2016 April 30^th

As I wrote yesterday, the “stop Trump movement” has been stopped and now it’s on to California with a howdy do to Indiana on route. Trump will be the Republican nominee, Clinton will carry the Democratic standard… and Trump will lose in a landslide. As the nursery doggerel goes, “All the King’s horses and all the King’s men can’t put the Republican party together again.”

Trump very successfully appeals to certain voters; their demographics are well known. They are a broad section of a very narrow group. There are few “minorities,” fewer women than men and very few well-educated people. Trump has said, “I love the poorly educated;” they love him right back too, and nothing he says will pry them lose from their Donald. He is their savior and his followers view him exactly as religious people view a savior. If it comes to that, they will viciously attack anyone who denigrates their Donald. We have seen that happen at Trump’s rallies. Trump encourages these physical attacks against challengers because he has a “thing” about rejection. Any criticism of him produces a disproportionate response, which he assumes will stifle the critic. This belligerence plays into the mind-set of his fan base whose first response to frustration is usually rage. (What else do they have?) In this way, they can identify with Donald Trump even though their differing financial circumstances seem to make any identification impossible. They can see their attitudes as just like billionaire Donald Trump’s attitudes. Naturally, they adore him.

While Trump gets large crowds at his rallies and wins primary elections, he is not doing all that well if you look closely at his appeal. Trump has managed to get 10.5 million votes total in all of the primary contests he’s entered so far. At this stage, George Bush had about 20 percent more votes than that. Then there is the inescapable fact that Trump’s opponents in these primaries won 15 million votes, or about 50 percent more than Trump. Many more Republicans voted against Trump in the primaries than voted for him. While the stop Trump movement fizzled there was a stop Trump movement; was there a stop Bush (43) movement; was there a stop Barak Obama movement; a stop John McCain movement? What has Trump done to deserve this honor except to convince his party’s leaders that he cannot possibly win the general election?

Now we have a candidate who is destined to win the nomination but lose the general. Who would like to be his running mate, the Vice Presidential candidate associated with the crushing defeat of the head of the ticket? Chris Christie seems to have little future in New Jersey and he’s already endorsed Trump so he has very little to lose that he hasn’t already lost. He’ll be Trump’s guy.

2016 April 29^th

The “stop Trump movement” has all but collapsed. We know that because a few noteworthy Republican Senators are now praising some of Trump’s antics. Foremost among the panderers is that esteemed Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, Bob Corker. Senator Corker claims that Trump’s speech “challenges the foreign policy establishment.” Of course, the challenge here might be to understand what Trump was talking about. Eventually, though, Senator Corker climbs aboard the Trump train by saying that “the speech was a great step in the right direction.” This leader of the Foreign Relations Committee will perhaps not be happy to know that his enthusiasm for Trump’s pronouncements are echoed by none other than Russian President Vladimir Putin who also thought Trump’s foreign policy speech was just dandy. Hey, talk about kumbaya! Maybe Corker and Putin can get together and start a Trump fan club!

For a change, Trump delivered the speech using a teleprompter, a device he has roundly condemned others for using. Perhaps with this speech, he wanted to be certain to say exactly what his handlers thought he should say, to do that he had to stick to the script, hence the teleprompter.

The speech was not universally well received.  In spite of President Putin and Senator Corker’s praise, Senator Lindsey Graham described it as nonsensical, unnerving and pathetic, so not everyone was happy with Trump’s effort.

I doubt that the content of Trump’s remarks, his proclamations or position papers will have much effect; what does have an effect is the almost certainty that Trump will be the Republican nominee. If he becomes the Republican Party’s standard-bearer, who will want to cross him? All aboard; if you’re a pol for heaven’s sake don’t get left behind. Just watch everyone scramble to get on the Trump train and dismiss Senator Cruz.

Governor Pence of Indiana a very right leaning Governor, who recently had to retreat from an anti-gay law, just gave a tepid endorsement to Senator Cruz. He said that all three candidates were splendid, then went on to single out Donald Trump twice for extra-special remarks, but said that he would vote for Senator Cruz. It’s easy to see why this guy became a politician. He covered every base.

Most of the prognosticators are predicting that Trump will lose massively to Clinton, but some are cautious because too often Trump has been counted out when he blundered and his fans didn’t care. This is different; he’s not going to lose his fans no matter what but those fans aren’t enough for him to win the general election. He does not do well with women; he does not do well with Hispanics and he does not do well with African Americans.  He cannot win a general election with his present fan base; there are just not enough of them. If the Republicans can manage to restrict the ability to vote of enough minorities maybe Trump would have a chance but disenfranchising minorities could have other very unpleasant consequences.

2016 April 28^th

Today Cal Thomas is accusing Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia of “courting the felon vote.” That is actually the title of Thomas’ column in this morning’s Record-Eagle. Each state determines its own voting regulations, consistent with the Constitution of course. Virginia’s governor has determined that while Virginia had formerly denied felons’ voting rights, even after they had served their prison terms, completed any parole or other obligation to the state, he would now permit them to vote. For Cal Thomas this is a pure case of pandering to very bad people just to get their vote.

He has company: Virginia House of Delegates Speaker William J. Howell has said, speaking of Governor McAuliffe, “This office has always been a stepping stone to a job in Hillary Clinton’s cabinet.” Say what? Always a stepping stone to a job in Hillary Clinton’s cabinet…really? She hasn’t been elected yet and so she obviously has no cabinet, so what on earth is this man talking about? Does he know? Does Cal Thomas know?

Thomas goes on to site the National Conference of State Legislatures, “In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically get the right to vote upon completion of their sentence.” So Thomas sites this source that tells us most states already allow felons to recover their right to vote, but apparently Thomas believes the fact that Governor McAuliffe has allowed this in Virginia was done for purely political purposes.

Then Thomas, in his ignorance, tries to besmirch a Democratic state but instead takes to task a Republican one; he writes, “In liberal Maine and Vermont convicted felons may cast their ballots while in prison and are never disenfranchised.” Cal Thomas’ premise is half-right: Vermont is liberal with a Democratic Governor and a Democratic Speaker of the House. But Maine is anything but liberal; Maine has a very unpredictable Republican Governor Paul LePage who is known to simply walk out of meetings if he doesn’t like the tone of the discussion. Then there is Republican Senator Susan Collins and Independent Senator Angus King. There are just two congress people a Democrat and a Republican. The majority leader of the Maine Legislature, Garrett Mason, is a Republican.

It would appear that Cal Thomas classifies Maine as liberal because he doesn’t like the fact that they let convicted felons vote. Michigan also lets convicted felons vote once they have completed their obligations to the state. Michigan has (temporarily at least) a Republican Governor, Republican controlled Legislature and a Republican dominated Supreme Court. Cal needs to do some more research.

2016 April 27^th

The big surprise in yesterday’s primary vote was the margin of victory gained by Donald Trump. He demolished his opposition. Not many Republicans in those northeast states were drawn to Cruz or Kasich. Trump received anywhere from 54 percent of the Pennsylvania vote to 64 percent of the Rhode Island vote.

Fox News was trying desperately to diffuse the notion that Trump was not getting the votes of women. One of their older white business suited commentators, very agitated by the very idea, pointed out that Trump had more than 52 percent of the women’s vote in Rhode Island. Now given that Trump got 64 percent of the total vote in that state, but only 52 percent of the women’s vote, and if men and women turned out in equal numbers, it must follow that Trump got 76 percent of the men’s vote. The average of the men’s and women’s vote must give Trumps total percentage. This does make his 52 percent of women’s vote look pretty bleak….Of course maybe far fewer than half of Trump’s voters were women, and if that were the case what does that do to his appeal to women?

Basking in the warm glow of his victory, Trump has already given a foreign policy speech that was not universally well received: retired General Barry McCaffrey, a perennial commentator on things military, thought it was very statesmanlike; Senator Lindsey Graham, a late blooming Trump supporter, called it pathetic and incoherent. His Twitter comment was, “Trump speech is pathetic in terms of understanding the role America plays in the world, how to win War on Terror, and threats we face,” Graham also wrote.“Trump’s FP speech not conservative. It’s isolationism surrounded by disconnected thought, demonstrates lack of understanding threats we face.” Graham also mocked Trump for using a TelePrompTer to deliver the speech.

There was one change: Trump had earlier claimed that to be an “honest broker” in the Israel-Palestinian conflict he had to be neutral.  Any hint of neutrality by an American official in this dust-up will arouse enormous unhappiness in AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a very powerful lobby that Trump is not ready to irritate for all his rejection of political correctness. In this foreign policy speech Trump is no longer talking about being an “honest broker,” he is now a full throated supporter of all things Israeli; I’m sure his newly hired handlers are happy with the change.

In what might be an attempt to steal some of Trump’s thunder from his monumental northeast win, Senator Cruz has just announced that his running mate will be …Carly Fiorina! Short of selecting Sarah Palin Cruz could not have given a more appetizing gift to his opponents. Some say that Fiorina was picked because she is known in California. Indeed she is; she is known for having been demolished by Senator Barbara Boxer when Fiorina challenged Boxer for her Senate seat. Boxer pointed out the job cuts Fiorina engineered at Hewlett Packard and her Fiorina’s own purchase of an extravagant yacht. Then there is the matter of Fiorina neglecting to fully pay her staff in that failed election try for the Senate until she decided on a run for the Presidential nomination. Great choice Senator Cruz.

2016 April 26^th

Senator Cruz and Governor Kasich might not have truly colluded, depending of course on your usage of that term, but they do seem to be conducting a cabal. Either way, whatever you call what they’re doing, it is provoking much hilarity and very little reduction in Donald Trump’s appeal.

The unacknowledged plan seems to be for Cruz to campaign unimpeded in Indiana while the favor is returned to Kasich in Oregon and New Mexico. Kasich has cancelled his campaign events in Indiana so that fits. This morning on Matt Lauer’s program Kasich was interviewed and Lauer asked him how he would advise Indiana voters to vote. His response was that he would not presume to tell anyone how to vote. In most cases, candidates for public office explain why they believe you should vote for them and then ask you for your vote. Now we have Kasich in Indiana who is running for his party’s nomination but claims that he doesn’t care for whom Indianans vote. That is very generous of him.

This is simply ridiculous; if these two Republicans really want to keep Trump from the nomination then why don’t they agree that Kasich will simply drop out of the contest and give Cruz a clear field? But what does Kasich get out of that scenario? Zilch! Loyalty for politicians is first to their own egos, then to their party and finally, if any is left, loyalty to their country. Regardless of the disaster they believe Trump would be as President they will be happy to vote for him rather than for Clinton…as I said, party comes before country. This is why George Washington was so opposed to the rise of political parties in this country. At this point the Stop Trump Movement has spent 2 million dollars on its efforts; Trump, during the same period, has spent less than a million. When tonight’s results are in, Donald Trump is expected to win the primaries in all the states; the only question is by how much?

Then there is the Hillary-- Bernie contest: It is getting more and more testy. Bernie prides himself on appealing to small donors who keep him very well-funded while he accuses Hillary of getting huge sums for speeches to groups to which she must certainly have promised something venal to get all that money. So far we don’t have an official copy of the Goldman-Sachs talks so we can’t know how incriminating they are. The fact that Clinton is keeping them from public view is not a comforting sign for her supporters.

Speeches aside, Clinton has to be concerned about two things: The crowds Bernie is getting are enormous and so is the funding coming into his campaign; then there are his unremitting attacks against her, which will surely be taken up by whomever her opponent is in the general election. Again, Bernie doesn’t seem to care if he reduces her chances in the general election, all he seems to care about are his very unlikely chances to win the Democratic nomination. Political egos are no respecters of party….and I voted for this guy!

2016 April 24^th

Donald Trump is not happy with the way the primary election is conducted by the various sub-cultures within the Republican Party. He claims the process is “crooked” and makes other equally uncomplimentary remarks about the Party. There is no one size fits all with the procedure. The voter does not get a guarantee that a ballot cast for the candidate will surely result in a vote for the candidate. Often a vote for the candidate results in a vote for a delegate who might, or might not, be pledged to remain committed to the candidate at the convention. Many of the delegates in Georgia, Louisiana and other states were selected on the basis of their commitment to Ted Cruz after the first ballot.

Is the process as crooked as Trump claims? If you are a Trump supporter it certainly is; if you don’t like Trump the method isn’t crooked at all. Those who claim the process is just fine include George Will who has had many harsh, but not inaccurate, things to say about Donald Trump. Will, as do other supporters of the RNC’s methods, claim that these rules were announced well in advance of the primaries and Trump’s supporters had as much notice of the procedures as did Cruz’ supporters. Will also points out that the founding fathers were not fans of direct elections. Until 1828 only land owning white men could vote and their vote was for electors in whose hands the Presidential decision ultimately fell. Will finds this procedure quite satisfactory and can’t understand why Trump and his supporters should object to it.

Trump, on the other hand is not at all sanguine about such methods. Simply because these procedures had been announced in advance doesn’t make them right. In local elections when you vote for a particular ballot issue if there are more favorable votes than opposition votes the ayes have it; there is no debate. Most Americans believe that same principle should also apply to something as important as selecting presidential candidates. When it doesn’t it means that skullduggery of some sort must surely be afoot. Trump now spends considerable effort reinforcing exactly this point of view. Even Dr. Ben Carson, a recent convert to Trump’s position joins in. Carson points out that everyone understood the rules of Jim Crow too, but that didn’t make those rules legitimate.

At this point it seems that either Trump wins on the first ballot or he probably doesn’t win. If either Trump or Cruz wins it is highly unlikely that the Republican Party can avoid self–destructing.

2016 April 23^rd

Today Mona Charen comes out in favor of North Carolina’s bathroom edict in which one can only use the restroom appropriate to one’s gender at birth. Her column takes some time to get around to that opinion. First, she has to bemoan the long restroom lines women must endure at various public events. Men, because of gender differences and accommodating restroom facilities, rarely have such long waits. Ah, but the DAR’s constitution hall gets around this nicely by providing women with twice the number of restrooms provided to men…. Surprisingly the DAR has not been sued for blatant sexual discrimination.

Most single occupant restrooms are gender neutral, but again poor Mona has complaints. She claims “men are messy and leave the seat up most of the time.” Mona has dug into the literature on restroom sanitation and found that 62 percent of men but only 40 percent of women failed to wash their hands after using the toilet. If you are a member of the right wing commentariate I understand that it is important to have a litany of complaints but this does seem to be excessively picky.

Charen finally arrives at her primary difficulty and that is the presence of males in females’ restrooms. She claims, and I’m sure it is true, that women change their clothes and do other things that require privacy in public restrooms. She is unhappy that these activities might be observed by a trans-gendered person. She then moves to the psychiatric literature, or at least to a retired psychiatrist who asserts that he opposes “gender reassignment surgery.” She mentions gender dysphoria, which, simply stated, is unhappiness with one’s gender. She then goes on to conflate that with body dysmorphic disorder, which is ones unhappiness with the image of one’s body. These are often women who misperceive themselves as overweight and struggle to eat even less as a result becoming dangerously anorexic. It should be obvious that these are very different problems.

DSM V, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, does not, repeat not, classify gender dysmorphia as a mental disorder. Many on the right desperately wish it were otherwise; it isn’t. The Republican Governor of North Carolina will now have to deal with the loss of jobs and state revenue produced by his ill-conceived foray into bigotry. Consider a law that requires anyone to use the restroom corresponding to his or her gender at birth: How will Governor McCrory enforce that law?  Will there be North Carolina State Troopers stationed outside every public restroom in the state checking birth certificates? Mona Charen would vote for that I’m sure but probably not for the increase in taxes required to hire the extra police. If you don’t require birth certificates on entrance how could anyone possibly know who was disobeying the law?