THE CNBC GOP DEBATE: RISING RUBIO, BANAL BUSH, BEMUSING BEN, SMILING STRANGELOVE

10/30/15

Everyone else is commenting on the CNBC Republican Presidential Debate.  Since I finally have some time, my comments on the last debate (See THE ONEINESCAPABLE CONCLUSION FROM THE SEPTEMBER GOP DEBATE, 9/18/15) were a big hit, and some fresh insights are needed, here are my (far more than) two cents…

• While it’s way too early to make meaningful wagers, Marco Rubio right now is the safest bet to win the GOP nomination.   Ben Carson and Donald Trump have to fade…right?   Maybe not.   But assuming they do, and even if they don’t, the Republican establishment has to look for a champion.   It certainly isn’t Jeb Bush; see below.  Chris Christie made a terrific showing Wednesday night, but he isn’t catching on and, if the papers are to be believed, he is running out of money.  Who is left but Marco Rubio?   And Mr. Rubio’s stellar showing, especially when jabbing at the favorite, and deservedly so, whipping boy of the GOP, the media, certainly helped illuminate what is increasingly obvious:  that Marco Rubio is the last best hope of the establishmentarians.  

Besides still having plenty of money and being articulate and attractive, Mr. Rubio is an establishmentarian who is still acceptable to those among the GOPers who still adhere to principle, sort of like Paul Ryan without the dyspeptic attributes (See IS JOE BIDEN A POLITICAL GENIUS OR WHAT?, 10/28/15.) in this regard.   Bear in mind that, in giving his victory speech after winning his Senate seat, Mr. Rubio attacked George W. Bush as well as the Democrats.   This is one way to win points with those of us who still believe in the things the GOP says it believes in.

Mr. Rubio’s biggest drawback is his Barack Obama problem.  The Republicans, for very good reasons, like to argue that Mr. Obama was a young man with little experience when he was elected to the most powerful post in the world.  Consequently, Mr. Obama is in way over his head and the consequences have not been salubrious.   The same arguments can be made regarding Mr. Rubio, but hypocrisy and glaring inconsistency are key components in the politician’s trade.

• If you didn’t know anything about Ben Carson’s background, would you think, judging from his performance in the debates and on the campaign trail in general, that he was a really smart guy?   I wouldn’t and, be honest, you wouldn’t either.   Clearly, Dr. Carson is brilliant; one doesn’t get to head neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins, or anywhere for that matter, without being a hyper-brainiac, but you’d never know it from what we’ve seen of Mr. Carson.

• Carly Fiorina didn’t take Sharon Epperon’s bait when Ms. Epperson asked Mrs. Fiorina whether the government should initiate a program to encourage retirement savings among those without access to 401ks and the like at work.   Despite Mrs. Fiorina’s sharing the sentiment of all her colleagues (and of most Americans who think) that more savings is needed in this economy, she calmly answered “No” to Ms. Epperson’s turn at “Gotcha.”   She could have left it at that to more effect, but Mrs. Fiorina went on to explain that the solution to every problem is not another government program.   Great performance, at least on that question, that confirms my view that Mrs. Fiorina will be on the GOP ticket.  (See THE ONE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION FROM THE SEPTEMBER GOP DEBATE, 9/18/15)

• Jeb Bush ought to just go back to all those wonderful things he could be doing rather than run for president.   Almost echoing the same question yours truly asked about Ben Carson, do you see any of the intelligence, insight, or record of accomplishment people ascribe to Jeb Bush when you see that goofy, deer in the headlights response to every question thrown his way?   All I, and most others see, is a guy whose only possible qualification for anything is, as my dad used to say, that his father was born before he was.

• Overall, it was a good debate, and, as a guy who was pretty much a Republican until Jeb Bush’s brother came along, yours truly would be comfortable supporting just about any of the candidates on the stage.   Then again, the candidates didn’t discuss foreign policy this go-around; with a few exceptions, the GOPers’ foreign policy plans remind me of the book that was laid out in front of General Buck Turgidson (George C. Scott) in the War Room in the Stanley Kubrick 1964 classic “Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.”   The book was entitled “World Targets in Megadeaths.”   That was darkly funny; when the GOP candidates talk foreign policy, things get genuinely scary.  

IS JOE BIDEN A POLITICAL GENIUS OR WHAT?

10/28/15

Vice-President Joe Biden’s appearance on 60 Minutes with his wife last Sunday was terrific.   While explaining his decision to remove himself from the 2016 presidential race (Don’t try to argue he was never in the race, unless you are given to hiding behind technicalities.), Mr. Biden came across as human, kind, introspective, friendly, reasonable, bi-partisan, and devoted to his family and country…all the things we’re looking for in a politician.   However, lot of pols can come across as whatever the voting public deems desirable at any given time; doing so is part of the job description of a successful “public servant.”   So what made this appearance so emblematic of Mr. Biden’s skill at his craft?

Mr. Biden’s only hope of winning the Democratic nomination was for Hillary Clinton to somehow stumble, either over a scandal or over her own words, which she seems to have some difficulty selecting of late, but I digress.   At this point, the chances of such a stumble seem remote (See my 10/16/15 piece  WILL HILLARY BE WILD AND CRAZY…LIKE BILL?), but not completely out of the realm of possibilities.   And if she does, who has just set himself up perfectly for a draft?   Of course…Joe Biden.   While the appearance on 60 Minutes may not have had as its primary objective making Mr. Biden the obvious choice if Mrs. Clinton somehow blows it, setting such a table had to be a secondary objective.  In any case, surely the masterful interview had the result of making Joe Biden the obvious relief pitcher should Hillary start throwing the game away.

Yes, it’s a long shot that Hillary stumbles and Joe emerges.   But Mr. Biden’s candidacy was always a long shot, thoroughly dependent on Hillary dropping the ball.  That hasn’t changed.   What has changed is that now Mr. Biden will not have to go through the time, expense, and risk of running a campaign to merely place himself in the wings.   Especially after his and Mrs. Biden’s appearance on 60 Minutes, Joe Biden is firmly in the wings without having to spend brobdingnagain amounts of money and without running the risk of saying something, er, subject to misinterpretation, always a big risk in Mr. Biden's case.

Yet another political master stroke Sunday night was the grenade Mr. Biden lobbed at Paul Ryan.   Mr. Biden welcomed Mr. Ryan’s ascension to the Speakership, calling Mr. Ryan a “good guy” with whom the Democrats could work.   Does anyone who is not hopelessly naïve really believe Mr. Biden thinks Mr. Ryan is a “good guy” after the dismissive abuse Mr. Biden tossed Mr. Ryan’s way in their vice-presidential debate?   By calling Mr. Ryan a “good guy” with whom the Democrats could work, Mr. Biden destroyed whatever shred of support and respect Mr. Ryan had among that wing of the GOP that has not dispensed with principle and thereby made Mr. Ryan’s upcoming tenure as House Speaker even more challenging than it would already have been.

Finally, I’ve always liked Joe Biden even though I disagree with him on nearly every issue of political consequence.  He seems engaging, funny, gregarious, and even avuncular.  On the other hand, I’ve never liked Paul Ryan even though I agree with him on most issues of political consequence.  He seems stiff, hypocritical, humorless, narcissistic, and even more childish than your typical politician.   I wasn’t the only one who felt this way about Mr. Biden before last Sunday’s 60 Minutes appearance, and surely our ranks have expanded after that triumph of politicraft…yet more evidence of the political brilliance of Joe Biden.

THE PROPOSED SYRIAN PEACE CONFERENCE—NON-MEMBERS ONLY

10/24/15

Yesterday, the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the European Union, Jordan, and maybe Iran indicated that they will enter into talks to determine the future of Syria.

Hmm…

Who’s missing in these proposed talks?   Well, maybe Iran, which would be a major omission, given that Iran and Russia are the major props behind the Assad regime in Syria.

But there is an even more glaring omission in the proposed “broad: talks to determine the future of Syria…

Syria itself!

So far, no one has proposed that representatives from the Assad regime, from the “moderate” opposition (if such people exist outside the febrile minds of John McCain, Barack Obama, and John Kerry), or from the radical but not quite as radical as ISIS opposition are to be included in the talks.   So this latest brilliant peace of statecraft proposes that other powers are going to determine the fate of Syria.   So what else is new?

Such blatant disregard for the most directly involved parties, i.e., the people whose fates are being determined in foreign drawing rooms, is what created this Middle Eastern mess in the first place.   Readers are referred to an outstanding book on the topic, Paris 1919, by the admittedly conflicted Margaret MacMillan.   The Middle East was carved up by the “victors” in World War I with little or no regard for the wishes, or even the perceived interests, of the indigenous peoples…and that has made all the difference.   We have been living with the consequences ever since and, the way it looks, will be for many years to come.

Apparently, the imperial impulse dies hard in the West…or at least among its diplomatic classes.

Perhaps the Russians have something to offer in the Middle East beyond the heretofore one of only two (The Kurds have engaged in the other.) effective efforts against ISIS.  Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov yesterday stated

“The fate of the Syrian president must be decided by the Syrian people.”

What a novel concept!

WILL HILLARY BE WILD AND CRAZY…LIKE BILL?

10/16/15

Hillary Clinton has been a shoo-in for the 2016 Democratic nomination ever since, oh, about December, 2008.   There have been a few doubts, and legitimate doubts, expressed about her ability to wrest the nomination from, well, no one.  But even those of us who have urged caution in making predictions about such an outcome in 2016 have never seriously thought that she wouldn’t get the Dem nomination.  

There still remains the chance that something comes out of the e-mail investigations, the Benghazi caper, or perhaps some other tantalizing set of embarrassing circumstances into which Hillary has thrust herself that could derail her express train to (at least) November.   However, while one can never be sure, one suspects that anything that will come out has probably already come out.   And even if that is too sanguine a view of Hillary’s situation, Kevin McCarthy’s incredibly obtuse statements about the Benghazi committee provide the Clinton machine plenty of ammo to employ against anything that should arise between now and the convention…or the election.

A Joe Biden candidacy?   After last Tuesday’s debate, Mr. Biden has no reason to run.   He was there to pick up the pieces when Hillary fell apart.   Given the poise and near utter domination she showed in the debate (admittedly against a pack of lilliputians), Hillary isn’t going to fall apart, barring, again, the Republican witch hunt’s striking gold.   How can I call the Republican efforts a witch hunt?   Ask Kevin McCarthy.  But I digress.

So let’s assume that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the next standard-bearer of the Democratic Party.  And, truth be told, she should be; much like Richard Nixon in 1968, she is the obvious choice of her party.  No one in her party (or in the other party, for that matter) has her experience, background, or proven track record in “public service.”   Just as was the case with Mr. Nixon, if the American people were interviewing someone for this job, they would hire Hillary Rodham Clinton for the big job on Pennsylvania Avenue.  That didn’t turn out so well, but see my 9/8/15 piece, SOMETHING(S) ABOUT HILLARY.

The problem is that once we concede that the race for the Democratic nomination is over, there is nothing to discuss except….

Will Hillary Rodham Clinton do something wild and crazy…just like her husband Bill?  Before you answer that question, get your mind out of the gutter!   I am talking not about Bill’s excellent adventures on the quasi-amorous front; I am talking about the selection of a running mate.

When Bill Clinton got the Democratic nomination in 1992, he shocked the political world by selecting Al Gore as his running mate.  That was wild and crazy.   Why?

The conventional wisdom then, before then, and even now was and is that the vice-presidential nominee should balance the ticket.   If the nominee is a relative conservative, he should select a relative liberal as his running mate, or vice-versa.  (e.g., Carter/Mondale, GW Bush/Quayle)  If the nominee is a young man, he should select an older man with more experience as his running mate and vice-versa.  (e.g., Kennedy/Johnson, Reagan/Bush)  If the nominee is Southerner, he should pick a northerner as his running mate, and vice-versa (e.g., Johnson/Humphrey, Kennedy/Johnson).  

Then along came Bill Clinton, a young relatively conservative southerner who picked Al Gore a young, relatively conservative (at least at the time) southerner as his running mate.   Most political pros thought the selection of Al Gore for the second spot on the ’92 Democratic ticket was crazy.  Where, after all, was the balance in the ticket?  Like most political things Bill Clinton did, and does, though, the Gore selection turned out to be brilliant.   Gore reinforced the image of youth and new Democratic thinking that Mr. Clinton wanted to implant in the American voters’ minds.  That Messrs. Clinton and Gore were cut from the same political cloth turned out to be a big positive for the Democrats, and for Mr. Clinton, in 1992.

So what could Hillary do to match her husband’s reasoned audacity?   How about picking a woman as her running mate?   That would surely come out of left field and would, if one thinks about it, enhance the chances that we would be treated, or subjected, to a second Clinton presidency.

Is this a prediction?   Yours truly is too old and wise to be making predictions about elections and the direction of the stock market.   But I haven’t heard anyone mention a Democratic ticket with two women on it, so I wanted to be the first, as far as I know, to suggest the possibility.   And, given that one of Mrs. Clinton’s most frequently offered rationales for her presidency is that “It’s our turn,” this would be terrific reinforcer of that message.

Don’t ask for names; I don’t have any yet beyond the obvious Elizabeth Warren.   But there are plenty of Democratic women out there with the qualifications to be vice-president, or president, for that matter, especially given how low the bar has been set in this realm; look at the current occupant of the White House and his predecessor.

Hillary should do something bold and courageous, wild and unpredictable, and select a woman as her running mate.   Who that is would be relatively inconsequential next to the statement such a selection would make.