"By the end of the debate he came across as the drunk, obnoxious uncle everyone wishes hadn’t accepted the invitation to Thanksgiving dinner."
Writes Jonah Goldberg (who goes on to call Jeb the biggest loser politically and to rank the various winners).
I've got to agree about Kasich, whom I think I probably should favor, just on the merits (though not much). He is so annoying.
The truth is, I don't like anyone who's running for President in either party. Watching these debates has become a chore. Following the news. I don't like them. I have no one to root for. And I'm pretty sure Hillary will win in the end. It's quite unpleasant. The worst election season to have to witness since I first started watching... which was in 1960.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१७० टिप्पण्या:
Thanks for the update. I didn't watch because I'm watching more sports again and I agree that all the candidates on all sides are very weak. I don't want any of them to be President. But, as a candidate, Rubio is the best of the group, much like Obama in 2008 and Clinton in 1992. He's young, and comes off as likeable and knowledgeable. Don't think he'd be too good as president but none of these candidates would be.
Hillary wins?
Goodbye Republic.
Ann: She's a criminal and our enemies have our secrets due to her gross negligence.
Aww come on, Professor! We all know that after having voted for Obama, you'll vote for the Hildebeast.
Kasich has one strength, he appears to be serious about dealing with the deficit and has some credentials to suggest that he might actually do so. In picking a candidate the question is who solves a pressing problem and is relatively unlikely to create new ones. I think Kasich crosses that threshold.
The truth is, I don't like anyone who's running for President in either party.
There's a lesson here: politics attracts the wrong kind of person for the job.
"The truth is, I don't like anyone who's running for President in either party. Watching these debates has become a chore. "
Is there an unrepresented political paradigm out there? This seems unnecessarily nihilistic. Every part of the spectrum I can think of within reason is represented.
Pure libertarians have Rand Paul.
People looking for big business corporate shills of dubious intellectual/moral standards have a spectrum of candidates starting at Rubio going through Kasich and Bush and the fat hugger of whose name I forgot finally landing on Hillary.
People who want outsiders to shake things up have Trump and Carson with polar opposite personalities.
If you are interested in pure intelligence and ideological consistency/fervor you have Cruz.
There is even a socialist running.
What more could you want?
David Begley said...
"Hillary wins?
Goodbye Republic.
Ann: She's a criminal and our enemies have our secrets due to her gross negligence."
Ann wants to vote for free stuff and she doesn't want to feel bad when things go wrong. She will hold her nose and vote for Hillary even though she doesn't "like" Hillary. That way she doesn't have to take responsibility for the decline in living standards for the people that support the parasite Ann is a part of.
This is the most entertaining Presidential campaign I ever have watched, and the first campaign I watched was the 1964 one
How is Trump an outsider? He's been a well known public figure since the mid 1980s. Not holding elective office doesn't make one an outsider.
AReasonableMan said...
"Kasich has one strength, he appears to be serious about dealing with the deficit and has some credentials to suggest that he might actually do so. In picking a candidate the question is who solves a pressing problem and is relatively unlikely to create new ones. I think Kasich crosses that threshold."
I disagree. The only way to deal with the deficit is to cut spending and promote growth in the economy. We will not eliminate the deficit or the debt with the <2% annual growth the Obama regime has given us. Structural spending on SS/Medicare will outpace that.
Kasich is too beholden to the GOPe and the cronies in the CoC. We need to free small businesses and entrepreneurs from the chains both parties are throwing on them if we are going to get back to historical 3-4% growth levels. Kasich wouldn't do that.
I refuse to watch the debates, ever for the very reason Althouse explains in this post. I prefer never to see politicians on live video. If I watch them I will dislike them. The revolting mix of pandering and importunity is much easier to forgive in print.
ARM wrote: In picking a candidate the question is who solves a pressing problem and is relatively unlikely to create new ones.
That's a very good standard. It is important to remember, on the first point, that doing nothing is an option.
If Hillary wins, the book about it should be called "The Baking of the President," and no, I am not talking about cookies.
mccullough said...
"How is Trump an outsider? He's been a well known public figure since the mid 1980s. Not holding elective office doesn't make one an outsider."
He is opposing the initiatives being pushed by the crony establishment. As soon as you adjust your paradigm to encompass the fact that the wealthy donors don't care about party and generally support both of the establishments it what is going on in DC makes more sense. They don't care if Republicans or Democrats pass amnesty. They just want amnesty. The big banks wrote Dodd/Frank to crush smaller banks and consolidate their power/wealth. They just happened to use democrats to get that done. The republicans are usually painted as the big business party, but look at how Kasich and Bush fared last night supporting big bank bail outs. That will finish their campaigns.
The GOPe will consolidate around Rubio because Rubio is an amnesty shill. If Rubio is the nominee the Dem's wont raise near the money they would if Cruz or Trump is nominated. They wont care if Hillary or Rubio passes amnesty, just that it is passed. The big banks will be all in for Hillary though no matter who is nominated.
1) So stop watching. I haven't watched one of the debates in decades, because they've always been a waste of time.
You're not gettin' paid to watch them and comment on them; if it's unpleasant, stop.
2) Well, at least Hillary beats Sanders.
I'd be tempted to say "but if Sanders won, we could watch how even his own - sort of - party wouldn't support him and everything he tried fails", but of course the Faithful would just say "it would have worked if not for the wicked Republicans sabotaging".
Because that's always why It Didn't Quite Work, isn't it?
Actually, what we need is not a "likeable" president, but a dyed in the wool SOB like Old Joe Kennedy, who could read a balance sheet and really enjoyed firing people - especially old friends and associates.
The truth is, I don't like anyone who's running for President in either party.
Considering that you once rooted for Barack Obama, and took a while to realize what an utter disaster his policies were and are, perhaps that's a good thing. I realize that you despise Carly Fiorina because women are supposed to be Democrats in solidarity with the sisterhood, and I realize that you despise Ben Carson because he's a black man who insists on thinking for himself instead of letting Elijah Cummings think for him. But perhaps handsome, young-ish, Cuban-American Marco Rubio will grow on you.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
There are probably six GOP candidates who are are much better candidates than Hillary. For those of us who knew from the get so that Obama was a lying marxist, those candidates are also better than he was. Only if you view sociopathic level lying as an acceptable quality for a U.S. politician, can you think Obama was a better candidate than Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Christie, and Fiorina, in no particular order. Even Trump, Jindal, Huckabee and virtually anyone but Kasich (he is the surviving Conservative Democrat) bring something to the table. Did I leave Bush out? oops.
Kasich made it clear he cares more about the families of illegals than American families, other than his own.
I agree with Althouse. Understanding policy positions is a chore. Much better to vote based on whether a slick (sorta-) black man makes your lady-parts tingle.
"The worst election season to have to witness since I first started watching... which was in 1960."
Just wait until you have to witness the consequences when one of them takes office. These are the people that our culture is elevating to power. The flaw is in the culture. The flaw is deep and its causes are widespread.
I agree Professor. Unpleasant is a good way to describe it, much like the recent past and the foreseeable future. Hope I die before I get old.
I never watch the debates. My state's primary is usually after everything is decided and, if not, there is not going to be more than 2 or 3 serious candidates left. I already know where they stand, more or less, and when the time comes I can research further. Frankly, while being able to communicate is a valuable leadership skill a President can get by with adequacy, plus a lot of the candidates that get praised for their debate skills are either blathering irrelevant talking points or have no substance behind it.
Keep in mind, I do value the debates in the sense that the candidates that cannot communicate at all get winnowed out, which is a good thing, but that's really all I care about.
Yes, I know that I am not ordinary.
It may be unpleasant to some sensibilities, but most people find it entertaining. The debates have gathered huge ratings. Rubio is personable and persuasive. So was Obama. BS detectors have blind spots.......I would have liked to like Bush. He seems a decent man and has a good record, but your eyes tend to glaze over when he speaks.
Carly is my choice and I am enthusiastic about her, but it ain't going to happen. Rubio comes across as likeable, knowledgeable and good on his feet, so he would also work for me. Cruz would be the intellectual Obama was supposed to be but lacked the chops; however, Cruz would probably be ripped apart by the media. If Hillary wins I'll stay in Spain for another four years. There are worse things.
mccullough said...
How is Trump an outsider? He's been a well known public figure since the mid 1980s. Not holding elective office doesn't make one an outsider.
It makes them outsiders to the political culture. Carson and Trump are benefiting from the wide perception that the political culture is corrupt, shallow and dishonest. The only president since God knows when to have held the presidency as first elective office was Eisenhower. His presidency worked out quite well.
Though it's a long shot, a Trump presidency seems possible. He would be the first since Ike to be president as first elective office. Quite a contrast between the two, but both are (were for Ike) decisive and highly self confident men.
As to the value of the candidates, you really never know who will or will not be a good President until said individual is President. Sometimes the perfect candidate proves to be wanting and sometimes the sub-par proves impressive. Honestly, given his track record and proclivities I would think of someone like Winston Churchill to be a poor choice of a leader, but he proved to be about as good as one could hope. On paper Jimmy Carter looked pretty good. He wasn't.
If your standard is perfection, do expect to be disappointed.
"Considering that you once rooted for Barack Obama..."
That's not true. I didn't like either candidate that much, but when Election Day arrived, the immediate emergency was the financial crisis and McCain had showed himself to be dangerously unprepared.
"... and took a while to realize what an utter disaster his policies were..."
What does that refer to? It's all in the archive of this blog, so what are you talking about? I'm not the type to go hyperventilating about disaster. For example, all health care solutions are imperfect.
"... and are, perhaps that's a good thing. I realize that you despise Carly Fiorina because women are supposed to be Democrats in solidarity with the sisterhood..."
Oh bullshit. What are you referring to that's in this archive? Have you see how I have treated GOP women over the 12 years of this blog? You are just coming up with generic crap that you think liberal women believe and assigning it to me.
".. and I realize that you despise Ben Carson because he's a black man who insists on thinking for himself instead of letting Elijah Cummings think for him."
Utter bullshit. Not supported by the archive here. I have treated him with the same cruel neutrality I apply to them all.
"But perhaps handsome, young-ish, Cuban-American Marco Rubio will grow on you."
For the record, I don't find Rubio physically attractive.
@Althouse, not to pile on, but did you like Ronald Reagan in either election?
I like Kasich, and I think he we would be formidable against Hillary in the General.
But.....
He is simply wrong on the illegal immigration issue. Nobody is claiming that they will mass deport 11 Million illegal immigrants. That's a strawman.
First, start enforcing the existing law, and start deporting those who are already ordered to be deported. (such as criminals)
Second, most importantly, stop undermining the current border patrol, seal the border and set and execute policies to stop future illegal immigration.
Once 1 & 2 are done, we can talk about what to do about long-standing illegal immigrants who already live here.
The exigency though is to stop the immediate flood of illegals.
I find it interesting that none of the governors have made the cut. The debate format doesn't do much to showcase governing skills, and evidently running for state office requires political skills that don't scale to running for president.
Althouse:
The truth is, I don't like anyone who's running for President in either party.
Is there someone not running, who you like and would support?
If not, then the problem is most likely with you, not the 23 candidates.
The Wall Street banks are the ones who finance Trump's ventures. The illegals are the ones who work at his hotels and golf courses and clean his office buildings. He's rather late to the party on these issues.
> Rubio comes across as likeable, knowledgeable and good on his feet
He can also stick in the shiv with a smile, a useful talent to have in politics.
"@Althouse, not to pile on, but did you like Ronald Reagan in either election?"
Before 9/11, the only Republican I'd ever voted for, for President, was Gerald Ford (and that was because I had the feeling there was something wrong with Jimmy Carter). I had voted for a Republican governor once, Tommy Thompson, in the election where the Democratic opponent was too left-wing.
I'm not particularly political, but I avoided the GOP because I lived through Nixon and I didn't like any of the social conservative business (and I still don't).
For the record, though, in my pre-voting days: I strongly supported Richard Nixon in 1960 (when I was 9) and Barry Goldwater in 1964. I always detested LBJ. The first election I could vote in was 1972, when I was 21, and, as you can already deduce, I voted for McGovern.
I have never thought any candidate particularly fit what I would like and unlike so many other people, I have no expectation that they'll get anywhere close to me. I'm mostly a distanced observer in this, but I do go out and voted every damned time.
I'm intrigued by Fiorina.
That's it.
I suggest that the problem is not the candidates but the environment about them. Previous elections had different mass media conditions and the public they were speaking to had a different culture.
We old people of a certain frame of mind would like a different style and more substance, but that is not effective under modern conditions. It's not a question of appealing to refined sensibilities.
As for flaws in the candidates, you can look back at the reality of those of the past, and see the real defects that were not apparent to the ordinary person. Hilary is not more or less corrupt, personally, than Lyndon Johnson was. It may or may not eventually come out that she is as personally unpleasant.
So with the others. Many are accomplished and effective public servants, as these things go. You are just seeing them under very unflattering lighting.
I really don't think Hillary is this fait accompli you do.
Again, her husband was markedly more popular than her and he NEVER got 50% of the vote in a Presidential election.
Kasich has one strength, he appears to be serious about dealing with the deficit and has some credentials to suggest that he might actually do so. In picking a candidate the question is who solves a pressing problem and is relatively unlikely to create new ones. I think Kasich crosses that threshold.
He has exploded Medicare spending in OH which is going to destroy the budget.
but when Election Day arrived, the immediate emergency was the financial crisis and McCain had showed himself to be dangerously unprepared.
That pushed me from McCain as well. McCain suspended his campaign to go back to DC and do...what, exactly?
Yeah, Althouse, all that conservative stuff is icky. But you live conservatively. Your life is filled with conservative behavior and conservative advice.
You just don't want the state involving itself.
Especially in abortion. Because that is sacrosanct.
I liked Ike. I remember him well. He reminded me of my grandfather.
Disliked Nixon and loathed LBJ.
Loved Reagan.
Ike and Reagan = great presidents.
Althouse wrote:
That's not true. I didn't like either candidate that much, but when Election Day arrived, the immediate emergency was the financial crisis and McCain had showed himself to be dangerously unprepared.
Are you referring to when he suspended his campaingn to deal with the crisis? The problem there was when he got to the house, no one knew what to do with the Paulson plan, and so he basically sat there twiddling his thumbs. But him rushing down to try to address the problem isn't an example of him being unprepared. He just put him self into a situation where he thought he was going to do something and instead hit the gears of Washington bureaucracy.
I had voted for a Republican governor once, Tommy Thompson, in the election where the Democratic opponent was too left-wing.
I looked up his opponents. Tony Earl, whom TT beat in a recession. Tom Loftus. Chuck Chvala (!!) -- before his prison term, obviously, and Ed Garvey.
I'm guessing you meant Ed Garvey, he was way left politically. I don't recall voting for him. I did not vote for Chvala.
He just put him self into a situation where he thought he was going to do something and instead hit the gears of Washington bureaucracy.
That's a charitable way of putting it. It revealed him to have few ideas and fewer leadership abilities.
I too find the selection wanting. Of course I'm a bitter jaded cynic. I firmly believe that anybody who deserves to be president would be unelectable in the current environment. The type of person who I'd like as president would be a boring, uncharismatic intellectual who you would hardly ever see except in a crisis or a war.
Agreed. On the GOP side, Trump was like a huge rock thrown into the pond - it's going to sink, but it's enormously disruptive. The other side is too appalling to contemplate. Obama may be a clueless narcissist, but he's not a horrible person. Unlike some.
chuck wrote:
He can also stick in the shiv with a smile, a useful talent to have in politics.
And he's latino. I hate to play the identity politics card, but there it is.
Most interesting comment = AA does not find Rubio attractive.
Doesn't he look like Dinozzo on NCIS?
" I think Kasich crosses that threshold."
ARM is useful as a negative indicator. I already did;t like Kasich and this caps his negatives.
Until we got on college football, which seems to push a button on ARM, I considered him a reasonable lefty.
I like Fiorina and think she could do it but probably won't. I like Carson but don't think he is prepared. After Obama, that seems not to be important.
I knew about Obama in early 2008 and about his "record."
I liked Walker and think he still has a future in a normal year. I liked Perry but he does not do well in debates.
Rubio and Cruz are probably now front runners.
I didn’t watch the debate because they seem to be geared more towards people who treat politics as a form of entertainment looking for one-liners and gaffes rather than anything of substance or importance. Besides Tuesday nights in the fall are for The Flash and Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Kasich seems pragmatic and honest, but I agree that he's annoying and seems like a jerk. He's the opposite of smooth and polished (which can be a good thing). He'd probably be a decent president. Terrible candidate, though, at least in the primaries.
I feel confident that Rubio will win the nomination. Once the Trump/Carson fever breaks, and it will, Cruz will try and fail to mount a challenge from the right. Rubio just needs to have a respectable showing in Iowa, i.e., come in fourth behind Carson/Trump/Cruz but comfortably ahead of the other establishment candidates.
I think Rubio would be an okay president, but not great. He's clearly the most talented politician in the field, and offers a decent chance to defeat Hillary. That alone is reason enough to support him.
Obama may be a clueless narcissist, but he's not a horrible person.
Wait, doesn't ... Oh, never mind.
I also don't think Hillary is going to make it. She will either be indicted or Comey will resign in protest, which will accomplish the same thing.
Then she will drop out for "health reasons."
Madison Man wrote:
That's a charitable way of putting it. It revealed him to have few ideas and fewer leadership abilities.
I disagree. He was a senator. Not a president. When he acts as a senator he is one of many. It doesn't mean he had no ideas, he just wasn't acting as a president when trying to resolve the crisis. But on the other hand, he was in the senate. How else do you expect him to act?
They are dinging Marco Rubio now because he's missing all these votes running for president. I don't know if missing weighing in on the most important economic issue actually looks good.
Kasich insists that his confrontational style will somehow make the 1990s relevant again. He insists he can do it now because he claims he did it then. Apparently Newt Gingrich was his understudy and China's sudden turn to capitalism was just starting to strip industrial production out of the Midwest and Canada.
He is a sad irrelevancy today and passionate that we all know it.
Finally
Althouse is right again
I too find the selection wanting. Of course I'm a bitter jaded cynic. I firmly believe that anybody who deserves to be president would be unelectable in the current environment. The type of person who I'd like as president would be a boring, uncharismatic intellectual who you would hardly ever see except in a crisis or a war.
“My idea of a perfect government is one guy who sits in a small room at a desk, and the only thing he’s allowed to decide is who to nuke. The man is chosen based on some kind of IQ test, and maybe also a physical tournament, like a decathlon. And women are brought to him, maybe ... when he desires them.” – Ron Swanson
"Considering that you once rooted for Barack Obama..."
That's not true. I didn't like either candidate that much, but when Election Day arrived, the immediate emergency was the financial crisis and McCain had showed himself to be dangerously unprepared."
Well defended. In the Freudian sense.
"the same cruel neutrality I apply to them all"
Know thyself, someone said somewhere. Not someone from Madison, WI.
Looking back, ma'am, what could the "dangerously unprepared" McCain have done that would have been worse than what the marvelously prepared Obama actually did?
The truth is, I don't like anyone who's running for President in either party. Watching these debates has become a chore. Following the news. I don't like them. I have no one to root for. And I'm pretty sure Hillary will win in the end. It's quite unpleasant.
Well put. Also, and probably related to my opinion of its being well put, my thoughts exactly.
In my case, the running Republicans I like lack the experience and the running Republicans with the experience lack being the ones I like.
And there's no chance I'll ever vote for Hillary, so I'm resigned to voting for whoever crawls out of the Republican pile at the end of the primary.
The lefties explain that McCain was dangerously unprepared.
And there you have it. In a sentence. Stunning.
Hang in there. Trump has not yet begun to fight. He is timing his assaults on Hillary. She is not unbeatable. And keeping our borders open to world migration has to come to a screeching halt even if it means not electing the overconfident Mrs. Clinton.
Kind of sad that Trump has poisoned the waters. I think that all the candidates with the exception of Trump (and maybe Christie and a couple of the social conservatives) would be just fine. I don't know if Carson has the necessary experience, but that probably matters less than I think; no one has experience at being president.
Strong bench, as they say. I see no reason why I should let the liberal media convince me that there is a problem here. The Democrats are the ones who have absolutely no options.
"I really don't think Hillary is this fait accompli you do.
Again, her husband was markedly more popular than her and he NEVER got 50% of the vote in a Presidential election."
The last WJC election was in 1996. Which had more in common with the America of 1966 than the America of 2016.
Once Rubio wins the nomination and no longer has to worry about the xenophobes, he will start doing many more interviews and ads in Spanish. I really don't see how Hillary can match his outreach to Latinos. I might feel differently if Hillary had even an ounce of warmth in her, but the truth is she comes off as a cold, white battle ax of a woman. Sure, she may be a grandmother, but she's most definitely not a lovable little abuela.
Lots of people vote their identities. Before race and gender became relevant in national elections, people would often vote for their state. religion or region. The GOP is right to argue against that tendency and in favor of voting on principles ... but why not get the benefit of both? A youthful Spanish-speaking Latino from the swing state of Florida who articulates a strong conservative vision for this country.
"I don't like anyone who's running for President in either party."
I don't much like Scott Walker. I doubt I'd want him as a friend. BUT I do like Act 10, as it did what needed to be done.
Perhaps I'm just not that into liking politicians. Sometimes I like what they do, but why would I want to like a politician? It's not as if I have a personal relationship or something. Speaking of 1960, did you "like" JFK, and would you have still liked him if you'd had a more complete picture of who he was (and not just the glam public persona you saw on TV)?
I think Trump is morally flawed, but I'd have to vote for him against Hillary! Further, I think Trump would probably win against her, not because he's a great candidate but because she's so deeply corrupt in that ugly-to-the-bone way.
If Hillary! wins it will be because the selected Republican candidate ran a poor campaign as she has little to offer other than buckets of free stuff, pandering to interest groups, and her femaleness. She's certainly not a natural politician as her public face is so obviously (and rudely) forced.
In any case, at least half the current field of Republican candidates are far stronger candidates than McCain.
I liked Walker, but he dropped out.
Ann Althouse said...
when Election Day arrived, the immediate emergency was the financial crisis and McCain had showed himself to be dangerously unprepared.
What did McCain do that showed him "dangerously unprepared"?
I'm not the type to go hyperventilating about disaster.
Hmmm. I wouldn't say you're "the type", but I think the above shows who you're sympathetic to and how they effect you more than you realize.
" That's not true. I didn't like either candidate that much, but when Election Day arrived, the immediate emergency was the financial crisis and McCain had showed himself to be dangerously unprepared."
McCain was pretty but in my mind Obama was even worse. If you recall the precipitating even in September was the AIG failure.
Obama repeatedly called AIG by the wrong name and didnt seem to know what the definition of a "shareholder" was. He was/is pretty unclear on anything to do with numbers and business.
You may recall people warned about the impossibility of his concept of "shovel ready jobs". He was very naive about everything.
McCain was a far worse candidate than Romney but he was better in 2000 than Bush and I supported him then. In 2008, he was too old. He was unprepared to deal with economics. So was Obama but he was cool and half black. That was enough.
Pookie Number 2 said...
I agree with Althouse. Understanding policy positions is a chore. Much better to vote based on whether a slick (sorta-) black man makes your lady-parts tingle.
Very impressive merging of old school racism AND sexism! Nice.
"I liked Walker, but he dropped out."
He wasn't quite ready. He needs to be governor of Wisconsin a while longer. If Hillary wins next year, Scott Walker might be the one to replace her in 2020.
I like Dr. Ben Carson but I predict it will be Jeb who crawls out from under the pile in the end. Question is can he beat Hillary?
This GOP race is polar opposite from 2000, when then-Governor Bush was practically coronated, facing only 1 real contestant -- a younger, spry Senator McCain.
He ran as a "compassionate Conservative," remember? But they key point is there were only 2 viable candidates, Yes, 2.
Now, we have 16.
The good news -- it keeps Hillary and the DNC guessing a bit (the zebra effect); the bad news -- it can morph into a circular firing squad quickly.
That the debate was "boring" last night is a very good thing. The GOP debate spectacles of 2012 helped generate the "clown car" narrative that helped Obama limp across the finish line, 51-47.
Ideally, I'd like to get to the final 4 sooner, rather than later, which, in my book, would be: Trump, Carson, Rubio, Cruz.
I worry about Trump in the General. He's a show horse, not a work horse. His boisterous mouth, I fear, will come back to haunt him.
I worry that Carson, a good man, simply isn't experienced to handle the job or the National campaign. He should run for Senator in Maryland.
Hillary is formidable, Yes, but she is beatable. But I think it's wishful thinking to believe that somehow the e-mail scandal will derail her nomination. The combination of Dem activists, clueless young people and default Dems like Althouse gets her pretty close to 50% of the votes, straight outta the gate.
What, Prof. Althouse, you couldn't get behind Larry Lessig?
Justifying a vote against John McCain in 2008 by claiming he was dangerously unprepared is as ludicrous as saying you voted against McCain because you were worried he'd be too much like his father the drunken socialist bigamist.
I have treated him with the same cruel neutrality I apply to them all.
You really believe that, don't you? Poor thing.
I liked Walker, but he dropped out.
Me too and I was hoping that one of the other governors (except for Huckabee) would distinguish themselves but so far it looks like we have the two vanity candidates (Trump and Carson) and two Senators (Rubio and Cruz) leading the pack. Given those choices, I’ll probably vote for Rubio at our caucus next March as being the most electable and probably being able to do the best job if elected.
I don't think going to vote or work on an issue as big as the financial collapse of the country, is "hyperventilating". What does althouse think senators do when they face an issue requiring them to come up with a solution? They go and try to work on the solution.
That would sound more like doing your job. And the person acting cool would be the one who was negligent.
I do agree that the result of not being able to achieve a result did make Mccain look innefectual. But Obama took the same hands off stance he does on things like Syria. Whatever.
Obama was, and is, too cool for school.
That isn't a quality of a good leader.
whats more relevant to me is Mccain (and Bush) warning about the financial crisis, and dems ignoring it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
Althouse, is any 2016 candidate more dangerously unprepared than Hillary? Has she shown to be competent at anything other than corruption?
I don't think she's likely to win. She is the most untrusted candidate in the race.
Maybe the most untrusted in modern history. Even a good number of Democrats dislike her. They realize she stands for nothing except herself. Her support is a mile wide and an inch deep.
If Hillary does win I think this county will enter the most cynical period we've seen in my life. Even Democrats will soon realize, if they don't already, that Hillary's only plan is to hold office. She has no plans or energy to fight for liberal goals. She will delegate duties and basically "hold office" for her own glorification.
@Thorley Winston
Rod Swanson is one of my all time favorite TV characters. He was one of the very few instances where Hollywood had a Libertarian character who wasn't represented as an evil demented nut job who was a member of some sort of militia. He was genuinely a good guy. They sort of made him a bit cartoonish and goofy, but not a jerk.
I think the term that aptly describes Hillary is that she's "dangerously prepared."
You know what I mean.
I think it's amusing that Ann and most of the commenters can't find any candidate up to their standards.
Just out of curiousity, would someone please name some candidates who have been up to their standards in the last 30 years? Seriously. I would love to know who qualifies in this forum.
please name some candidates who have been up to their standards in the last 30 years?
Perry. Walker. Ryan. Zombie Reagan.
Not necessarily in that order.
Kasich has one strength -
Doesn't matter, he's pandering to illegal aliens, he's completely out of touch with the base on this issue. Pretty sure he won't even enforce immigration law.
He's done. Stick a fork in him.
Same for Bush.
Just out of curiousity, would someone please name some candidates who have been up to their standards in the last 30 years? Seriously. I would love to know who qualifies in this forum.
Speaking for myself the problem isn’t that the candidates aren’t up to my standards – it’s that there are so many generally good ones that the base is so fractured that none of them have been able to break out of the pack. In an environment like that, the more “interesting” ones like Trump and Carson stand out because it’s more about being able to generate media buzz.
As I see it, we’re (by which I mean the country as a whole) are kind of in a vicious cycle. Candidates need votes to get elected to office. To get votes they need media attention. The debates are run by networks who want to maximize their viewership. The public has shown that they’re more likely to tune in to watch the equivalent of a political food fight than something more substantive. And each of these actors – the candidates, the networks and the general public – are free to make these choices even if they’re ultimately harmful in the long run.
Mind you, I think some of the candidates are generally trying to promote as much substance as they can in a format that favors 30 second sound bites but they’re swimming against the tide. Which is why I’m kind of stuck planning to vote for Rubio who I think is a generally decent man who holds most of the same views I do on the important issues but seems to be the only candidate of substance and temperament with the skills to navigate these waters.
"I predict it will be Jeb who crawls out from under the pile in the end." Meade, really? I'm astonished. From the first, I assumed that he has no chance because most of us will not vote for another Bush for another 50 years or so. I've seen nothing that doesn't support that impression. The kingmakers have been pouring him money and support and he still has no chance at all. He'll be gone soon, once some of his supporters start drifting to Rubio.
I thought it was only liberals who thought that money can buy elections. I mean, it helps, but not to get a waterfall to climb a cliff.
Walker and Cruz are up to my standards.
Both seem able to grasp the existential threat a bloated bureaucracy has become.
Leviathan must be crushed.
"If Hillary does win I think this county will enter the most cynical period we've seen in my life. Even Democrats will soon realize, if they don't already, that Hillary's only plan is to hold office. She has no plans or energy to fight for liberal goals. She will delegate duties and basically "hold office" for her own glorification."
I think if, through our bad luck or mass cheating, she did get elected, it would lead to a revolution. The last time she was in charge of anything, Hillarycare, we had a small revolution called the 1994 election.
This time it would not be that peaceful.
"some candidates who have been up to their standards in the last 30 years? "
since 1985 ? Bush, Bush, Romney, Kemp, McCain in 2000.
Others that would get my vote: Perry, Walker, anybody but Obama and Clinton. Lieberman, and Sam Nunn from the other side. I was not really opposed to Gore in 2000 but I think he went psycho after he lost.
and that was because I had the feeling there was something wrong with Jimmy Carter
Somewhere on the way to Obama the radar antenna got bent.
Count me in the Carly but not gonna happen camp. She comes up with the most right answers to the most important questions and recognizes what order they should come in.
The best right answer is sitting at his home in Utah, New Hampshire, La Jolla...
@Mid-Life Lawyer
Just out of curiousity, would someone please name some candidates who have been up to their standards in the last 30 years? Seriously. I would love to know who qualifies in this forum.
Not speaking for anyone, but all the Prez candidates I voted for met my standards (Reagan was the easiest; McCain in 08 was easy too, because I thought Obama would be awful).
For this primary, I'm going with Cruz or Rubio. I feel good about either, just trying to decide who may play better in the General.
The problem isn't the array of candidates -- the problem, as you hint at, are voters who either have no standards or are so indecisive they can't decide on the candidate who most approximates their standards.
The revelation that Althouse doesn't like any candidate (all 23?) exemplifies this.
It's like my baby sister (age 34) saying, I can't choose what car to buy -- but, you have the money, and there's a zillion cars, make up your mind, girl!
Since the time I was certain that McCain couldn't possibly get the nomination, I've removed myself from the prognostication game. People who've been similarly wrong should also, in my opinion, remove themselves. Or at least confess to past wrong-headed predictions. That said, I don't know if Fiorina or Cruz can get the nod, but I hope one of them can.
Mid-Life Lawyer,
Just out of curiosity, would someone please name some candidates who have been up to their standards in the last 30 years? Seriously. I would love to know who qualifies in this forum.
Amen. People have gotten absurdly picky about their candidates. Why? Is nose-holding no longer OK? Can't we have a decent distaste for the candidate on offer, and vote for her/zir anyway?
When it comes to this election, "You have to eat your vegetables" -- meaning it's unpleasant but you have to go online and examine the various candidates' websites, look at their photos, discuss with others. The debates are only a small part of the process to determine: can they think on their feet, what's their style, etc.?
If Hillary Clinton is elected it will because people want to elect the first female president. That's what college students say. Yuk. She is smart and competent enough, I suppose. The 11 hours at the Benghazi hearing showed that. Maybe that's enough, to be competent? What does she actually stand for except for wanting power??? We'll survive Hillary, but it won't be pleasant because we know going in she is a crook. And who wants to have to look at Bill Clinton all the time again? Maybe he'll be a nice grandfather type. Not likely. I think Barbara Bush was right. It's time for some other families to be in the White House.
I didn't watch the debate last night, just some clips afterwards. I've been favoring Trump because he's on point. What we need is someone who can restore the sense of pride in America, accomplishment, success -- back away from the lawless, welfare state mentality. But I saw his swipe at Fiorina and that soured me on Trump a bit. Was she really interrupting more than anyone else really? Or does he see her as some king of a threat because she is better on her feet? Under the glitz Trump is a street fighter, which I guess is a requirement too.
I wonder who would vote for themselves on merit.
Just out of curiousity, would someone please name some candidates who have been up to their standards in the last 30 years? Seriously. I would love to know who qualifies in this forum.
Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney.
I loved the Romney-Ryan ticket.
Walker was up to my standards. Maybe Meade is right, and we'll see Walker run again.
@BDNYC: "A youthful Spanish-speaking Latino from the swing state of Florida who articulates a strong conservative vision for this country."
We could do worse. Even if AA doesn't find him attractive. (Though just as she doesn't believe that people believe what they profess to believe, I do not believe that she is not attracted to the people she claims not be attracted to.)
@TW: " I’m kind of stuck planning to vote for Rubio who I think is a generally decent man who holds most of the same views I do on the important issues but seems to be the only candidate of substance and temperament with the skills to navigate these waters."
Why "stuck"? Sounds like as good a fit as one can reasonably hope for in real-world politics. Which is where the base will move, if people can look beyond Trump and Carson.
Rubio is the rightmost electable candidate. As I've said before on this blog (and will say again, don't worry), he can take care of the immigration albatross, mobilize the base, and leave himself free to move safely to the center by picking Cruz as his running mate. Who knows, maybe even AA will decide in the end that he is likable enough.
I wonder who would vote for themselves on merit.
I'm sure all the candidate think they're pretty great. Especially Trump. Trump might even have a faux ballot box by his front door so that he can simulate voting for himself every day.
The last WJC election was in 1996. Which had more in common with the America of 1966 than the America of 2016.
But he was "beloved" and faced a Bush Sr who had no desire to run and the worst candidate I can remember in Dole. Plus insane Perot to drain away Republican votes.
And he STILL couldn't hit 50%.
There is an intrinsic sleaze factor with the Clintons that people don't like when they have to see them regularly. The media loved them WAY more than the electorate did.
And Hillary is sub-par version of Bill.
I don't even see her as a favorite to win.
Does everyone think Rubio is extremely handsome? Is that a thing?
I like Dr. Ben Carson but I predict it will be Jeb who crawls out from under the pile in the end. Question is can he beat Hillary?
I see no route for Jeb to win the nomination. He is spending tons on ads and is doing worse. He is a miserable campaigner. He is a God awful debater. The base loathes him (even if GW is still liked). As of now, he is no more a serious contender than Kasich.
I like Cruz. A lot. Dems loathe him (and they really cannot hate him MORE), but he cannot help but look good against Clinton. He is easily smarter than her and can embarrass her on virtually any issue.
The answer. Experience, Résumé, and Judgement.
Does everyone think Rubio is extremely handsome? Is that a thing?
He does little for me.
Now, his wife...
The truth is, I don't like anyone who's running for President in either party. Watching these debates has become a chore. Following the news. I don't like them. I have no one to root for. And I'm pretty sure Hillary will win in the end. It's quite unpleasant. The worst election season to have to witness since I first started watching... which was in 1960.
That doesn't really tell us much. I mean, you rooted for Barack Obama and helped foist him upon us.
I think you shouldn't force yourself here. I believe you once said that not voting is a sort of vote.
I'd suggest you sit home and don't vote this time around.
The media want Kasich or Bush to face Hillary.
The media are terrified of any young intelligent well spoken GOP. The media are on mission anti-GOP dumpster dive. Any drop will do.
I was hoping for a governor (other than Jeb) to rise from the pack. I'm afraid that the last couple of cycles most of them have shot themselves in the foot by trying to run for the White House while still occupying the state house. I think that was Perry's problem in 2008 and it continued to cause issues for him this cycle. If only he had waited. It's likely Walker's problem this year since it forced him to address topics that he could have finessed or wouldn't have come up if he didn't have to make actual deals and decisions.
McCain had a number of problems with the 'suspending my campaign' gambit. Tactically it made him look like he was dodging the upcoming debate with Obama. Strategically his advisors appeared to be distancing him from GWB (possibly not without reason) for most of the campaign but this put him shoulder to shoulder with him, and the two camps never seemed to agree on how to structure the relationship. The last error was giving the press the opening to paint him as the leader of the GOP opposition to the deal. It's somewhat understandable why he thought this might be a good idea but with 20/20 hindsight there was a lot of downside for very little upside.
I'm pretty sure Hillary will win in the end. It's quite unpleasant.
If elections in the inner cities have taught us anything, it is that demonization and irrational animus have been so successful that a large proportion of the electorate will vote for a corrupt, megalomaniac, deadly incompetent psychopath before they would ever consider voting for someone who is known as conservative or Republican. Better to have a hell-hole filled with burned-out houses, 50 percent unemployment, 1000 murders a year, crack dealers and prostitutes every few blocks, than to have even one Republican elected.
The person who will decide this election is probably Comey. The FBI Director has to decide if he will prosecute Hillary. If D o J declines to take the case the FBI is building, he should resign. Will he ?
I didn't get a chance to watch last night's debate.
Judging from these comments, I guess none of the candidates said anything worth discussing. Or even mentioning.
I think we need to get back to citizen government.
Politicians for life - how's that working out?
I voted for Romney last time. I will not vote for any of the current Republican candidates. If Republicans think they can win this election by calling Hillary Clinton a crook or a liar, they are sadly mistaken. This kind of meanness is what hurt the Republicans in the 1990s. Now there is a new generation doing it all over again.
Why It’s a Good Sign That Althouse Was Bored by Last Night’s Debate
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/426936/republican-debate-journalist-reaction
Regarding Carson, our gallant hostess wrote:
I want to hear about any strange notions Carson has propounded in his years as a public figure. Does he study the facts of the real world and process them accurately and make appropriate conclusions? If not, I don't want him making the decisions that will affect us all.
Regarding Hillary, our gallant hostess wrote:
Watching these debates has become a chore. Following the news. I don't like them. I have no one to root for. And I'm pretty sure Hillary will win in the end.
"They're all bad, I don't like them, so Hillary will win" -- doesn't seem like a rigorous examination of the facts, nor an appropriate conclusion.
Just sayin'
Michael said...
"Agreed. On the GOP side, Trump was like a huge rock thrown into the pond - it's going to sink, but it's enormously disruptive. The other side is too appalling to contemplate. Obama may be a clueless narcissist, but he's not a horrible person. Unlike some."
He stood on the coffins of dead veterans, lied about the cause of their death, and threw an american citizen in jail to buttress the lie.
He is most definitely a horrible person.
Interesting that you limited the selection to the last 30 years when we have had the worst of the Ruling Class stagger out to lie to our faces about everything. IMO, Calvin Coolidge is the last great President. I consider him #2 behind Washington. But only because George set the 2-term tradition. Hamilton and Madison wanted lifetime Presidents.
Does everyone think Rubio is extremely handsome? Is that a thing?
I think people are visualizing the contrast between a relatively young Rubio and Hillary's bloated carcass.
But what if she really is a crook and a liar ?
Is all this about "meanness" or accuracy ?
Perhaps in earlier times (well, the recent past), there was a problem with excessive filtering of the debate, hiding the dirt under platitudes.
Not that the current debate is on a realistic level, yet, but considering the general situation the tone is descending to where it should be, given the dismal state of affairs.
Is it a problem with the tone, or is it that the truth makes you uncomfortable?
Could we have Zombie Coolidge then? He'd have my vote.
Why It’s a Good Sign That Althouse Was Bored by Last Night’s Debate
Could be worse. Could've been the slobbering lovefest that was the Dem debate this past Friday with Rachel Maddow (remember how the Progs thought it was funny that the GOP complained about hostile moderators...yet Dems talk to lickspittle toadies?). Nobody even knew it was on.
Interesting that you limited the selection to the last 30 years when we have had the worst of the Ruling Class stagger out to lie to our faces about everything. IMO, Calvin Coolidge is the last great President. I consider him #2 behind Washington. But only because George set the 2-term tradition. Hamilton and Madison wanted lifetime Presidents.
I Put George #1 also, because he could've reigned forever if he wanted and the entire Presidency is still largely based on what he created himself. There wasn't a Cabinet in the Constitution, if memory serves.
Coolidge was inspired. People always make fun of him for "not doing anything", but doing things is horribly overrated. Being careful and cautious is usually a better option. He also didn't much like Hoover, which is a plus.
If Republicans think they can win this election by calling Hillary Clinton a crook or a liar, they are sadly mistaken. This kind of meanness is what hurt the Republicans in the 1990s.
How would YOU describe Hillary?
And the concern trolling is appreciated.
Hillary is a crook and a liar.
Fen said...
Kasich has one strength -
Doesn't matter, he's pandering to illegal aliens, he's completely out of touch with the base on this issue. Pretty sure he won't even enforce immigration law.
He's done. Stick a fork in him.
He has not pandered anywhere near to the degree that Rubio has, in real life, as opposed to the debates.
"I voted for Romney last time. I will not vote for any of the current Republican candidates. If Republicans think they can win this election by calling Hillary Clinton a crook or a liar, they are sadly mistaken. This kind of meanness is what hurt the Republicans in the 1990s. Now there is a new generation doing it all over again."
Yeah, that's your reason.
If Republicans think they can win this election by calling Hillary Clinton a crook or a liar, they are sadly mistaken. This kind of meanness is what hurt the Republicans in the 1990s.
Strawman.
Yes, many of us here think Hillary is a crook and a liar. But, that's not why Republicans should win.
Republicans should win, because that's they only way to (1) repeal ObamaCare and (2) stop amnesty. And, sadly, there's no guarantee they will do either -- but if Hillary wins, there is a guarantee that ObamaCare stays and amnesty gets too close for comfort.
Too many people right now falling for the seminar commenter.
Why "stuck"? Sounds like as good a fit as one can reasonably hope for in real-world politics. Which is where the base will move, if people can look beyond Trump and Carson.
By “stuck,” I don’t mean that I think he’s a bad candidate or that I’ll be holding my nose if/when I vote for him. I mean that if I had to pick a candidate any time over the last six months, their first name would be “Governor” and their last name would not be “Huckabee.” The last six or seven years has been a painful lesson at how important prior experience is when you’re electing the most powerful executive in the world and that the skills it takes to be a successful legislator or candidate aren’t necessarily the same that it takes to be an effective chief executive. There’s some overlap but a President needs to be able to do more than exercise the bully pulpit and unfortunately because that’s the most visible thing that the President does, I think that drives a lot of voters’ decisions.
Originally I had no intention of voting for any of the Senators at my caucus and always assumed that Rubio was vying for the VP slot (would help carry Florida, have the legislative skills and connections to serve as President of the Senate and would help bring in younger and Latino voters in the general election). As surprised as I was that none of the other Governors haven’t done well, I’ve been almost equally surprised at how much I’ve liked Rubio and so far how skillfully he’s navigated the process. I don’t think Trump or Carson are acceptable or electable and in an alternate reality in which they weren’t sucking all of the oxygen out of the room, we might be looking at Walker or another governor. But that’s not the reality we live in and barring some eleventh hour revelation, I’m planning to caucus for him next March.
"The person who will decide this election is probably Comey. The FBI Director has to decide if he will prosecute Hillary. If D o J declines to take the case the FBI is building, he should resign. Will he ?"
Not necessary. If the FBI recommends prosecution, I would think that Clinton is finished whether or not the DOJ decides to do it. Anyone sane would see a DOJ failure to prosecute as being political cover-up. I think that the majority of Americans are still sane, as proven by the fact that they already don't trust Clinton.
Maybe the FBI will fond something on Hillary ' Super Secret Router. Or #BENGHAZI. Ya never know! Keep hope alive!
Garage,
Politico – Even as Hillary Clinton tries to put questions about her private email server behind her, the FBI has stepped up inquiries into the security of the former secretary of state’s home-made email system and how aides communicated over email, POLITICO has learned.
The FBI’s recent moves suggest that its inquiry could have evolved from the preliminary fact-finding stage that the agency launches when it receives a credible referral, according to former FBI and Justice Department officials interviewed by POLITICO.
My sympathy.
I believe that anyone who runs for president is an egomaniac who will be a disaster if elected. Our primary campaign season perverted the system devised by the architects of our republic whereby electors picked the president, not the masses. Unfortunately, the electors decided that a socialist democratic system guaranteed their comfort and the system degenerated into a ruling class lovefest.
Our president should be picked by electors beholden only to their constituents. They should pick based upon character and knowledge and leadership ability, as should the electors be picked also.
The success of our republic is largely dependent upon the morality of our populace wherein the end never justifies the means and every man is our brother. The selection of our leaders likewise should be based upon these principles.
I was okay with Kasich last night. I would rather have him than Hillary, by a long shot. I came away from the debate thinking better of Kasich.
@TW: For what it's worth, I agree for the most part.
Doesn't matter, he's pandering to illegal aliens, he's completely out of touch with the base on this issue. Pretty sure he won't even enforce immigration law.
Its almost as if they are just waiting for the grownups to wake up and start paying attention. Except that isn't going to happen this time around. Kasich and Bush are most likely dead this time around simply because of their stands on illegal immigration. We have seen this festering for a couple years now, with the establishment Republicans in Congress almost sneaking "immigration reform" through over their base. It was one of the most insane things I have seen in politics - Republicans trying to pass legislation expressly designed to give the Democrats a lock on elections for the foreseeable future. It was pretty clear that the Republican Congressional leadership was trying to pull a fast one. I liked Eric Cantor, but he deserved to go down for this. I just don't think that being pro-illegal immigrant is going to work this election. Hillary! is stuck there, but the Republicans are not.
""I voted for Romney last time. I will not vote for any of the current Republican candidates. "
I don't believe you. This is the sort of concern troll calls that Limbaugh gets.
"I have no one to root for. And I'm pretty sure Hillary will win in the end." So you're a pessimist?
The FBI -- which is part of DOJ -- will present the results of its investigation to the AG, who will decide whether to prosecute. I don't think the FBI will make a specific recommendation. And if hey do , I don't honk the recommendation is public information. But I could be wrong.
Kasich, Rubio and Yeb! are open borders, amnesty types. If you like Mitch McConnell, the billionaire donors, "Free Trade", trillion dollar deficits, and turning the whole USA into a California writ large - vote for them.
Really.
Don't like the status Quo then vote for Trump or Cruz. Everything else will get you more of the same.
@Bruce Hayden
We have seen this festering for a couple years now, with the establishment Republicans in Congress almost sneaking "immigration reform" through over their base.
I probably agree with you on the substantive issue (stop illegal immigration), but I think you might be off on this, as many folks are.
There is a strong business community wing of the GOP -- Chamber of Commerce/Wall St Journal types -- who are part of the base. And, they understand that waves of illegal immigration drives down wages. The problem is that they think this is a good thing! They think it helps business owners.
So, normally, the Chamber of Commerce/WSJ types get many, many issues right (lower taxes, less regulation), and remain a very politically solid wing of the GOP, and, dare I say, a big part of the base. But on the immigration issue -- there's this disconnect, so I part ways. I'm closer to Cruz, than to Ryan.
But it isn't only squishy liberal Republicans pushing for amnesty.
BTW, the Missouri Hunger strike student is from a family worth $20 million. Some "oppression".
And the "feces Swastika" is a hoax. "The Federalist" investigated and no one could provide any proof it ever happened. Surprised? I don't think so,unless you're an idiot or a liberal.
"There is a strong business community wing of the GOP -- Chamber of Commerce/Wall St Journal types -- who are part of the base"
No the Rich, WSJ types have never been part of the "base". Supporting open borders and globalization have never been part of conservatism. The WSJ types stand for one thing: The rich getting richer. That's it. If tomorrow, they figured that immigration was hurting rich people they'd be Donald trump supporters. "Show me the money" - that's their motto.
The WSJ and the Billionaire donors don't worship the stars and stripes - just the $$$
"Don't like the status Quo then vote for Trump or Cruz."
Trump? He's the poster boy for this: The rich getting richer.
The deal with Trump is that he knows talking about immigration the way he is will get him richer. Actually changing immigration issues won't get him richer once he is in power. Guess what will happen in a Trump administration?
Narcissists know how to sell themselves to an audience so the audience is convinced. Then, the narcissist becomes next whatever helps them in the next stage, which usually involves leaving behind those who believed them in the first place.
Obama is really good at this too. Trump is the Obama for Conservatives. He's dreamy! Until he's not.
"In the two hours of this debate, five people have died from drug-related deaths, $100 million has been added to our national debt, 200 babies have been killed by abortionists, and two veterans have taken their lives out of despair. Next, however, he pivoted to hope. We are not broken beyond repair. This is a narrative that we can change. Not we the Democrats, not we the Republicans, but we the people of America, because there is something special about this nation and we must embrace it and be proud of it and never give it away for the sake of political correctness."
--Ben Carson.
I missed it, but this was part of his closing statement.
You said it, Paddy O.
Trump was a Hillary fan just a few short years ago. I don't trust him.
If it were not for Trump's new found toughness in illegal immigration, he would be nowhere. I like his brass balls on that issue, but if he gets in, and doesn't follow thru - we just hired Trump. The other issue with Trump is his reluctance to study up. "It will be terrific. It will be fantastic." isn't going to cut it in the general.
Certainly the biggest disappointment of the evening was my discovery that no one appears to understand the role of the FDIC. Perhaps it just isn't taught in high school anymore.
I initially wanted to blame the education establishment. But perhaps it is the fault of our banks. They long ago decided that we should no longer enter their buildings to deal with them, but instead, stand in front of an ATM. So, in lieu of the old brass plaque that said "your deposit FDIC insured to $xxxxxx," perhaps they should flash a screen up on the ATM to that effect.
@ Ann and Madison Man - I confess to never understanding this criticism of McCain. He was the leader and standard bearer of his party. Were you really thinking that being out on the trail giving the same old campaign speeches was more important than being involved in the crisis management? Remember Obama had to be dragged back to Washington for the meetings, because he obviously didn't have a clue. At least I was confident that McCain would have chosen better people for the important positions. He admitted he was't expert on economics - Obama won't admit that to this day, in spite of all the evidence. I always thought Obama was an empty suit. I haven't changed my opinion.
I don't particularly like any candidate this time either. I will vote against Hillary though, so any republican will get my vote. If it's Kasich I would hope he just stays off TV for four years, so I don't have to listen to him. I don't trust Rubio on immigration; he is already planning to sell us out ( and I don't think he's good looking either).But I will vote for him if he gets that far. I'll even vote for Trump if he gets that far - he can't be much worse than the guy we have.
John Kasich would be a great President, but he has probably concluded he's not going to get the nomination without compromising his principles (as opposed to Jonah Goldberg's's principles, which he certainly would compromise). Kasich's best play may be to set up for 2020 to replace Hillary Clinton, whose ascendancy should discredit the current boys-who-cry-wolf style of conservative politics. The question is, can Kasich win a few primaries? That would help his case for 2020 considerably.
Donald Trump is a loser. He's the greatest champion of losers the Republican Party has had since Pat Buchanan. Like Buchanan, he's managed to pull Jeb Bush down with him. Loser's lose, it's a law of nature.
And how is the Republican base going to get behind Marco Rubio when he has committed apostasy on immigration? Or Ted Cruz, the natural-born Canadian? Or Carly Fiorina? Trump has pulled them down too.
That leaves Ben Carson. Althouse won't vote for him because she thinks a lyrical graduation speech concerning the Biblical story of Joseph that he gave 17 years ago at a Christian university betrays a faulty capacity for reasoning (it does, just not his). So of course she has lost hope.
Lunz had a focus group in New Hampshire, where Kasich was polling better than Iowa. He said the focus group gave Kasich the most negative reaction he has ever seen. They hated his bank answers .
"John Kasich is making everyone really angry," Luntz tweeted later. Still later: "My #GOPDebate focus group is yelling at the screen. They don't want Kasich to speak." And finally, when Kasich portrayed himself as the future judge of Americans' savings accounts, Luntz tweeted, "Kasich just scored the lowest ever in my focus group. His support of bailouts 'for people who can afford it' scored an 8."
After the debate, Luntz asked anyone "who had a negative reaction to John Kasich tonight" to raise his hand. Almost everyone did.
For the record, I like Cruz the most philosophically but I don't think he is the best "candidate." I wish Rubio or another GOP would win and appoint him to SCOTUS. I think Rubio is the best candidate on either stage right now. Hillary is God awful. Christie is a great candidate. Fiorina is strong but her political inexperience hurts her. Trump is a clown but he has done some great things for the race, especially in taking on the media and showing them to not be nearly as influential as we thought. Plus he has pushed the immigration policy toward sanity and revealed how much it resonates out here with us commoners. Bush is terrible. Kasich is as annoying as any candidate I remember except for Perot when he went into the "Can I talk" mode (which may have just been a parody but it stuck). Walker was my favorite going in but I had to concede that he didn't do a good job. When he hired Brad Dayspring, I was really alarmed and it turned out that I was right to be so. Carson is a fine man but not a good candidate.
The 2008 Obama was a great candidate for those who are able to suspend disbelief and I have to admit that I really never thought he would be as bad a President as he is. Anybody who voted for him in 2012 cannot be persuaded by reason. I liked Carter okay. Even though I was probably still claiming to be an atheist when he came onto the national scene, I didn't think his icky Christianity was off putting like some people.
The first presedential candidate I voted for was Ted Kennedy in the Democratic Primary in 1979. That's how sick I was. Then Carter in the 1980 General. I don't even remember in 1984. By 1988, I had read Ayn Rand and flipped and went almost exclusively GOP since although I have always been open to libertarian if it wasn't abviously a wasted vote.
I only appreciated Reagan in hindsight and not as a candidate. I though McCain was weak for not taking on Obama on the Jeremiah Wright stuff and his books etc., many of the issues within which had they been highlighted might have disqualified him in enough peoples minds for us to have avoided his scourge. Carter was Abraham Lincoln compared to Obama.
"I think Rubio would be an okay president, but not great. "
Okay would be a huge improvement over the last 24 years.
Beldar said...
What, Prof. Althouse, you couldn't get behind Larry Lessig?
Apparently not. She was glad he quit.
I wanted to vote for him, although I don't know if there would have been a chance anyway. Not because I agreed with him on most of what he thought, but because I liked what he had done on copyright law, and because part of what he favored on campaign finances the politicians don''t want anyone to hear about.
That is, dollar for dollar tax credits for campaign contributions, or , like the ordinance voters passed in seattle, giving each voter a sum of money to contribute in each election cycle.
The only problem with Lessig's approach is that he still wants very low limits, and it didn't allow a few people to make very large campaign cintributions to get someone started.
We need more political competition.
Professor, other than your support for abortion on demand up to the minute before birth, what other problem do you have with social conservatives? Social conservatives support two parent families, patriotism, community and military service, strong inter generational family support, private, personal, effective charity and free enterprise and personal freedom and responsibility.
Maybe you need to look a little more closely at your biases.
The Seattle approach is probably no good at all. Each voter gets $100 - where is the seed money supposed to come from? - and it only applies to candidates who join the city's campaign finance program.
You've got to allow some very large contributions - it could be limited to maximum number of donors. No one would be dependent on anyone since someone, once they got started, could always find some other rich people to contribute.
There is a strong business community wing of the GOP -- Chamber of Commerce/Wall St Journal types -- who are part of the base. And, they understand that waves of illegal immigration drives down wages. The problem is that they think this is a good thing! They think it helps business owners.
So, normally, the Chamber of Commerce/WSJ types get many, many issues right (lower taxes, less regulation), and remain a very politically solid wing of the GOP, and, dare I say, a big part of the base. But on the immigration issue -- there's this disconnect, so I part ways. I'm closer to Cruz, than to Ryan.
I don't really have a dog in the race when it comes to illegal immigration. What I was getting at was that the Republicans were listening to your chamber of commerce type Republicans, instead of Tea Party types, on the immigration issue, and even some who were themselves Tea Party types. This has become a hot button issue for much of the Republicans, and maybe even the Democrats (who are even more locked into the wrong side of this issue electorally).
The thing though that is skipped over a lot is that the comprehensive immigration reform that was poised to get through Congress had two major parts. One was, of course, amnesty for illegals. That is the side that the Democrats were interested in, knowing that a majority of those who eventually got citizenship would become Democrats. But, the part that a lot of Republicans were interested in was the modification of and greater quotas in the H-1B program. Tens of millions of dollars of lobbying was being expended in Congress in order to push this by the big tech companies. Think Google, Intel, Microsoft, etc. They are the ones who get a large percentage of the H-1B visas every year, and, indeed, have business plans that depend on such. The interesting thing is that there were probably enough votes to pass H-1B visa "reform", but the Democrats, and, apparently esp. Harry Reid, refused to allow the two issues to be separated, knowing that if they were ever separated, amnesty was dead, and the money being spent on immigration "reform" would dry up. The other interesting thing about this unholy alliance is that the proposed legislation would make it even harder for H-1B visa holders to get citizenship, while illegals would be given a roadmap for citizenship. In other words, a STEM PhD couldn't get citizenship, while someone who had a 3rd grade education and crossed the border illegally could. The thing that both sides of the alliance had in common is that they would both cost American citizens jobs - STEM grads with advanced degrees for the H-1B visa changes and those at the other end of the spectrum with amnesty.
Bruce Hayden - Good synopsis.
Totally agree on Kasich and I'm a big fan. He's been amazingly good for Ohio. But he doesn't have to be on TV in front of Ohioans all the time. I can't see him as effectively leading the country at this point. And so I'm extremely bummed about the choices in this election. I'm probably closest to Paul in my policy positions but I think he lacks the leadership skill to be president. It's better for the country and for Rand if he stays in the senate.
what other problem do you have with social conservatives?
Basil must be new around here.
Cruz grows on me. His sense of humor has emerged. His wit has always been there.
Is he electable? Anyone is ... if they play their cards right. Cruz needs to tone down the evangelical streak, keep the smile while sticking in the shiv, and continue making the best arguments.
Cruz understands the Federal Leviathan is the enemy of free people.
Any candidate who does not know this -- feeling it in their proverbial marrow -- will fail the American people.
All of them.
Ctmom4 said...
@ Ann and Madison Man - I confess to never understanding this criticism of McCain. He was the leader and standard bearer of his party. Were you really thinking that being out on the trail giving the same old campaign speeches was more important than being involved in the crisis management? Remember Obama had to be dragged back to Washington for the meetings, because he obviously didn't have a clue.
11/11/15, 6:04 PM
Ctmom4 is the first person to get this right. The "financial crisis" was supposedly an earth-shattering event that would precipitate a worldwide depression the likes of which the world has never seen. One candidate decided that the immediate crisis was more important than more speeches on the campaign trail. The other guy wanted to go on giving speeches and campaigning. The guy who took the serious approach was ridiculed and massacred in the press- Now, can anyone remember what ensued? A day or two later, the guy who wanted to keep campaigning left the trail to join the other candidate in Washington to face the problem, thereby tacitly acknowledging that the man who originally wanted to face the problem was right all along. Instead, the democrat party media was allowed to judge that that candidate had "panicked"- because dropping everything to face an existential threat is panicking, while giving speeches and kissing babies while the world burns is "cool, calm and collected".
There was a second geopolitical event that occurred during that campaign season that was very telling- can anyone remember what it was? Russian forces invaded Georgia. The McCain response was an immediate rebuke to Russia and pledge of support to Georgia. The Obama response was at first, no comment, then a weak tea "we should all get along", and after a few days of bad polling, Obama again belatedly joined McCain to condemn the unprovoked attack of an American ally. Once more, McCain was right, Obama was wrong and finally came around to agree with McCain's original initial response. Yet despite these two critical events that gave great insight to the natures and capabilities of both men, contemporary wisdom asserts that McCain was panicky and unprepared, and Obama was calm and presidential.
Absolutely backwards and upside down. Is there any wonder so many think it's inevitable that Hillary Clinton will be elected president? Common sense says she is corrupt, incompetent and dishonest and should be in jail, so of course instead the contemporary wisdom declares that she is wise, shrewd and presidential and must be elected to lead our nation.... God help us.
Quinnipiac’s November 4 poll
"Carson beats Clinton by the widest margin, 50 to 40 percent. This is followed by Rubio and Christie, both of whom beat her 46 to 41. Cruz would best Clinton 46 to 43. In this poll, Trump was the only major GOP contender Clinton would beat, by a margin of 46 to 43 percent (just barely outside the margin of error)."
Ctmom4 and averagejoe:
The point was McCain really did do something that looked close to panic - because there was nothing for him to do.
It wasn't really so much panic, as not understanding it. He came to Washington and then...nothing.
And the fact that nothing happened as a result of the fact that McCain got there didn't make things worse.
That added up to - there never had been anything for him to do. And the whole trip to Washington came off looking unnecessary.
If McCain had said he wanted to be briefed, or ask questions, that would have been one thing, but he acted like maybe he was going to do something. At least make a speech. All that happened is that it came looking like he had thought there was more of a crisis than what there was.
Obama was saying he didn't have to cancel any campaign appearances because he could do two things at the same time. That gave a better impression. We knew a president has got to, at times, do more than one thing at a time.
The truth is, I don't like anyone who's running for President in either party. Watching these debates has become a chore.
Well, dummy. Running the most important country is not a fucking video game, or a spectator sport. And even though what you stated basically reveals what we all already knew about the right, it's interesting to see how lazy you expect the process of making these vitally important decisions to be.
Pathetic.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा