state once it dismantled Saddam’s regime — and it will be up to the Iraqi people to work it out amongst themselves. It won’t be pretty.

In the last six years, it has become even less pretty, rather downright ugly. But, the surge has been a tremendous success politically.  So effective has promulgation of the surge myth been that even Barack Obama, opponent of the Iraq War when he was a state senator and had no responsibility for foreign affairs, told Bill O'Reilly in 2008 "I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated.... I've already said it succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."

Politico reports that John Ellis Bush (working on his 36th revised remarks about Iraq) "maintained that ISIS has spread because of Obama’s decision not to maintain more of a military presence in Iraq and criticized his decision not to keep between 8-10,000 troops there, instead of the 3,000 now on the ground." John Ellis, with George Walker as a foreign policy adviser, is significantly exposed on the war. However, a less vulnerable Scott Walker, the leader in Iowa poll(s), similarly now claims (on his Facebook page)

Any president would have likely taken the same action President Bush did with the information he had, even Hillary Clinton voted for it, but knowing what we know now, we should not have gone into Iraq. President Bush deserves enormous credit for ordering the surge, a courageous move that worked. 

Unfortunately, President Obama and Secretary Clinton hastily withdrew our troops, threw away the gains of the surge, and embarked on a broader policy of pivoting away from the Middle East and leading from behind that has created chaos in the region.

The GOP learned, quickly, following John E. Bush's fumbling of the issue last week.   Few if any Democratic politicians have bothered to speak the truth about the surge and it may come back to haunt them.  Instead of biting the bullet by recognizing defeat and withdrawing the American soldiers from Iraq, President Bush delayed the day of reckoning . The genius of the surge was that, in Walt's words, it was "a well-intentioned attempt to staunch the violence temporarily and let President Bush hand the problem off to his successor. "

Whereupon Barack Obama took the easy way out and praised the surge, perhaps to establish foreign policy gravitas, or to appear bipartisan, or to avoid an argument with O'Reilly.  But Democrats, beware: circa 1952, the myth was that another Democratic President, Harry S. Truman, "lost China." Walker has given fair warning that the GOP foreign policy theme in 2016 will be "Obama lost China" or the "Obama-Clinton Administration" lost Iraq. It is historically inaccurate, but that probably won't matter; the groundwork has been laid. Thanks, Barack.

Share |

Freedom, Sometimes

In early March we could read in the (Milwaukee) Journal-Sentinel

Gov. Scott Walker on Tuesday embraced a move to ban abortion after 20 weeks after repeatedly declining to spell out where he stood on the issue in last year's re-election campaign.

Wisconsin Right to Life has touted as its top priority legislation that has yet to be introduced that would prevent women from seeking abortions in most cases after 20 weeks.

Walker said in last year's campaign he opposed abortion, but refused to say whether he supported banning the procedure after 20 weeks. At one stage, he ran an ad saying earlier restrictions he approved were aimed at patient safety and that he understood the decision to terminate a pregnancy was an "agonizing one."

"I'm pro-life, so that part shouldn't shock anybody," he told Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editors and reporters in October. "It doesn't shock anybody, the legislation I've signed in the past."

In a Tuesday letter, he addressed specific legislation head on.

"As the Wisconsin legislature moves forward in the coming session, further protections for mother and child are likely to come to my desk in the form of a bill to prohibit abortions after 20 weeks," his letter said. "I will sign that bill when it gets to my desk and support similar legislation on the federal level.

"I was raised to believe in the sanctity of life and I will always fight to protect it."

The letter was on Walker's campaign letterhead and released by the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group.

Governor Walker evidently has undergone a conversion on this matter of freedom.  This now is featured on Scott Walker's Twitter page:

It is accompanied by the comment (emphasis his) "We're not about to give up the fight for freedom. RT if you want the next generation to have it BETTER than us. -TW

Or perhaps he still is undecided on this freedom thing.  Mr. Walker is scheduled to meet religious conservatives in Washington, D.C. next week to convince them he is really, truly dedicated to smashing abortion rights and same-sex marriage. So much for the concept of freedom.






Share |

Nor Will They Admit To Wanting To Bomb, Bomb Iran

A general framework for a nuclear deal with Iran has been struck, and opinions vary, as expected; and they vary as expected. One exception might be Anthony Cordesman, a former national security aide to John McCain, who says

It should be the subject of objective analysis of the agreement, our intelligence and future capabilities to detect Iran's actions, the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) capabilities to verify, and enforcement provisions if Iran should cheat. No perfect agreement was ever possible and it is hard to believe a better option was negotiable. In fact, it may be a real victory for all sides: A better future for Iran, and greater security for the United States, its Arab partners, Israel, and all its other allies.

Still, the response from Repub politicians ran the gamut from ridiculous to irresponsible, or from irresponsible to ridiculous. Spanning both descriptions would be the comment of Scott Walker, CEO of the Koch Brothers' Midwest subsidiary.  On March 26, prior to the agreement

In an interview on Hugh Hewitt's radio show, the host asked Walker whether he would “disown” any agreement between the U.S. and Iran that allows for uranium enrichment if he wins the presidency in 2016.

“Absolutely,” Walker said. “On Day 1.”

Ted Cruz has made much the same boast, a safe one for folks entering a GOP presidential primary, and Steve M, with tongue barely in cheek, remarks

But the candidates could top this if they wanted to. Remember, for instance, that the new president will be sworn in on January 20, 2017, but the new Congress will convene on January 3. Couldn't a candidate outdo Walker and Cruz by saying that, if Congress passes a declaration of war against Iran between January 3 and January 20, not only will he (or she) abrogate the deal, he (she) will also sign that declaration of war right there on the podium, immediately after taking the oath of office?

More reasonable the likes of Cruz and Walker is Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, who as chairperson of the Foreign Relations Committee argues "If a final agreement is reached, the American people, through their elected representatives, must have the opportunity to weigh in to ensure the deal truly can eliminate the threat of Iran’s nuclear program and hold the regime accountable.”  Not waiting to determine whether the deal is a good one, Corker's colleague from Arkansas, freshman Tom Cotton, wants to “work with [his] colleagues in the Senate to protect America from this very dangerous proposal."

Though a right-wing site, The Daily Signal has helpfully noted that presidents have executive authority to cut deals with foreign nations- and increasingly have done so.  It helpfully points out that from 1839 to 1889, 52.5% of international agreements were executive agreements. From 1889 to 1939, the corresponding figure was 63.6% and from 1939 to 1989, 94.3%.

As the table (from the same site) below indicates, the last eight presidents have been quite fond of executive agreements. And least so has been Barack Obama, the most Saint Ronnie.

So here is a proposition to Tom Cotton, who in capturing the Republican id well, probably has a bright future in his party; and to Cruz, Walker, and every other GOP presidential aspirant, none of whom will suggest support for the resolution the US and European nations have come to with Iran. Demonstrate a little consistency and courage: advocate legislation which would require the current president and all subsequent presidents to submit to the U.S. Senate approval of all international agreements, as currently applies to treaties. (Or to be really slick, they could demand Senate approval if the other party were on the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, of which Iran is one of only four.)

It will be a sub-zero day in Miami before any of them steps up and does that.  But it would be refreshing if one of them did, or even if a reporter were to ask the hopefuls, muscles bulging and testosterone soaring (even you, Carly Fiorina) if they would support such fundamental change. Then when no one agrees, the mainstream media once again can neglect to note that opposing a Democratic president because he or she is a Democrat is nothing less than Republican gospel.



                                    HAPPY EASTER            HAPPY PASSOVER




Share |

Cinematic Foreign Policy

Desperate for a puff interview to prove his foreign policy bonafides, Scott Walker appeared on Hugh Hewitt's radio program on Wednesday. and this exchange took place:

SW:.... Think about how screwed up that is. I remember the movie in the 80s, Trading Places…
HH: Right.

SW: …you know, with Dan Akroyd and Eddie Murphy, it’s like Iran and Israel are trading places in the sequel. In the eyes of this president, our ally is supposed to be Israel. Our adversary has been historically Iran. And yet this administration completely does it the other way around. We need to call radical Islamic terrorism for what it is, and a commander-in-chief who’s willing to act.

Joan Walsh comments "No word on which nation is Aykroyd and which is Murphy; hoping other reporters will follow up. (If Walker finds that metaphor doesn’t work, he can play around with 'Freaky Friday.')"  Charles Pierce finds "Personally, I don't think Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reminds me of Denholm Elliott but, then again, I am not the geopolitical whiz kid that the Talleyrand of Wauwatosa is." As he reduces the Middle East to a movie (photo of Akyroyd and Murphy from Trading Places, and of Scott Walker, from AP/Mark Humphrey), Walker's take on the region is ludicrously simplistic and misleading. Speaking to Rachel Maddow on Thursday, NBC's Richard Engel explained

The U.S. in Iraq -- we`ll just take Iraq. The U.S. right now is helping this mission in Tikrit, which is being backed by the militias, and as you said they are potentially going to boycott that operation, but the U.S. is backing the operation led by the militias. That`s in Iraq.

In Syria, the U.S. is fighting against Iran and is an enemy of Iran, which supports Hezbollah and supports the government of Bashar Assad. But in Syria, the U.S. is also fighting with Iran against ISIS.

So, in Iraq, we are against Iran -- sorry -- it`s even confusing for me and I`ve done this for 20 years. In Iraq, we are fighting with Iran. In Syria, we are fighting both with and against Iran. And in Yemen now, we are backing Saudi Arabia and Egypt and this other coalition, which is 
taking a strong stance against Iran.

But we say we`re not going to get deeply involved we are just going to kinds of assist with some intelligence, while at the same time huge negotiations, profoundly important negotiations are underway in Switzerland with Iran.

One only hopes Governor Walker is trying to dumb down foreign policy for primary voters and that he really understands there are more than two nation,s in the world's most turbulent region, which are involved in hostiities.  We can start out asking him about Sunnis and Shiites, Hutsis and Wahabbis. At least it would give him an opportunity once again to tell us how he can beat ISIS because he beat down the unions in Wisconsin.

Share |

No Cognitive Dissonance Here

You will be forgiven for wondering, at times, what it must like to be a conservative Republican. Being of that faith means a lot of things, one of which apparently is the tendency toward self-delusion.

In June, 2014 a contributing editor at National Review, Quin Hillyer, was convinced he understood American exceptionalism and who was undermining it when he argued

Part of the attack is cultural, with radicals running our colleges, anti-competitive nonsense peddled in our elementary schools and playgrounds, filth dominating the entertainment industry, traditional faith sneered at (and increasingly disfavored by public policy), and the idea of American exceptionalism (along with appreciation for its constituent parts) denied from the Oval Office itself.

Hillyer believed the USA no longer was considered the world's dominant power as

.... America’s traditional strengths are terribly imperiled abroad while not just eroding, but being chipped away at, from within. Everything that made us what we once were is under attack. People feel it. They see it. They understand it. They fear it. And, in hushed tones, they talk about it. 

This is the ongoing legacy of Barack Obama. The question is, as long as he is president, how do we stop it from happening?

Monday, the day before the Prime Minister of Israel would give his speech to Congress aimed at undermining the President of the USA and enhancing his own re-election prospects, Hillyer chose to contrast the week-kneed Obama with the strong-willed Benjamin Netanyahu. "While Barack Obama babbles about the supposedly 'legitimate grievances,' of those who turn to jihad,"  Hillyer wrote,

Right now, nobody on the world stage speaks for civilization the way Netanyahu does....

Benjamin Netanyahu of course speaks first for Israel, but he speaks also for you and for me, for decency and humaneness, and for vigilance and strength against truly evil adversaries. Congress, by inviting him, is wise. Obama, by opposing him, is horribly wrong. And the civilized world, if it ignores him, will be well-nigh suicidal.

He says a foreign leader, not the President of the United States (US Constitution, Article II, Section 2) "speaks also for you and for me."  Of course, this is following the cue from the Awesome Man himself, Netanyahu, who three weeks ago declared “I went to Paris not just as the prime minister of Israel but as a representative of the entire Jewish people" (helpfully rebuked by Senator Dianne Feinstein, below).









But today's award for self-delusion goes to Scott Walker. Slamming Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign, Walker previously contended  "Ronald Reagan would never have uttered the words 'self-deportation.'" The other day on Fox News Sunday, he maintained "Well, I don't believe in amnesty. Part of the reason why I made that a firm position is that I look at the way that this president has mishandled that issue."

"This president" has not handled the issue nearly as adroitly as, say, the Man of 666, Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6).   A few months ago, the Associated Press' Andrew Taylor reminded us

Nearly three decades ago, there was barely a peep when Reagan and Bush used their authority to extend amnesty to the spouses and minor children of immigrants covered by the 1986 law.

In 1986, Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families.

Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. In 1987, Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation.


So Scott Walker doesn't "believe in amnesty," claims "unlike Romney, Reagan connected with the daily struggles of ordinary Americans," and idolizes the man largely responsible for two (2) programs of amnesty for illegal immigrants.  For so many conservative Repubs, simultaneously holding two contradictory viewpoints is not cause for reconsideration or re-examination, but simply de rigueur.





Share |

Some Form Of Legalization. Or Whatever.

Greg Sargent is all excited about what he views as moderating opinions of Republican presidential aspirants on immigration. Or maybe not excited, but at least intrigued, as he writes

Bush’s suggestion today that he supports legalization — combined with his reflexive nodding along as Hannity demanded the border be secured first — puts him in this same vague space. Marco Rubio, who previously supported the Senate bill, has also reverted to this same place. Obviously CPAC was not the place to roll out detailed policy proposals, and it’s way too early in the process to expect specifics. But one surprise about the 2016 GOP field has been that, unlike many House Republicans, most of the contenders actually do appear open to supporting some form of legalization or other. 

"Some form of legalization or other,"  Chris Christie has avoided answering questions about immigration and John Kasich seems confused. But when you cut through the confusing statements of Repub hopefuls, this is what those contenders say about immigration, as culled from the National Journal and other sources:

- Rand Paul:  "assimilation" and normalization after ensuring border security;
- Ted Cruz: no citizenship but perhaps "a path to legal status"
- John Ellis Bush: "Let’s do it. Let’s do it, man. Let’s control the border. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what a great nation has to do.”)
-Marco Rubio: securing the border first is "the only way forward"
-Bobby Jindal: President Obama "just needs to man up and secure our border.”
-Ben Carson: "Whoever wins in 2016....should make it their goal to seal that border within a year" (great surgeon, awful grammarian)
-Scott Walker: "First and foremost, you've got to secure that border or none of these plans make any sense."
- Rick Perry: according to a spokesperson, "believes we must secure the border first before addressing immigration reform. After the border is secure, we can have a conversation.."
-Mike Huckabee: "....immigration reform should start with repealing Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders and securing our border
-Rick Santorum: is "a strident opponent of a general pathway to citizenship"
-Carly Fiorina: legalization but not "full citizenship" (as National Journal put it)
-Lindsay Graham: "a pathway to citizenship after we secure our borders"

"Secure the borders first" is their lifeline and none will endorse citizenship. Walker, as close as there is to a Repub frontrunner at present, was asked Sunday about a path to citizenship and replied "I believe there’s a way you can do that. First and foremost, you have to secure that border, or none of these plans make any sense." (Videos below are from a month ago.) Pleased, Sargent tweeted "key to Walker's immigration comments: He said 'there's a way' to get to legalization, if border secured first."


"Nearly all of the Republicans talk like that," Steve M. recognizes,

because Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush weren't immigration hardliners, because many of their big donors aren't immigration hardliners, and because a lot of them tried to win a bit of Hispanic support in past elections. But if we elect a Republican president next year, that president will be dealing with anti-immigration zealots in his own party just as Bush did during his presidency, and just as John Boehner is doing now.

"If border secured first," Walker cautions, because as he and his fellow Repubs realize the border simply will not be secured- ever.  If it is- and that's highly unlikely- it would be in some far off future, with many circumstances intervening. By that time, no one would hold any Repub to his/her vague promise to do something or other about what no politician seriously believes ever will happen.  And Laura Ingraham aside, most Republicans have no interest in cutting off the supply of cheap labor, while Democrats will not block blocking immigration from south of the Texas border.

Greg Sargent is thrilled a likely viable presidential candidate has suggested a way to get to legalization. Even he is not focused on citizenship because, well... he must have some reason.





 

Walker Leading The Red Meat Primary

Perception is reality, some people say. Actually, perception isn't reality. If it were reality, it would be spelled "reality.".

So Scott Walker recently claimed

I have two sons. … I know all of you as parents feel the same way. I want a commander-in-chief who will do everything in their power to ensure the threat from radical Islamic terrorists will not wash up on American soil. We will have someone who leads and ultimately will send the message that will protect American soil but “Do not take this upon freedom-loving people here or anywhere around the world.” We need a leader with that kind of confidence. If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world.

Some conservatives, astonishingly and boldly, criticized Walker's remarks. Once and possible future GOP candidate Rick Perry noticed "These are Americans (and) to try to make the relationship between them and the unions is inappropriate.” The National Review's Jim Geraghty found Walker's comment "insulting to the protesters, a group I take no pleasure in defending," one which "earned plenty of criticism but is "not ISIS." "The protesters in Wisconsin, asserted Geraghty, "so furiously angry over Walker’s reforms and disruptive to the procedures of passing laws, earned plenty of legitimate criticism. But they’re not ISIS."

The Republican critics, though bold given their audience of elites which believes pro-union protesters may be worse than ISIS, at least did not argue they would harm the Wisconsin governor's presidential prospects. Meanwhile, Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall stated "Walker managed to come off as offensive, callow and silly, all at the same time" while Firedoglake's GS Wright maintained "Walker either genuinely thinks unions are truly as wicked as ISIS or is incapable of articulating himself without saying something dumb and offensive."

Skepticism of Walker's comment as strategy extends even to those who ostensibly defend the governor.  John Dickerson of Slate argues the Walker argument

"is reductionist foreign policy aimed at protecting every free country across the globe is a little trickier than that- and it's a logical fallacy, but it's not a comparison.The logical fallacy is that strength in one category can be transferred to another. (You may know its cousin: If we can put a man on the moon … ) It’s also a familiar candidate gambit.

He adds, nevertheless, "At the start of his CPAC remarks, Walker said that President Obama 'thinks we grow the economy by growing Washington.' That’s not exactly a complete and fair rendering of the president’s views. Walker has just now gotten a taste of what it’s like being president."

And if he keeps doing this sort of thing, he may get halfway to president (in a sense, more than halfway) by winning his party's nomination. Steve M. quotes Laura Ingraham at CPAC (in video below, beginning at approximately 4:20) stating

But we have to realize, my friends, you go into battle with the political system you have. And we already know that the media and much of the donor class is hostile to conservatism. And guess what? That's been true for a very long time. They were joking on MSNBC this morning about Scott Walker's comment yesterday....

My friend Craig Shirley reminded me of this. In 1980, Ronald Reagan was campaigning—I think it was before the New Hampshire primary -- and he said, I know how to deal with the Soviets. I can bring them to the negotiating table. After all, I had to deal with the old studio chiefs in Hollywood. And the media, just like they did with Scott Walker, went after him. Oh, how could he compare dealing with the studio heads? And Ronald Reagan basically said, 'I have a sense of humor, and you don't.









Recognizing what the GOP has become, SM comments

Even if Ingraham is trying to help Walker to do a climbdown, she's saying his remark is being pounced on by the same sorts of evil media liberals who hated and underestimated Reagan, the greatest human being who ever walked the earth. 

How the hell does that comparison leave Walker with any lasting damage as far as rank-and-file Republicans are concerned? If you say Walker joked the way Reagan joked, how does he lose face with the voters he seeks?

SM believes Walker is hitting the sweet spot with the GOP voter base. And if he is doing so, it appears, he is accomplishing it without alienating members of the donor class with no talk of "legitimate rape," without saying their gay daughter should not be able to marry her friend, and without even suggesting any specific military response to ISIS (or any terrorist group). SM continues

By the way, I can't find Shirley's anecdote online. I searched a number of ways, including within the texts of Shirley's voluminous history of the 1980 campaign. My search skills may be failing me, but if I'm right, this never actually happened.

Then again, Reagan liked to make up stories that "proved" his point, didn't he? Reagan was criticized in the media for this, but it never seemed to do him serious harm.

Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6) was the master of anecdote, some truthful and some made up, the latter no obstacle.   As of now, the only Republican contemplating a presidential run who has been at all courageous or "tough" (as Donald Trump would put it) is Rick Perry.  But his party's voters aren't looking for a candidate who will call out another politician for blasting middle-class and working-class people.  They're looking for someone who is certain who the villains are, and that they're all the same.






Share |

Something Else For The Right To Whine About

Dan Balz and Robert Costa odThe Washington Post write

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a prospective Republican presidential contender, said Saturday he does not know whether President Obama is a Christian.

“I don’t know,” Walker said in an interview at the JW Marriott hotel in Washington, where he was attending the winter meeting of the National Governors Association.

Told that Obama has frequently spoken publicly about his Christian faith, Walker maintained that he was not aware of the president’s religion.

“I’ve actually never talked about it or I haven’t read about that,” Walker said, his voice calm and firm. “I’ve never asked him that,” he added. “You’ve asked me to make statements about people that I haven’t had a conversation with about that. How [could] I say if I know either of you are a Christian?”

Walker said such questions from reporters are reflective of a broader problem in the nation’s political-media culture, which he described as fixated on issues that are not relevant to most Americans.

“To me, this is a classic example of why people hate Washington and, increasingly, they dislike the press,” he said. “The things they care about don’t even remotely come close to what you’re asking about.”

Walker said he does not believe that most Americans care about such matters.“People in the media will [judge], not everyday people,” he said. “I would defy you to come to Wisconsin. You could ask 100 people, and not one of them would say that this is a significant issue.”

“To me, this is a classic example of why people hate Washington and, increasingly, they dislike the press,” he said. “The things they care about don’t even remotely come close to what you’re asking about.”

Steve M. realizes "That's nonsense, of course -- the right-wing base is obsessed with the question of what Obama believes in (short answer: not America, not capitalism, and not Christianity). The wingers got thrills up their legs when he said this."

They did, especially because Walker combined it with a slap at both Washington and the press, always a cheap thrill for Repub primary voters. Narrow-mindness aside, however, a portion of the popular base is not even aware that Barack Obama is a Christian.

Before his departure, Barack Obama was (in)famously a member of Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ.  The governor himself recognizes the UCC (although he may not want to admit it, videos below), a mainline Protestant denomination.  Walker himself was raised by parents who were active in an Iowa church of the American Baptist Church, another mainline Protestant denomination. Many of his supporters, however- most of whom are Roman Catholic or non-denominational Christians- simply may be unacquainted with the UCC.

Further, to many of the latter Christians, whether Barack Obama (or anyone) is a "Christian" hinges less on whether the  latter is officially a Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox Christian. That is, for instance, why a Christian witnessing to another individual- even if a member of some Christian sect- will refer to the person as as simply a Christian, not a Christian, or in the process of becoming a Christian. They are concerned primarily with whether the subject is a "believer."

Of course, that is no excuse for Scott Walker not simply to demonstrate leadership and assure his fans that President Obama is a Christian, nor for Balz and Costa not to probe Walker's refusal to give a straight answer, nor for the reaction of many right-wingers.

A Red State diarist agreed with Walker and believes the question was "another 'trap the Republican and make him look bad' moment from the press."  (At least he didn't say "media liberal.") Jon Gabriel tweets "For the love of God how is, 'Do you think Obama is a Christian' a relevant question?"   Kemberlee Kaye of Legal Insurrection blogged "How Walker’s opinion on the matter is remotely relevant or newsworthy is unclear to normal people."

If it wasn't a relevant question before, Walker's refusal to answer, rather than laying the question to rest, makes it so. (Afterward, Walker's spokeswoman stated "of course, the governor thinks the President is a Christian." His theocratic supporters noticed he did not retract his statement.) And if a likely presidential candidate believes the President of the United States of America is lying about his faith, that is relevant.  But conservatives must play the victim, or turn in their membership card.





'''''




Share |

All For One, And That One Is The Corporation

It's all because of liberals whom, according to Rush Limbaugh, include Rahm Emanuel. Complaining about the National Weather Service, Limbaugh on Tuesday remarked

Well, a couple of weeks ago we had a story here, folks, where the school board president, one of the faculty members, two women actually, sent a letter home to the parents telling them to let their kids bring canned food to school in case a shooter with a gun showed up. They were going to teach the kids how to throw cans of food at a potential armed intruder. So those of you that went out and stocked up on the canned goods on the advice of Mayor de Blasio, you are prepared for intruders showing up and being able to frighten them back out of your home.

I don't know, folks.  It's just -- I know.  I know.  Some of you think I chalk everything up to liberalism, and you think I need to give it a rest.  I'm telling you, that's why this happens.  I say all the time, don't doubt me.  I know these people.  It's all intertwined.  Crisis. Remember Rahm Emanuel: a crisis is too important to waste.

Notice Rush referred to "school board president"-  who would be a public servant- thus encouraging his audience to believe the public school system, as he has argued before, is failing. CNN reports

"We realize at first this may seem odd; however, it is a practice that would catch an intruder off-guard," the letter reads, according to CNN affiliate WRBL. "The canned food item could stun the intruder or even knock him out until the police arrive. The canned food item will give the students a sense of empowerment to protect themselves and will make them feel secure in case an intruder enters the classroom."

Chambers County School Superintendent Kelli Moore Hodge acknowledges that the middle school didn't educate people properly before sending the letter home, but she says the cans are a very small part of the training.

But as you already should suspect, it wasn't the school superintendent primarily responsible. Oh, no:

"The major point of the training (which is called ALICE - Alert, lockdown, inform, counter, and evacuate) is to be able to get kids evacuated and not be sitting ducks hiding under desks," Hodge wrote in an email.

Even if you can't escape and are barricaded behind closed doors to avoid the shooter, there are still steps to take to increase your safety, suggests an Auburn University ALICE video. Auburn is providing the training to the school district.

Once the door has been locked and barricaded and students have moved to an area out of sight, students should have a plan if the attacker breaks into the room.

That's when canned goods and other classroom items come into play.

"Start gathering several items you can use to protect yourself. Every room has something you can use to distract and defend from the aggressors' attack," says the Auburn video's narrator. "Communicate with others around you and tell them your plan. Don't wait until the aggressor gets into your safe area to have a plan of action."

Students can throw books, book bags, computers and, yes, those canned goods to distract any aggressor.

He'll be distracted as he doubles down in laughter.  The next time Alabamans complain, justifiably, that the canned goods defense is ridiculous, the public school administrator- a government employee- should leave the discomfort of providing an explanation to Auburn University. Alternatively, she should affix the blame where it belongs instead of shilling for a company or private university.

In a larger sense, the Democratic Party bears blame for covering for the private sector- as in failing to make clear that greedy financial institutions (rather than homeowners, as many people believe) were responsible for the financial meltdown of the last decade.

When Rick Santorum expounded on "blah people," he was ridiculed. But here (video, below) we have the face of anti-labor, anti-worker extremism saying  "... as Republicans we need to make the case that we're going to promote policies that promote and support and defend hard work in this company, in this country once again," he ought to be called out for conflating company and country, looking at the USA as just one big, private enterprise.

Santorum is a confused and somewhat backward fellow. However, Walker, master of humblebrag, committed a Freudian slip, expressing the guiding principle of the Repub Party and, increasingly, the nation's politicians. Public-private partnerships and turning the people's business over to for-profit operations, as the incident in Alabama indicates, is doing no good for anyone except the small number of people making off like bandits at the public's expense.

Share |