Full disclosure. Quite a while ago, I was presenting at a conference, and in response to a question about a patient's body habitus, I correctly, if opaquely, described her as "Rubenesque". This elicited a grin and a chuckle from the moderator, a mentor of mine, who responded, "You Northwestern guys (I'm an alumnus), your shit just doesn't stink!".
Well friends, if you didn't know already, with precious few exceptions, in politics, it all stinks.
The alien invasion I've been waiting for hasn't stopped Trump or Clinton from essentially securing their party's nominations, so most of the media circus has now pivoted to the general election. But before we go there, today's blog takes a look back as how the heck we got to this dismal state.
We start with the GOP. I don't know who's cousin got the job as the Republican's pollster, but I think the belief that there are a lot of "true conservatives" out there hasn't seen Ted Cruz's list of Facebook friends (few, none?). Unpleasant, uncompromising, narcissistic, smarmy. Those aren't typical qualities of a Presidential candidate, and they won't be this time. But that raises the more interesting question, "why Trump, and not Kasich/Bush/Rubio/etc..."? I think for many, there's a surprisingly large rift between what they want, and what they're willing to do to get it, a divide that gets larger the more fear and anxiety play into the mix. Socioeconomic anxiety, security fears, there really is no difference if these are real or imagined, once the anxiety switch is turned on the imagination will take it the rest of the way. Using Bush as the prototypical example, sensible and moderate approaches to policy positions, despite being backed by super PACs of rich folks unaffected by economic strife, were no match for a pervasive anxiety amongst "regular" Republican voters that they were in some way being left behind by an already-slowing economy. Neatly filling this void, and need, was the Donald, who has cleverly chosen to run as the "blame aliens, I'll fix it, America first" candidate. In this current climate, that's proven to be a winning solution so far. Trump's challenge heading into the general is if he can bring this same offer of salvation to a broad enough swath of America to beat Hillary. Smart money says, "no way", but I think it might be closer than those people, who wrote Trump off from the start, realize.
The same "logic" (that's a stretch) applies to the Democrats. Yes, of course we want to save the whales. Of course we want LGBT rights. Of course we want clean energy. Wait, no fracking? What about my job? Black lives matter? In my neighborhood? The rampant idealism of Bernie Sanders, with enormous appeal to those under 50 (Used to be 20. Then 30. Then 40. Now 50) was IMO a "better angels" campaign. Sorry, but being a better angel has historically proven a tough slog (eg. martyrs). But I think the reality, and a slim majority of Democratic voters, have said "no thank you, the status quo will do just fine, see you next election". Why on this side? "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't". I think there was an undercurrent of fear that a Sanders presidency would have proven to have been TOO democratic for some, if it meant sharing some of the wealth. Hillary may be our untrustworthy, e-mail serving, Wall Street lecturing, military hawk, but she's OUR untrustworthy, e-mail serving, ... you get the idea. Supporters, Democrats or otherwise, will be willing to support her, especially if they fear a Trump presidency. Translated, that means most non-white minority voting groups will be firmly in the Clinton camp, along with many of the other groups that Trump has slighted during the primary campaign. An intriguing question on this side is, "how energized will Democrats be in the general election". My prediction is, no where near 2008, but this season that might not be necessary. While Trump is the gift that keeps on giving, I still believe he's a much stronger general election candidate than Cruz would have ever been. And Joe Biden continues to kick himself.
So in summary, this will be an election about fear (the polite term, akin to "Rubenesque", is "anxiety", but let's call it what it is, pure, distilled, fear). Fear first for economic security, made manifest by jobs and job opportunities. Next is social fear, "can I keep up with the Jones, or at least ahead of the Smiths?". Much further down the list are fears of ISIS, or fears of trans-people using a public restroom (really?). Not making the list, for voters at least, are future Supreme Court nominees and the relationship with Russia. Sorry, I'm a junkie (hence the blog) and even I don't care. Voters don't. Care.
We'll wrap it up with prediction time, because I like putting picks in writing. VP picks. A month ago I would have said Julian Castro for Hillary's VP, but upon further reflection this was a pick from my own Crazy Town. With a likely Hispanic vote tally north of 80%, Castro would be a wasted VP pick from Clinton. Maybe if the GOP candidate was Rubio, but it's not. So my Monopoly money today is on either Tim Kaine or Jim Webb, the current and former Senators from Virginia. While they're both white guys, Webb has a military background, and that would help Hillary in the general amongst men and veterans. For Trump, many say he needs to pick a woman to help him against Hillary, but I have a hard time seeing him getting along with a woman. Period. Jeff Sessions is another old white guy, and he's a Republican establishment Senator (but no name recognition, however). Paul Ryan is a no-way, Kasich burned that bridge, and Jeb would only play Brutus to Trump's Caesar. Today I'm going out on a limb and saying Chris Christie. Mostly because I would find it endlessly amusing (can you imagine the debates!), and it would open up Attorney General to Rudy Giuliani.
Well, next week it's on to a Trump romp (yugge!) in Indiana, and some inconsequential primaries on the Democrats side. Then the real fun begins... Thanks for reading!
Friday, April 29, 2016
Monday, April 25, 2016
Authenticity vs Hypocrisy - New York and where do we go from here
Well that's been an interesting week. While waiting for the New York primary to wind down before blogging, there were the following (in chronological order): Jesus Lunch, Prince dying, Jake Arrieta no-hitter. But we'll steer the ship back to the political scene, 'cause that's how this blog rolls.
Full disclosure. As far as I'm concerned, the races on both sides, Democrat and Republican, baring an indictment or alien invasion, are pretty much over. It'll be Clinton and Trump. The establishment deck has been stacked against Bernie from the start, and Cruz is simply too unlikable to be a serious alternative to the entertaining Donald. But that doesn't mean the remainder of the primary season isn't without plot lines that may extend suspense into the fall, such as "who will win and why". And today's news about a Cruz/Kasich alliance makes VP Kasich now officially a non-starter.
New York was a salvation of sorts for both Trump and Clinton. For Trump, it was very much home turf, and the results bore that out. For Clinton, less mentioned was that Hillary's margin of victory over Bernie was LESS than her margin over Obama in '08, when she was the current New York senator. So all in all, not the end game that the Clinton supported were hoping for, as Bernie had since doubled down on staying in til the end. The big ongoing question is what happens to the Sanders voters in the general.
I listen with great amusement to spokespeople and surrogates for candidates talk about how their candidate wants a debate about "policies" versus "personal attacks". Pretty much that's a code word that a line of attack is working, and the affected candidate is trying to defend him/herself until they find a suitable counter-attack. But since negative attacks work, what can we expect in a Trump-Clinton match up?
As the title of the post suggests, in a reality where very few voters are truly swayable in a general election, I think it will be less (much) about the candidate's policy positions than more "emotive" qualities such as perceptions about character and personality, all to drive turn out. Simply put, if a voter places Second Amendment gun right protections as a top priority, or conversely a desire for minimal restrictions on abortions, well... those voters are already set. I just becomes the question if they're committed enough to show up and vote. "Intensity" is a huge unknown variable, and I hope to post on that later.
So where will be the intangible battle lines in a Clinton/Trump match up? Trump, never subtle, has already signaled that there would be no off-limits topics in his salvo against Hillary, and there's no reason to suspect he's bluffing. While specifics are plentiful (e-mail server, Benghazi, Bill, Rose Law, Goldman Sachs, Iraq, etc...), there is a common thread that may likely tie together the sum of the Trump attacks: authenticity. In most cases "trust" can be used synonymously, but authenticity suggests, "is what she's saying what she means?". No one, and I mean no one, would ever suggest Clinton is not highly intelligent, even her strongest critics grant her that. But what really dogs her is the nagging impression that she's simply not "one of us", that her life experience (First lady, Secy of State) combined with her own statements ("dead broke") place her at odds with the perceptions of most Americans, even the rich ones. A more recent illustrative example has been during the primary season, where she's been critiqued for her speech making (or screech-making) at rallies. Her defenders claim it's all sexist, that male candidates don't undergo similar scrutiny. But comparing Hillary to other women candidates out there, Sarah Palin wasn't' criticized the same way, and she's wack-a-doodle. Clinton's speech impediment isn't content, it's delivery, and she's so mechanical that she makes Siri seem like Mr. Rogers. Having watched more than a few of her speeches, I find her cadence so unnatural it's a distraction from the content of her talks. That cadence (or lack thereof) absolutely kills her applause lines, like trying to clap during a Japanese Godzilla movie dubbed in English, you don't naturally know when the lips move, or when you're supposed to clap. Either way, she simply doesn't come across as "authentic", maybe even to those that love her.
But... it's never all bad when your likely opponent is Donald Trump. If Hillary lacks authenticity, the Donald is perhaps burdened by having too much. One of the many downsides of having no discernible filter between ego and mouth is that...there's no filter between ego and mouth. I think many Americans are wondering, "do I want a President that's a looser canon than I am?". I find the interesting contrast between Trump and Clinton is not "is one smarter than the other". but rather, "who better reflects my views"? And stylistically, Trump is a challenge, even if you can get past his controversial policy positions. He's simply so unlike any candidate before. Howard Dean's "scream" would be a rounding error in the ledger of Trump outrageous remarks. But what is indisputable is that, on the GOP side, he's cleaning up in the vote totals. None of the other candidates even comes close, regardless on how they try to spin it. Why, why, why? In a season where unrest is bubbling just beneath the surface, maybe people are looking for someone that isn't afraid to air some non-politically correct opinions, and the PC pushback from other candidates and talking heads only adds fuel to the fire. I think the challenge to Trump heading into the general is how does his reconcile some really outrageous statements in the face of continued criticism. Thus far he's be successful in doubling down on the rhetoric, but "build a wall" and "let's keep Muslims out" seem to be very difficult policies to enact in a real world.
Tomorrow marks another string of primaries, and more fodder to the cannon. Thanks for following, and we'll pick it up again soon!
Full disclosure. As far as I'm concerned, the races on both sides, Democrat and Republican, baring an indictment or alien invasion, are pretty much over. It'll be Clinton and Trump. The establishment deck has been stacked against Bernie from the start, and Cruz is simply too unlikable to be a serious alternative to the entertaining Donald. But that doesn't mean the remainder of the primary season isn't without plot lines that may extend suspense into the fall, such as "who will win and why". And today's news about a Cruz/Kasich alliance makes VP Kasich now officially a non-starter.
New York was a salvation of sorts for both Trump and Clinton. For Trump, it was very much home turf, and the results bore that out. For Clinton, less mentioned was that Hillary's margin of victory over Bernie was LESS than her margin over Obama in '08, when she was the current New York senator. So all in all, not the end game that the Clinton supported were hoping for, as Bernie had since doubled down on staying in til the end. The big ongoing question is what happens to the Sanders voters in the general.
I listen with great amusement to spokespeople and surrogates for candidates talk about how their candidate wants a debate about "policies" versus "personal attacks". Pretty much that's a code word that a line of attack is working, and the affected candidate is trying to defend him/herself until they find a suitable counter-attack. But since negative attacks work, what can we expect in a Trump-Clinton match up?
As the title of the post suggests, in a reality where very few voters are truly swayable in a general election, I think it will be less (much) about the candidate's policy positions than more "emotive" qualities such as perceptions about character and personality, all to drive turn out. Simply put, if a voter places Second Amendment gun right protections as a top priority, or conversely a desire for minimal restrictions on abortions, well... those voters are already set. I just becomes the question if they're committed enough to show up and vote. "Intensity" is a huge unknown variable, and I hope to post on that later.
So where will be the intangible battle lines in a Clinton/Trump match up? Trump, never subtle, has already signaled that there would be no off-limits topics in his salvo against Hillary, and there's no reason to suspect he's bluffing. While specifics are plentiful (e-mail server, Benghazi, Bill, Rose Law, Goldman Sachs, Iraq, etc...), there is a common thread that may likely tie together the sum of the Trump attacks: authenticity. In most cases "trust" can be used synonymously, but authenticity suggests, "is what she's saying what she means?". No one, and I mean no one, would ever suggest Clinton is not highly intelligent, even her strongest critics grant her that. But what really dogs her is the nagging impression that she's simply not "one of us", that her life experience (First lady, Secy of State) combined with her own statements ("dead broke") place her at odds with the perceptions of most Americans, even the rich ones. A more recent illustrative example has been during the primary season, where she's been critiqued for her speech making (or screech-making) at rallies. Her defenders claim it's all sexist, that male candidates don't undergo similar scrutiny. But comparing Hillary to other women candidates out there, Sarah Palin wasn't' criticized the same way, and she's wack-a-doodle. Clinton's speech impediment isn't content, it's delivery, and she's so mechanical that she makes Siri seem like Mr. Rogers. Having watched more than a few of her speeches, I find her cadence so unnatural it's a distraction from the content of her talks. That cadence (or lack thereof) absolutely kills her applause lines, like trying to clap during a Japanese Godzilla movie dubbed in English, you don't naturally know when the lips move, or when you're supposed to clap. Either way, she simply doesn't come across as "authentic", maybe even to those that love her.
But... it's never all bad when your likely opponent is Donald Trump. If Hillary lacks authenticity, the Donald is perhaps burdened by having too much. One of the many downsides of having no discernible filter between ego and mouth is that...there's no filter between ego and mouth. I think many Americans are wondering, "do I want a President that's a looser canon than I am?". I find the interesting contrast between Trump and Clinton is not "is one smarter than the other". but rather, "who better reflects my views"? And stylistically, Trump is a challenge, even if you can get past his controversial policy positions. He's simply so unlike any candidate before. Howard Dean's "scream" would be a rounding error in the ledger of Trump outrageous remarks. But what is indisputable is that, on the GOP side, he's cleaning up in the vote totals. None of the other candidates even comes close, regardless on how they try to spin it. Why, why, why? In a season where unrest is bubbling just beneath the surface, maybe people are looking for someone that isn't afraid to air some non-politically correct opinions, and the PC pushback from other candidates and talking heads only adds fuel to the fire. I think the challenge to Trump heading into the general is how does his reconcile some really outrageous statements in the face of continued criticism. Thus far he's be successful in doubling down on the rhetoric, but "build a wall" and "let's keep Muslims out" seem to be very difficult policies to enact in a real world.
Tomorrow marks another string of primaries, and more fodder to the cannon. Thanks for following, and we'll pick it up again soon!
Monday, April 18, 2016
What's up with the Jesus Lunch?
It occurred to me this morning that to not blog about the Jesus Lunch issue would be akin to ignoring a fire in my own backyard. While the main focus of the blog is to discuss politics, so many issues involving the Jesus Lunch and Middleton High School are political in nature, so that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Full disclosure. For non-local readers, here's a link summarizing the issue with the "Jesus Lunch":
Chicago Tribune article about "Jesus Lunch"
This happens to be my school district, and with a child at the High School, I've got some interest. Here's a brief summary. On City (not School) property immediately adjacent to the High School, a group of parents got a permit from the City to host a lunch, that happens to also promote a Christian message. The School has a long term, non-exclusive, lease with the City for same property, and contends, via an e-mail, that the "Jesus Lunch" group needs to comply with School policies regarding several things, including food handling, adult visitors on the campus, and activities that are not student-led. Specific mention in the e-mail is that "We (the District) are in no way interested in opposing religious practice in otherwise legal circumstances". Uh, sure, whatever you say.
Well here's how I see it. Starting with the "legality", apparently the lunch group has a permit from the City of Middleton to host lunch, so unless there's something misrepresented in the initial permit application, it's hard to see where there's a legal issue. The e-mail also leads off with a history of the lunch, and that it started on school property, moved and moved again finally to the current location. Here the e-mail mentions that the proselytizing "would have been allowable but would have required school administration to inform parents of any incentivizing of students to eat lunch free in exchange for attendance". Since the story broke last week, it's gotten picked up by national news outlets and lines are being drawn with "religious freedom" on one side and "separation of church and state" on the other, with the typical parties taking the typical sides. Let me see if I can present a different perspective.
Yea, it's proselytizing, duh, but is it breaking either a law or school policy? If on school property, I would absolutely think it would appropriately be disallowed (church/state, yada yada yada), but it's not. It's City property. Yes, the District has a lease, but the City also granted the group a permit, and from watching the City rep of TV it seems they don't appear inclined to rescind the permits granted to either group. And unless the permit granted to the lunch bunch included the prerequisite to comply with District/School policies, I think it's an uphill climb to enforce those policies on the group, including the food handling issues, etc... Public comments in the local media have included, "but when someone gets food poisoning...", and "how would they (lunch bunch) like it if there were an 'Islam Lunch'". Well, from where things sit now the District is absolutely off the hook if someone gets sick from lunch (besides, the campus is "open", so students are currently free to get food poisoning anywhere). Regarding the uproar (from either side) that if this were any other group that wasn't Christian-based, that's an interesting topic. I think that for many there is indeed a double standard, and that a non-Christian-based gathering would be less accepted by parents, and equally likely more-accepted by administration, despite denials from both sides.
So if not an anti-Christian sentiment on the part of the School District, then "why"? I think it comes down to control. I recently had a great discussion with a friend who contends that long-standing institutions risk developing such a focus on self-preservation that it risks supplanting the mission(s) of the institution itself and stifling growth and progress. I think that's as likely a motive behind the District's actions as any sort of "anti-Christian" sentiment, although I can't rule this "PC-based" impetus. The lunch group apparently consistently pulls about 400 students attending the weekly meals, which is roughly 20% of the student enrollment. As a School administrator, that's a pretty big chunk of students collectively out of the direct control of the District during the school day, and even if the food poisoning threat is spurious, any adverse issue occurring in conjunction with the lunch would undoubtably lead to claims that "the District didn't do anything about it", so here, the District's doing something about it.
What about the Jesus Lunch organizers? I don't have any basis to question their religious motivations, but apart from that I don't appreciate that they weren't welcoming, for whatever reasons, a fight with the District and/or the publicity. Just an observation, but their public response (not what the District has presented) has seemed to me almost gleefully standoffish, and I guess that's their prerogative.
So where do I stand in this local "culture war"? While I don't consider myself an "evangelical Christian" (please out of curiosity, let me know if you disagree!) I don't have a problem with the lunch, so long as it's not on School property (proper). Likewise, in-school promotion of the lunches (which I'm told does occur), I think is a violation of school policy and is wrong, regardless of who's doing it. So why the fuss? I think that religion/spirituality/religiosity for many is not an oft-discussed topic in the home, and for those who don't discuss it at home, dammed if they're going to have it discussed with their kids during the school day, Christian or otherwise. On the flipside, I think there are many families out there that are simply concerned (read, afraid) with what they perceive as a palpable disintegration of traditional social values, in and out of the school environment, and if a "Jesus Lunch" brings those values to light, all the better. But I'll add that I don't at all agree that "traditional values" equates with anti-LGBT or anti-anything. Sure there are some extremists, but there are always extremists on any side.
Do I have a solution? Oh hell yes (religious pun intended)! There's a "Jesus Lunch" scheduled for tomorrow, the police have already RSVP'ed and almost without a doubt the media will be in tow as well. The District has already said that they were not going to interfere with it, but both sides are lawyered up. Fine. But the following week happens to be Passover (April 22 - April 30, Jewish festival commemorating the liberation of the Jewish people from slavery in Egypt), which comes with a variety of dietary guidelines (think of it as Jewish Lent). While the Jewish population of Madison is very small (0.58%), it's not zero, and might switching things up and offering a Kosher meal service during Passover (open to all, as is the Jesus Lunch) serve to quell things between the warring factions? For the District, it could help address the "anti-religion" claims against them, while for the Jesus Lunch organizers, they would take a week off and demonstrate they're not evangelical at the expense of all other religions. Of course, it has to be off school property, and area temples (reform, conservative, orthodox, not my call) would have to be involved, but in the end it could help all sides save face in the scrum.
That's my take, I'll be back to fully blogging the aftermath of the New York primaries later this week. Thanks for reading, and of course, your comments are welcome and encouraged!
Full disclosure. For non-local readers, here's a link summarizing the issue with the "Jesus Lunch":
Chicago Tribune article about "Jesus Lunch"
This happens to be my school district, and with a child at the High School, I've got some interest. Here's a brief summary. On City (not School) property immediately adjacent to the High School, a group of parents got a permit from the City to host a lunch, that happens to also promote a Christian message. The School has a long term, non-exclusive, lease with the City for same property, and contends, via an e-mail, that the "Jesus Lunch" group needs to comply with School policies regarding several things, including food handling, adult visitors on the campus, and activities that are not student-led. Specific mention in the e-mail is that "We (the District) are in no way interested in opposing religious practice in otherwise legal circumstances". Uh, sure, whatever you say.
Well here's how I see it. Starting with the "legality", apparently the lunch group has a permit from the City of Middleton to host lunch, so unless there's something misrepresented in the initial permit application, it's hard to see where there's a legal issue. The e-mail also leads off with a history of the lunch, and that it started on school property, moved and moved again finally to the current location. Here the e-mail mentions that the proselytizing "would have been allowable but would have required school administration to inform parents of any incentivizing of students to eat lunch free in exchange for attendance". Since the story broke last week, it's gotten picked up by national news outlets and lines are being drawn with "religious freedom" on one side and "separation of church and state" on the other, with the typical parties taking the typical sides. Let me see if I can present a different perspective.
Yea, it's proselytizing, duh, but is it breaking either a law or school policy? If on school property, I would absolutely think it would appropriately be disallowed (church/state, yada yada yada), but it's not. It's City property. Yes, the District has a lease, but the City also granted the group a permit, and from watching the City rep of TV it seems they don't appear inclined to rescind the permits granted to either group. And unless the permit granted to the lunch bunch included the prerequisite to comply with District/School policies, I think it's an uphill climb to enforce those policies on the group, including the food handling issues, etc... Public comments in the local media have included, "but when someone gets food poisoning...", and "how would they (lunch bunch) like it if there were an 'Islam Lunch'". Well, from where things sit now the District is absolutely off the hook if someone gets sick from lunch (besides, the campus is "open", so students are currently free to get food poisoning anywhere). Regarding the uproar (from either side) that if this were any other group that wasn't Christian-based, that's an interesting topic. I think that for many there is indeed a double standard, and that a non-Christian-based gathering would be less accepted by parents, and equally likely more-accepted by administration, despite denials from both sides.
So if not an anti-Christian sentiment on the part of the School District, then "why"? I think it comes down to control. I recently had a great discussion with a friend who contends that long-standing institutions risk developing such a focus on self-preservation that it risks supplanting the mission(s) of the institution itself and stifling growth and progress. I think that's as likely a motive behind the District's actions as any sort of "anti-Christian" sentiment, although I can't rule this "PC-based" impetus. The lunch group apparently consistently pulls about 400 students attending the weekly meals, which is roughly 20% of the student enrollment. As a School administrator, that's a pretty big chunk of students collectively out of the direct control of the District during the school day, and even if the food poisoning threat is spurious, any adverse issue occurring in conjunction with the lunch would undoubtably lead to claims that "the District didn't do anything about it", so here, the District's doing something about it.
What about the Jesus Lunch organizers? I don't have any basis to question their religious motivations, but apart from that I don't appreciate that they weren't welcoming, for whatever reasons, a fight with the District and/or the publicity. Just an observation, but their public response (not what the District has presented) has seemed to me almost gleefully standoffish, and I guess that's their prerogative.
So where do I stand in this local "culture war"? While I don't consider myself an "evangelical Christian" (please out of curiosity, let me know if you disagree!) I don't have a problem with the lunch, so long as it's not on School property (proper). Likewise, in-school promotion of the lunches (which I'm told does occur), I think is a violation of school policy and is wrong, regardless of who's doing it. So why the fuss? I think that religion/spirituality/religiosity for many is not an oft-discussed topic in the home, and for those who don't discuss it at home, dammed if they're going to have it discussed with their kids during the school day, Christian or otherwise. On the flipside, I think there are many families out there that are simply concerned (read, afraid) with what they perceive as a palpable disintegration of traditional social values, in and out of the school environment, and if a "Jesus Lunch" brings those values to light, all the better. But I'll add that I don't at all agree that "traditional values" equates with anti-LGBT or anti-anything. Sure there are some extremists, but there are always extremists on any side.
Do I have a solution? Oh hell yes (religious pun intended)! There's a "Jesus Lunch" scheduled for tomorrow, the police have already RSVP'ed and almost without a doubt the media will be in tow as well. The District has already said that they were not going to interfere with it, but both sides are lawyered up. Fine. But the following week happens to be Passover (April 22 - April 30, Jewish festival commemorating the liberation of the Jewish people from slavery in Egypt), which comes with a variety of dietary guidelines (think of it as Jewish Lent). While the Jewish population of Madison is very small (0.58%), it's not zero, and might switching things up and offering a Kosher meal service during Passover (open to all, as is the Jesus Lunch) serve to quell things between the warring factions? For the District, it could help address the "anti-religion" claims against them, while for the Jesus Lunch organizers, they would take a week off and demonstrate they're not evangelical at the expense of all other religions. Of course, it has to be off school property, and area temples (reform, conservative, orthodox, not my call) would have to be involved, but in the end it could help all sides save face in the scrum.
That's my take, I'll be back to fully blogging the aftermath of the New York primaries later this week. Thanks for reading, and of course, your comments are welcome and encouraged!
Thursday, April 14, 2016
How do I get a job as a political hack?
Or...giving the Democrats some love this primary season.
Full disclosure. The loony toons of the GOP fight, lead by the Donald, make for compelling news, both on TV, print, and social media. In the heat of that scrum it's been easy to overlook the battle on the other side, between the incumbent and the revolutionary. I had intended not to post until after the New York primary, but listening to the hacks (ie "surrogates") on the radio and TV today in the run up to tonight's CNN Democratic Debate in Brooklyn, New York have inspired me to play "very-unpaid campaign adviser to the Sanders camp." So yea, I'm partisan. It's my blog. We'll assess the fallout from New York on the GOP next week.
There seem to be several likely lines of attack on Bernie from either/both Hillary and/or Wolf Blitzer, the CNN moderator. I happen to think pretty much all is fair in love, war, and politics, so I think a candidate should be prepared for anything, and not whine about how something is a "personal attack" or whatever. Besides, it's New York. The populace claims to be ready to rumble.
Full disclosure. The loony toons of the GOP fight, lead by the Donald, make for compelling news, both on TV, print, and social media. In the heat of that scrum it's been easy to overlook the battle on the other side, between the incumbent and the revolutionary. I had intended not to post until after the New York primary, but listening to the hacks (ie "surrogates") on the radio and TV today in the run up to tonight's CNN Democratic Debate in Brooklyn, New York have inspired me to play "very-unpaid campaign adviser to the Sanders camp." So yea, I'm partisan. It's my blog. We'll assess the fallout from New York on the GOP next week.
There seem to be several likely lines of attack on Bernie from either/both Hillary and/or Wolf Blitzer, the CNN moderator. I happen to think pretty much all is fair in love, war, and politics, so I think a candidate should be prepared for anything, and not whine about how something is a "personal attack" or whatever. Besides, it's New York. The populace claims to be ready to rumble.
Issue #1. Bernie lacks specifics - breaking up the banks. Almost certainly Bernie's less-than-stellar performance with the editorial board of the NY Daily News will be raised, the issue being that, on keynote positions, such as "breaking up the big banks", Bernie's answers were somewhat vague and non-specific. I happen to agree, he could have been much better, and the debate is a venue for him to tackle the issue head-on. I think Bernie is well-served by stating/re-stating the claim, that he lacks specifics, and then push forward, NOT with one or two specifics that will be dissected postscript, but instead with examples of where good and effective leadership does not necessarily require a leader to be prescriptive.
Example #1. Super surprised he didn't go here already, but the recent announcements of a $15 minimum wage in both New York (and California) has gone nearly unmentioned by Sanders, who's vocally advocated for this exact number, while Clinton had repeatedly hedged, instead saying that it should be a local decision. Bernie can highlight that he put the number ($15) out there as a goal, but it was the legislatures of both New York and California got there on their own. He could then pose the hypothetical, "if we followed your (Hillary) plan, workers would still be waiting". Unprovable, but makes for a great sound bite.
Example #2. There's idle chatter about Bernie hopping onto a plane after the debate to head to the Vatican for a conference about a moral economy. When asked to justify the trip in the heat of the campaign, Bernie should stand up and defend the move, and then use the Pope as an example of someone who's bringing breathtaking, "revolutionary" changes to a pretty old and stubborn institution (2000+ years and counting). Further, in the publication last week of "Amoris Laetitia" Latin for “The Joy of Love.” Bernie should note that the Pope does NOT specifically outline what individuals or parishes around the world are supposed to do. He identifies the goal(s), and in fact says that specifics need to take into account the uniqueness of each situation. Bernie should basically imply, "if it's good enough for the Holy Father...".
Issue #2. Not ready for President - foreign policy. I think this will come up, as the Clinton surrogates have hinted at this during the week, that "Bernie's not ready". This is the ideal spot for a Bernie trap. First, he smiles and says that this all sounds all too familiar, the claim that someone not-named-Clinton is "not ready to lead". Oh yea, the infamous "3 am phone call" ad that Clinton aired about then-Senator, now PRESIDENT Obama. That same President Obama that Hillary claims as her "brother from another mother". That same President that took down Osama Bin Laden. Yea, that subject of the 3 am phone call. "Fear-mongering didn't work then, Madame Secretary, and it won't work now!". Wait for applause.
As mentioned a few posts ago, while a Bernie supporter, I have a hard time seeing him overcoming the Democratic establishment that's all-in for Clinton. But I can hope.
Last, and I'm not going back to edit my prior posts, but I'm sticking to my earlier statements on the GOP. It'll take a catastrophe for Ryan to enter the race, but it's not impossible. I do think Trump has a real chance to be the nominee, and that despite protestations Kasich may be coerced to hand over his votes if the offer is right. We shall see.
Thanks as always for reading!
Example #1. Super surprised he didn't go here already, but the recent announcements of a $15 minimum wage in both New York (and California) has gone nearly unmentioned by Sanders, who's vocally advocated for this exact number, while Clinton had repeatedly hedged, instead saying that it should be a local decision. Bernie can highlight that he put the number ($15) out there as a goal, but it was the legislatures of both New York and California got there on their own. He could then pose the hypothetical, "if we followed your (Hillary) plan, workers would still be waiting". Unprovable, but makes for a great sound bite.
Example #2. There's idle chatter about Bernie hopping onto a plane after the debate to head to the Vatican for a conference about a moral economy. When asked to justify the trip in the heat of the campaign, Bernie should stand up and defend the move, and then use the Pope as an example of someone who's bringing breathtaking, "revolutionary" changes to a pretty old and stubborn institution (2000+ years and counting). Further, in the publication last week of "Amoris Laetitia" Latin for “The Joy of Love.” Bernie should note that the Pope does NOT specifically outline what individuals or parishes around the world are supposed to do. He identifies the goal(s), and in fact says that specifics need to take into account the uniqueness of each situation. Bernie should basically imply, "if it's good enough for the Holy Father...".
Issue #2. Not ready for President - foreign policy. I think this will come up, as the Clinton surrogates have hinted at this during the week, that "Bernie's not ready". This is the ideal spot for a Bernie trap. First, he smiles and says that this all sounds all too familiar, the claim that someone not-named-Clinton is "not ready to lead". Oh yea, the infamous "3 am phone call" ad that Clinton aired about then-Senator, now PRESIDENT Obama. That same President Obama that Hillary claims as her "brother from another mother". That same President that took down Osama Bin Laden. Yea, that subject of the 3 am phone call. "Fear-mongering didn't work then, Madame Secretary, and it won't work now!". Wait for applause.
As mentioned a few posts ago, while a Bernie supporter, I have a hard time seeing him overcoming the Democratic establishment that's all-in for Clinton. But I can hope.
Last, and I'm not going back to edit my prior posts, but I'm sticking to my earlier statements on the GOP. It'll take a catastrophe for Ryan to enter the race, but it's not impossible. I do think Trump has a real chance to be the nominee, and that despite protestations Kasich may be coerced to hand over his votes if the offer is right. We shall see.
Thanks as always for reading!
Monday, April 11, 2016
"legal", "right", and is there a difference?
686,000 Wisconsin voters may have rescued America from a Trump presidency (number of GOP voters who chose someone other than the Donald). Denying the Donald a yugge delegate haul in the Badger state made his road to 1237 delegates a rocky road, one that is at this point pretty daunting, yet still one that only Trump has a realistic chance to make. For several weeks Kasich has been as relevant as the NFL Pro Bowl, and unless your name is Ted Cruz, no one thinks he has a plausible path to 1237. The smart money says it'll be a contested convention, but what might that entail, and how do you separate the rhetoric from the lies? The blog this week crystal balls not the upcoming contest in New York, but where this Crazy Train might ultimately end up this summer, and why (or why not).
Full disclosure. While I'm an independent, this cycle I'm a Bernie guy (simply too old to be a "Bernie Bro". Or anyone's "bro", for that matter). I attended his rally, I voted for him, and even donated $27 (FOMO I guess, but I got bumper stickers). At this point I don't think he has a realistic chance to win the Democratic (oxymoron) nomination, but then again, I didn't think that "Villanova, National Champion" was gonna happen, and going into late Sunday was fully expecting to hear, "Jordan Spieth, back to back Masters Champion". So as Yogi Berra said, "It's never over 'til...".
In the GOP race (true for the Democrats as well, as we'll discuss later), the Cruz team has employed entirely "legal" strategies to effectively "win" the majority of delegates from several states where Trump as won the popular vote. Legal, yes, but "right"? I grudgingly acknowledge that differences of opinion may exist here, and ultimately the difference can be described as a "do the ends justify the means" argument. So I'll leave it to you, gentle reader, to decide where on the continuum you live, but... it's my impression that the majority of voters for whom "Cruz" is not their surname would think that the candidate with the majority of votes should win a given state contest. Notice I said "state". I think opinions may change come Convention time.
Democrats may very well have to contend with this same issue. But in this case they're called "superdelegates". And right now they're all in for Hillary.
Back to Crazytown. Why is this even an issue with the GOP? Thankfully that answer is pretty simple, and leads to my predictions. A majority of sentient life forms (this galaxy or otherwise) don't believe the Donald has what it takes to be President, forget the follow-up discussion that he might be good/bad/otherwise. He's the ultimate loose cannon in a country that generally loves loose cannons. Just not THAT loose. But interestingly enough, I don't think the majority of folks hate the Donald. They just think he's crazy rich out of touch Uncle Don. As some say, "I might be crazy, but I'm not stupid". So let's see if we can find somebody, anybody, that might be better. Like, anyone with a pulse or something.
They do, however, hate Ted Cruz. Hate, hate, hate, it seems to somehow rhyme with "Cruz", via some amazing linguistic magic. I'm a non-fan, but even I have a hard time defining the depth of dislike, but I'm going to try with an old analogy. Ted Cruz is the personification of Eddie Haskell (of Leave it to Beaver fame). Google it. But here's the goofy part (hold on tight, it gets heretical). Senator Cruz has similar qualities to Secretary Clinton. No one doubts that they are incredibly intelligent, with stellar pedigrees and achievements (I guess). BUT... and here's where the blog title comes from, their actions and behaviors, from well before the campaigns, seem to illustrate that they (Clinton [both], and Ted) draw NO line between the concept of "legal" and "right". Benghazi, your-very-own basement e-mail server, and primary delegate maneuvering to offset popular vote results, are just a few examples of where these two candidates have used not-clearly-described-as-illegal rules and interpretations thereof to defend their tactics. I would liken the ethical quandary as the classic, "you find a wallet full of money on a park bench, what do you do?" scenario. Some answer quickly, some less so. It comes down to defining what individuals feel is "right". I'm wanting to know who Bill Belichick ("if you're not cheating you're not trying") supports.
Fun time. What does this mean for the GOP (blogs getting too long for the Dems this week)? Contested convention? Check. There's only once potential scenario I see that gets the Don the nomination. That's if he gets within sight of 1237, and by cutting a deal with Kasich (as VP) he gets to the number on the first vote. That's it. I can't see any Trump/Cruz alliance, and Trump/Rubio seems doubtful as well. Kasich isn't crazy, but the lure of being one step away the brass ring is a "Lord of the Rings" Gollum dilemma. I think it could happen. People get funny when they're near a ton of money or power.
But if it doesn't get settled on the first vote, does Cruz's back office politics get him the nom? Not if he can't get 1237. Yes, he's likely to stack the convention with "supporters", but I suspect that there are enough anti-Cruz folks in the audience that the proverbial "chickens coming home to roost" will deny, gladly, Cruz the nomination. Or, to paraphrase the alternative-universe Sally Field, "They hate him. They really, really, hate him".
But what about party unity? Seriously, I'm not even going to waste bytes answering. No. One. Cares.
Okay, 3rd, 4th, 5th votes. Kasich is viewed as the "nice" guy, just like the "nice" girls in high school. It's a euphemism for "no thanks, we're aiming higher". Sorry, just being honest.
So that leaves us with, yes, my friends, Republican Jesus. Paul Ryan. So above the fray that he is not sullied with malodorous excrement, the House Speaker could potentially create order from chaos, but only if asked (begged) politely. Repeatedly. He has said, "no thanks", then put out this video:
Okay, Paul, you don't want to be PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! While it isn't a sure thing, the hurdles are easily surmountable, regardless of what 'lyin Ted says.
Next time on Go 'Merica. "What does the Donald Want?". Thanks for reading!
Full disclosure. While I'm an independent, this cycle I'm a Bernie guy (simply too old to be a "Bernie Bro". Or anyone's "bro", for that matter). I attended his rally, I voted for him, and even donated $27 (FOMO I guess, but I got bumper stickers). At this point I don't think he has a realistic chance to win the Democratic (oxymoron) nomination, but then again, I didn't think that "Villanova, National Champion" was gonna happen, and going into late Sunday was fully expecting to hear, "Jordan Spieth, back to back Masters Champion". So as Yogi Berra said, "It's never over 'til...".
In the GOP race (true for the Democrats as well, as we'll discuss later), the Cruz team has employed entirely "legal" strategies to effectively "win" the majority of delegates from several states where Trump as won the popular vote. Legal, yes, but "right"? I grudgingly acknowledge that differences of opinion may exist here, and ultimately the difference can be described as a "do the ends justify the means" argument. So I'll leave it to you, gentle reader, to decide where on the continuum you live, but... it's my impression that the majority of voters for whom "Cruz" is not their surname would think that the candidate with the majority of votes should win a given state contest. Notice I said "state". I think opinions may change come Convention time.
Democrats may very well have to contend with this same issue. But in this case they're called "superdelegates". And right now they're all in for Hillary.
Back to Crazytown. Why is this even an issue with the GOP? Thankfully that answer is pretty simple, and leads to my predictions. A majority of sentient life forms (this galaxy or otherwise) don't believe the Donald has what it takes to be President, forget the follow-up discussion that he might be good/bad/otherwise. He's the ultimate loose cannon in a country that generally loves loose cannons. Just not THAT loose. But interestingly enough, I don't think the majority of folks hate the Donald. They just think he's crazy rich out of touch Uncle Don. As some say, "I might be crazy, but I'm not stupid". So let's see if we can find somebody, anybody, that might be better. Like, anyone with a pulse or something.
They do, however, hate Ted Cruz. Hate, hate, hate, it seems to somehow rhyme with "Cruz", via some amazing linguistic magic. I'm a non-fan, but even I have a hard time defining the depth of dislike, but I'm going to try with an old analogy. Ted Cruz is the personification of Eddie Haskell (of Leave it to Beaver fame). Google it. But here's the goofy part (hold on tight, it gets heretical). Senator Cruz has similar qualities to Secretary Clinton. No one doubts that they are incredibly intelligent, with stellar pedigrees and achievements (I guess). BUT... and here's where the blog title comes from, their actions and behaviors, from well before the campaigns, seem to illustrate that they (Clinton [both], and Ted) draw NO line between the concept of "legal" and "right". Benghazi, your-very-own basement e-mail server, and primary delegate maneuvering to offset popular vote results, are just a few examples of where these two candidates have used not-clearly-described-as-illegal rules and interpretations thereof to defend their tactics. I would liken the ethical quandary as the classic, "you find a wallet full of money on a park bench, what do you do?" scenario. Some answer quickly, some less so. It comes down to defining what individuals feel is "right". I'm wanting to know who Bill Belichick ("if you're not cheating you're not trying") supports.
Fun time. What does this mean for the GOP (blogs getting too long for the Dems this week)? Contested convention? Check. There's only once potential scenario I see that gets the Don the nomination. That's if he gets within sight of 1237, and by cutting a deal with Kasich (as VP) he gets to the number on the first vote. That's it. I can't see any Trump/Cruz alliance, and Trump/Rubio seems doubtful as well. Kasich isn't crazy, but the lure of being one step away the brass ring is a "Lord of the Rings" Gollum dilemma. I think it could happen. People get funny when they're near a ton of money or power.
But if it doesn't get settled on the first vote, does Cruz's back office politics get him the nom? Not if he can't get 1237. Yes, he's likely to stack the convention with "supporters", but I suspect that there are enough anti-Cruz folks in the audience that the proverbial "chickens coming home to roost" will deny, gladly, Cruz the nomination. Or, to paraphrase the alternative-universe Sally Field, "They hate him. They really, really, hate him".
But what about party unity? Seriously, I'm not even going to waste bytes answering. No. One. Cares.
Okay, 3rd, 4th, 5th votes. Kasich is viewed as the "nice" guy, just like the "nice" girls in high school. It's a euphemism for "no thanks, we're aiming higher". Sorry, just being honest.
So that leaves us with, yes, my friends, Republican Jesus. Paul Ryan. So above the fray that he is not sullied with malodorous excrement, the House Speaker could potentially create order from chaos, but only if asked (begged) politely. Repeatedly. He has said, "no thanks", then put out this video:
Okay, Paul, you don't want to be PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! While it isn't a sure thing, the hurdles are easily surmountable, regardless of what 'lyin Ted says.
Next time on Go 'Merica. "What does the Donald Want?". Thanks for reading!
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
Non sequitur
Latin for "it does not follow".
Full disclosure: not intending to be an everyday blogger, but watching Wisconsin returns tonight, in particular Ted Cruz's victory speech, have driven me to both the mute button and the notebook keyboard.
"It's not you, it's me". I don't remember what 80's movie that line is from, but it succinctly captures my impressions of the Wisconsin GOP results. I don't have any impression that the good Republican voters of Wisconsin "saw the light" (evangelical HT) and became Cruz supporters. Rather, consistent with the prevailing media narrative, the Donald really did have THAT bad a stretch leading up to tonight's primary in Wisconsin. But not to forget, as of this evening (9 pm), Trump's still running at 30%, which is double that of Kasich, a candidate who consistently speaks in full English sentences. After Donald's gaffes on abortion and high school US history, it's my contention that the Wisconsin conservative media radio hosts, who already leaned anti-Trump, served as an able mouthpiece in convincing their Trump-leaning audience to turn away from Trump, if only to deny him a clear path to the 1237 delegates needed to claim the GOP nomination in Cleveland. And Cruz was the recipient of that voter largesse. So sorry Ted, it's really not you.
Optics. Bernie notched a solid victory in the Badger State, and may even take the spread to 10 points once all the college precincts report. He's in Wyoming pretending to be Bruce Springsteen, down to the same stump speech/playlist, over and over again. Meanwhile, Hillary is at a fundraiser in NYC trying not to swear like a sailor over the fact that an old socialist Jew with a Brooklyn accent ("Oy vey, now, with the New York primary coming up? Is God also in on the vast right wing conspiracy" - Hillary Clinton) owns the hearts of the vibrant end of the Democratic Party. Two realities stand out with tonight's results and the after parties. First, the reality is that Hillary needs to hit up more and more big money donors to keep pace with the secret hamsters that run the wheels that print Bernie dollars. Second, I can't find a plausible scenario where these same hamsters will run nearly as hard or as fast if Hillary is the nominee. If I were the DNC I would be big time concerned (I'm not the DNC, and DWS is likely not concerned). And "no", I don't think Bernie (or Liz Warren, for that matter) will be VP.
Some simple predictions. Hillary will hit Bernie with the weak NY Daily News editorial meeting, while he'll hit back with the $15 and hour minimum wage "told ya so". It'll continue to be great theater.
Thanks if you're new to the rant. Comments and suggestions and topic ideas are welcomed. Here is a draft of some upcoming topics (subject to change on a whim):
- What does Donald really want? Not a trick question.
- President Paul Ryan, sponsored by Koch (that's not even a joke).
- What moves voters? Conviction.
Full disclosure: not intending to be an everyday blogger, but watching Wisconsin returns tonight, in particular Ted Cruz's victory speech, have driven me to both the mute button and the notebook keyboard.
"It's not you, it's me". I don't remember what 80's movie that line is from, but it succinctly captures my impressions of the Wisconsin GOP results. I don't have any impression that the good Republican voters of Wisconsin "saw the light" (evangelical HT) and became Cruz supporters. Rather, consistent with the prevailing media narrative, the Donald really did have THAT bad a stretch leading up to tonight's primary in Wisconsin. But not to forget, as of this evening (9 pm), Trump's still running at 30%, which is double that of Kasich, a candidate who consistently speaks in full English sentences. After Donald's gaffes on abortion and high school US history, it's my contention that the Wisconsin conservative media radio hosts, who already leaned anti-Trump, served as an able mouthpiece in convincing their Trump-leaning audience to turn away from Trump, if only to deny him a clear path to the 1237 delegates needed to claim the GOP nomination in Cleveland. And Cruz was the recipient of that voter largesse. So sorry Ted, it's really not you.
Optics. Bernie notched a solid victory in the Badger State, and may even take the spread to 10 points once all the college precincts report. He's in Wyoming pretending to be Bruce Springsteen, down to the same stump speech/playlist, over and over again. Meanwhile, Hillary is at a fundraiser in NYC trying not to swear like a sailor over the fact that an old socialist Jew with a Brooklyn accent ("Oy vey, now, with the New York primary coming up? Is God also in on the vast right wing conspiracy" - Hillary Clinton) owns the hearts of the vibrant end of the Democratic Party. Two realities stand out with tonight's results and the after parties. First, the reality is that Hillary needs to hit up more and more big money donors to keep pace with the secret hamsters that run the wheels that print Bernie dollars. Second, I can't find a plausible scenario where these same hamsters will run nearly as hard or as fast if Hillary is the nominee. If I were the DNC I would be big time concerned (I'm not the DNC, and DWS is likely not concerned). And "no", I don't think Bernie (or Liz Warren, for that matter) will be VP.
Some simple predictions. Hillary will hit Bernie with the weak NY Daily News editorial meeting, while he'll hit back with the $15 and hour minimum wage "told ya so". It'll continue to be great theater.
Thanks if you're new to the rant. Comments and suggestions and topic ideas are welcomed. Here is a draft of some upcoming topics (subject to change on a whim):
- What does Donald really want? Not a trick question.
- President Paul Ryan, sponsored by Koch (that's not even a joke).
- What moves voters? Conviction.
Monday, April 4, 2016
Trump. Teflon?
Full disclosure #1: Blogging during the NCAA Men's Basketball final game, Villanova vs. North Carolina. I had neither team in the final. Actually, I don't think I had any final four teams. Or elite eight teams. Or sweet sixteen teams. Point is, my picks, at least in basketball, suck. Take my political musings with a grain of salt.
Full disclosure #2: Night before the Wisconsin primaries, Democrat and Republican. If you're a resident and bored enough with basketball to have found your way to the Blog, I strongly encourage you to vote Tuesday. Like the Blog title, it's a big part of what 'Merica is all about. I'm not even asking who you're voting for. But... if you're undecided, may I suggest Bernie Sanders. He's my guy, and I support him. And you need a state-issued photo ID to vote, courtesy your friends in the Wisconsin GOP.
Back to Trump. In the past week leading up to the Wisconsin primary, the Donald has had a number of episodes of what most in the pundit-sphere would politely term "screw ups", including attacking Cruz's wife's appearance, questioning long-standing US doctrine regarding nuclear proliferation and participation in NATO, and the cherry on top, saying that women who get abortions (if they are ruled illegal) should be "punished". And this is an incomplete list, it doesn't include his "usual" outrageous pronouncements. Yet, despite months of seemingly fatal gaffe after gaffe, Trump's poling numbers, at least up until now, have only gotten stronger, hence the "Teflon" label bestowed by the media. But is it true, is Trump "Teflon" to typical political gaffes? I think tomorrow's contest in Wisconsin may provide some clues.
Prediction time! (it's just under 24 hours before the Wisconsin polls will close, and Villanova just took the lead. Like I said, I'm not batting 1.000, so back to politics). I think Cruz will win Wisconsin, but it'll be close, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump won in a squeaker. Why? This relates back to the Teflon argument. I think the majority of Trump voters are not typical Republican voters. Neither "Chamber of Commerce" establishment types, nor are they "values voters", I think many of his supporters are "new populists" that believe that there is an economic recovery amidst, but for whatever reasons they didn't get invited to the party. And who's fault is that? Per Trump, it's Mexicans, bad trade deals, and overall poor negotiating on the part of the United States. Supporters that put "personal economy" at the very top of issues in terms of importance. Unflattering picture of Heidi Cruz? "Well, Melania is better-looking". Punish women who get abortions? "Well, it's only if they're doing something illegal". While I don't doubt Trump is polling underwater with women, imagine if you will a 50-60 something year old (read: post-menopausal) wife of a life-long Oscar Meyer employee who just found out a few months ago that he's losing his job, as OM is moving to South America (actually, it's Iowa taking the jobs, but that's an inconvenient fact) as a consequence of the Kraft/Heinz/3G merger. I can imagine someone like that being angry enough (along with her husband) to stick with Trump despite what they hear in the "lamestream" media. And don't try to confuse me with facts.
Point is, voters rank-order issues differently, and in this case, I think the pundits still haven't figured out the "secret sauce" behind Trump's popularity, and as a result attach labels to them in aggregate, such as "low information voters" or "racists". I'd like to trademark the term, "economic populists". It's more polite, and on a quasi-serious note, I don't believe in demonizing people based solely on their political leanings. And I resist making an exception for Cruz supporters.
So that's my first content-laden blog post. In about 24 hours we'll see if my blogging career looks more like the campaign of Bernie Sanders or Lindsay Graham (who? Google it).
Thanks for visiting. And go vote.
Full disclosure #2: Night before the Wisconsin primaries, Democrat and Republican. If you're a resident and bored enough with basketball to have found your way to the Blog, I strongly encourage you to vote Tuesday. Like the Blog title, it's a big part of what 'Merica is all about. I'm not even asking who you're voting for. But... if you're undecided, may I suggest Bernie Sanders. He's my guy, and I support him. And you need a state-issued photo ID to vote, courtesy your friends in the Wisconsin GOP.
Back to Trump. In the past week leading up to the Wisconsin primary, the Donald has had a number of episodes of what most in the pundit-sphere would politely term "screw ups", including attacking Cruz's wife's appearance, questioning long-standing US doctrine regarding nuclear proliferation and participation in NATO, and the cherry on top, saying that women who get abortions (if they are ruled illegal) should be "punished". And this is an incomplete list, it doesn't include his "usual" outrageous pronouncements. Yet, despite months of seemingly fatal gaffe after gaffe, Trump's poling numbers, at least up until now, have only gotten stronger, hence the "Teflon" label bestowed by the media. But is it true, is Trump "Teflon" to typical political gaffes? I think tomorrow's contest in Wisconsin may provide some clues.
Prediction time! (it's just under 24 hours before the Wisconsin polls will close, and Villanova just took the lead. Like I said, I'm not batting 1.000, so back to politics). I think Cruz will win Wisconsin, but it'll be close, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump won in a squeaker. Why? This relates back to the Teflon argument. I think the majority of Trump voters are not typical Republican voters. Neither "Chamber of Commerce" establishment types, nor are they "values voters", I think many of his supporters are "new populists" that believe that there is an economic recovery amidst, but for whatever reasons they didn't get invited to the party. And who's fault is that? Per Trump, it's Mexicans, bad trade deals, and overall poor negotiating on the part of the United States. Supporters that put "personal economy" at the very top of issues in terms of importance. Unflattering picture of Heidi Cruz? "Well, Melania is better-looking". Punish women who get abortions? "Well, it's only if they're doing something illegal". While I don't doubt Trump is polling underwater with women, imagine if you will a 50-60 something year old (read: post-menopausal) wife of a life-long Oscar Meyer employee who just found out a few months ago that he's losing his job, as OM is moving to South America (actually, it's Iowa taking the jobs, but that's an inconvenient fact) as a consequence of the Kraft/Heinz/3G merger. I can imagine someone like that being angry enough (along with her husband) to stick with Trump despite what they hear in the "lamestream" media. And don't try to confuse me with facts.
Point is, voters rank-order issues differently, and in this case, I think the pundits still haven't figured out the "secret sauce" behind Trump's popularity, and as a result attach labels to them in aggregate, such as "low information voters" or "racists". I'd like to trademark the term, "economic populists". It's more polite, and on a quasi-serious note, I don't believe in demonizing people based solely on their political leanings. And I resist making an exception for Cruz supporters.
So that's my first content-laden blog post. In about 24 hours we'll see if my blogging career looks more like the campaign of Bernie Sanders or Lindsay Graham (who? Google it).
Thanks for visiting. And go vote.
If a tree falls in the forest...
...will anyone hear, much less care. I guess I'm going to find out.
Good news, it's my intention that this blog will self-destruct, if not first due to boredom and inactivity, with the conclusion of the 2016 Presidential race. I wanted a venue to discuss politics that WASN'T Facebook. Nothing against Fb, but because (in my case at least) my "friends" list includes everyone from family to folks I haven't spoken to in years (I suppose there are a few people that fall into both categories, but whatever). So some of those non-Fb friends said, "so why don't you start a blog?", and here we are.
So what's the purpose (elaborating on the paragraph above)? Some discourse is too long to tweet, and too potentially inflammatory for Facebook. So it'll probably show up here.
And because too much of anything is probably not a good thing, I have a (very) short list of acquaintances that I'm thinking of asking to occasionally "guest blog" about things I find interesting yet have no knowledge I can fake. It's also a shameless strategy to boost overall readership.
Full disclosures. I'm a (political) independent, defined (by me) as "I've voted for both parties in the past", and announcements/policy positions from both major parties have found me thinking, "well, I guess I'm not a Republican/Democrat". Statistics (that I trust, i.e. agree with) suggest I'm not entirely alone in the universe in holding this opinion. Not really being a devil's advocate by nature, any "contrarian" ideas I might present are very likely really my opinions. You can agree or not, I'll try not to judge.
Is there an "ask" of you, gentle reader? No, not really. If you look and this is boring I completely understand, please move along. If you agree/disagree, I want this to be a welcome home, and, IT capabilities willing, I've included the opportunity for you to add your own comments. Try to keep it civil.
Well, off we go. Thanks for even reading this far. I'm working on real post #1, the working title of which is "Trump. Teflon?", but haven't even started yet. Tomorrow is the Wisconsin primary, and if the Donald gets crushed, real post #1 will likely have a different title.
Thanks!
Good news, it's my intention that this blog will self-destruct, if not first due to boredom and inactivity, with the conclusion of the 2016 Presidential race. I wanted a venue to discuss politics that WASN'T Facebook. Nothing against Fb, but because (in my case at least) my "friends" list includes everyone from family to folks I haven't spoken to in years (I suppose there are a few people that fall into both categories, but whatever). So some of those non-Fb friends said, "so why don't you start a blog?", and here we are.
So what's the purpose (elaborating on the paragraph above)? Some discourse is too long to tweet, and too potentially inflammatory for Facebook. So it'll probably show up here.
And because too much of anything is probably not a good thing, I have a (very) short list of acquaintances that I'm thinking of asking to occasionally "guest blog" about things I find interesting yet have no knowledge I can fake. It's also a shameless strategy to boost overall readership.
Full disclosures. I'm a (political) independent, defined (by me) as "I've voted for both parties in the past", and announcements/policy positions from both major parties have found me thinking, "well, I guess I'm not a Republican/Democrat". Statistics (that I trust, i.e. agree with) suggest I'm not entirely alone in the universe in holding this opinion. Not really being a devil's advocate by nature, any "contrarian" ideas I might present are very likely really my opinions. You can agree or not, I'll try not to judge.
Is there an "ask" of you, gentle reader? No, not really. If you look and this is boring I completely understand, please move along. If you agree/disagree, I want this to be a welcome home, and, IT capabilities willing, I've included the opportunity for you to add your own comments. Try to keep it civil.
Well, off we go. Thanks for even reading this far. I'm working on real post #1, the working title of which is "Trump. Teflon?", but haven't even started yet. Tomorrow is the Wisconsin primary, and if the Donald gets crushed, real post #1 will likely have a different title.
Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)