Aug 15^th

Cal Thomas has a piece on “College Tuition.” Cal writes nothing that is not an attempt to provide some deceptive nonsense about a prominent liberal…and his effort here is not an exception. His intended victim is Hillary Clinton and her intention to spend 350 billion dollars to assist college students.

Cal asserts that we already have an 18 trillion dollar debt and we cannot afford to add to it. This is an interesting position to take on two counts: First, that 18 trillion dollar debt would be increased by less than 2 percent by adding 350 billion dollars to it. We got that debt by borrowing money to fight the Bush wars so why not spend some money, 1.9 percent, to educate our kids? Second, who said anything about borrowing the money? A tax surcharge on high income earners, or a simple wealth tax, would handle this and other government needs nicely. But what conservative ever suggested pay as you go as an economic position?

Thomas assails us with the unemployment rate for recent college graduates without mentioning that for many specialties there is no unemployment at all and many other graduates are unemployed because they are in some type of graduate school. Does he believe that medical students and law students should hold full-time jobs and attend professional school part-time? Ridiculous! What is the unemployment rate for high school graduates compared with college graduates? In 2014 high school graduates had unemployment rates of 6.0%; college graduates had unemployment rates of 3.5%; this is a little statistic Cal Thomas doesn’t include.

So a Colorado law Professor finds that “the rise in college tuition correlates with the huge increase in public subsidies for higher education.” It also correlates with the huge increase in student debt but Thomas says not a word about student debt. Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin is not helping college students by cutting 350 million dollars from the University of Wisconsin system and providing 350 million dollars to help build a professional sports stadium in which one of his supporters has an interest.

Thomas says, “No one ought to be entitled to tax money to go to expensive schools like Harvard or Yale…” They don’t need money to attend these schools. Princeton, for example, will pay for any difference between their tuition and a family’s ability to pay for the cost of their child’s attendance. Similar adjustments are made by other top Ivy League schools.

Thomas claims that, “U.S. education in the 21^st century is based on a 20^th century model.” Some of it is indeed, and so is most of the care provided by your physician, or your attorney. Your physician examines you, listens to your complaints and prescribes a medication or a specialist. The primary difference is that she no longer makes house calls.

Thomas accuses Clinton of a vote buying scheme; perhaps it is. The liberals buy votes by promising to increase goods and services, even if they must raise taxes. Conservatives buy votes by promising to withhold services, reduce the taxes needed to pay for them and reduce regulations inconveniencing the wealthy, and if wars come, they will borrow the money to pay for them.

Aug 14^th

George Will is pushing for the Republican Party’s worst nightmare, the loss of the 2016 election and doing it even before the election starts. How is it possible that a devoted Republican could do such a thing? Has George Will defected and become a liberal? After all liberals do occasionally defect and become Republicans, one even got elected President as a Republican.

George has not become a liberal (heaven forfend), that such a thing could happen. George is now insisting that Donald Trump is not a Republican; moreover, he insists, neither are most of his followers. George Will declares that Trump has undergone many “conversions of convenience…on health care, abortions, etc. His makeover demonstrates that he is a counterfeit Republican and no conservative.” Then Will claims that “Buckley’s legacy (meaning the intellectual respectability of “The National Review”) is being betrayed by invertebrates now saying that although Trump goes too far…” He means that those who do not reject Trump are without the necessary backbone to do it. In short, if I may condense George Will’s voluminous prose to its political essence, Will is insisting that Republicans must set and maintain boundaries on who can be a Republican. To paraphrase Sam Goldwyn, that means George Will wants to “include Donald Trump out.”

That is, politely put, wishful thinking. If any group could draw the boundaries for who can be a Republican it would be the RNC, the Republican National Committee. Perhaps George Will’s characterization of invertebrates should be applied to the RNC because they haven’t been able to dismiss one of their own members. David Agema from Michigan has posted homophobic, Islamophobic and similar affronts to the party’s attempts at inclusiveness. The RNC would like him to resign but he won’t and the RNC simply cannot get rid of him. If the RNC can’t exclude unwanted members of their own gang how can they police the boundaries of their party and if they can’t do it who can? George Will?

Donald Trump has shown himself very sensitive to slights. Megyn Kelly who had an issue with Trump has just announced that she is taking a two week hiatus from her popular program. Her problem with Trump may have had nothing to do with that, but who knows? George Will’s column suggesting that Trump and followers are not real Republicans will not result in any loss of papers carrying his column. What might happen, though, is “The Donald” picking up his many followers and starting the Donald Party. I can see his florid face and shock of red hair on bumper stickers attached to cars everywhere. If that happens the Democrats will elect anyone they want to  nominate.

Aug 13^th

Cal Thomas, in his column today, has put a tempting target on his back. Cal is a Fox news contributor and, consequently, a devoted Fox news supporter. If you must misinform the public in support of your Fox News friends, well that’s the way the conservative ball bounces. Providing misinformation in defense of the party (and Fox News) is no vice for Cal Thomas.

Thomas is leaping to the defense of Bret Baier the questioner who asked the candidates who would not support whichever candidate was nominated to run for the Presidency. This was obviously a “gotcha” question for Donald Trump. He had long been suspected of harboring third party thoughts if things didn’t go his way. He bit and raised his hand.

I thought that question was perfectly acceptable. Then Megyn Kelly went after him again with her question about his unflattering remarks about women. He countered with some personal remarks about Kelly that got him into real trouble, but not with his fans, who saw the panel’s whole line of questioning as very unfair.

It wasn’t unfair to ask Trump these questions but it was unfair not to throw equivalent “gotcha” questions to the other candidates. Senator Ted Cruz had recently called Senator Mitch McConnell a liar on the senate floor. Why didn’t anyone ask Cruz, if elected President, how he could expect to get along with members of the other party if he can’t be civil to his own party leader?

Then we had Governor Scott Walker who brags at great length about beating back recall attempts. Why did no one ask Governor Scott Walker, “Tell us Governor, why Wisconsin’s job growth has fallen to 40^th in the nation and why you have cut 250 million dollars from the University of Wisconsin’s budget while bolstering money for home schooling?”

Other similar questions to other candidates went unasked. It wasn’t that Trump got asked hard questions as that no one else was put on the spot. That was a very legitimate criticism of the Fox panel.

Cal Thomas then morphed into the “war on women,” a topic of great sensitivity for conservatives because they are very busy making decisions that affect women’s health and their pay checks. Thomas claims that, “The real war on women is an economy that has left a record 93 million  people out of the labor force; 56 million of these non-workers are women…” What are we to make of this interesting statistic? Thomas apparently believes that this means 56 million women are pounding the streets looking for work, not true. In fact, there are over 40 million people over 65 in this country and 23 million of them are women. We can assume that most of these are retirees. Then there are many women who don’t have to work at all and are staying home to care for their children. There are other women in college. Thomas apparently believes if any woman isn’t working this is evidence that the economy is conducting a “war on women.” Trying to debate this issue with someone who presents such nonsensical evidence in support of his views is futile.

Aug 12^th

And now we have Bernie Sanders leading Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire 44 to 37. Donald Trump is still leading all other Republican candidates. Is it possible that this portends a Presidential contest between a multi-billionaire and a quasi-socialist? I know the odds are against it but wise-acres like me can hope it happens. A person close by asked me how old Bernie was and I told her that he was now 73 and that he was rather old to become the President, She said that she didn’t think 73 was old at all. That she will be 71 in September may bias her view a bit. I didn’t argue with her.

Bernie Sanders has been drawing unprecedented crowds to his appearances; Portland, Oregon, and Los Angeles, California, each drew between 25 and 30 thousand people. His positions certainly appeal to young people and to their parents as well. Free college tuition is a winner with both groups, particularly if it’s paid for by raising taxes on the “rich.” The professional pundits, even professors of political science, all conclude that Bernie has no chance to get the nomination because he has no billionaire backers and the people turning out to hear his views will never vote for him. They might be right…but how many of these prognosticators would have predicted fifteen years ago that a black man would soon be elected to two terms as President of the United States?  Casey Stengel said, “Never make predictions, especially about the future.”

Donald Trump now tops the polls in Iowa and in New Hampshire. Poor Jeb is fading fast and Dr. Ben Carson has moved into second. Carson did not distinguish himself at the Fox debate. Given his second question, he querulously said that he thought, with the delay, that the moderators would not get around to him again. With his interesting scientific views, or rather his lack of scientific views, on the age of the earth and similar scientific questions where a Biblical literalist will inevitably stub his toe. Carson is proof positive that brain surgery requires a very skilled technician but not necessarily a scientist.

Carly Fiorina has moved up as well. She has made her chops by relentlessly attacking Hillary Clinton, a very easy target because Hillary doesn’t strike back at Carly; she is much too busy going after Jeb Bush. That will probably change now that Jeb is receding in the polls. So far no one has mentioned Carly Fiorina’s stiffing of some of her staff after her 2010 election loss to Barbara Boxer. That continues to hang over Carly to be used when needed. You may remember the “Hillary likeability” factor from the 2008 debate. It was an issue then and it’s still an issue. Still, I’ll bet she beats Donald Trump on that variable!

Trump is secure for the moment. When he focuses on the splendid things he’ll do and doesn’t talk about how he’ll do them he avoids any criticism of his methods. Eventually the curtain will part and the Wizard won’t be able to hide. Until then nobody cares.

Aug 11^th

Today we ignore Donald Trump, pro tem, while we concentrate on George Will’s column. George has recently used this venue to review his favorite right wing books and to draw life lessons from them. Given the state of his party’s problems it is a smart move to go back in time to days of yesteryear when there was an Evil Empire to joust with and evil (them) and righteous (us) were clearly defined.

Will, is lauding Robert Conquest’s work, “The Great Terror” a vivid description of the evils of the Soviet Union during Stalin’s purges of the 1930s. Then Will shifts to Alger Hiss who was convicted of perjury in 1950. As you can see George must go back in time to find something, anything, to distract his readers from the current conservative political mess.

At last Will gets to the issue he wants to tell us about: Bernie Sanders. He claims that, “He had chosen, surely as an ideological gesture, to spend his honeymoon in the Soviet Union in 1988.” Then George goes into detail about the moral obtuseness of Bernie Sanders honeymoon choice in contrast to Robert Conquest’s sterling character.

Isn’t it interesting how easily George Will, or anyone really, can characterize someone as “morally obtuse” if they can make up their own facts about them? What about Senator Sander’s “honeymoon in the Soviet Union (being) surely … an ideological gesture?” Did George Will bother to ask the Senator why he “honeymooned in the Soviet Union?” Did he bother to ask Senator Sander’s wife who presumably was there too? The answer is “no” to both questions. So why was Senator Sanders in the Soviet Union in 1988?

The Senator’s wife, Jane, tells us that the day after they were married, they and ten other people from Burlington, VT, left to visit Yaroslavl, in the Soviet Union to solidify a sister city relationship. This was the “ideological choice” made by the then Mayor of Burlington VT and his new wife for their honeymoon. (Always nice to have ten people along on your honeymoon should you run out of conversational topics.)

It seems to me that the real “moral obtuseness” here is George Will’s. Mr. Will seems to have no trouble whatever making up “facts” about people whose political views he doesn’t like. Mr. Will has embarrassed himself with this column.

Aug 10^th

Donald Trump was “disinvited” to the RedState confab in Alabama on Saturday but he showed up in spirit anyway. Eric Ericson, the conference host and noted conservative blogger claimed that he didn’t want his daughter, and his many invited friends, to be in the same room with Mr. Trump. It didn’t work because Donald Trump still monopolized the gathering. By “disinviting” Donald Trump, Ericson guaranteed that Trump, although nowhere in sight, would be one of the primary topics of conversation…and he was. Trump will be the primary topic of conversation among Republican candidates whether he is in the room or not.

This is an absolute disaster for the Republicans. They need to win the women’s vote; Trump’s misogynistic comments go unchallenged, they go unchallenged because if the other candidates responded to all of Trump’s nastiness they would never get their own messages out. The result is that Trump’s abusive comments about women are let stand, and so for many women they are beginning to represent the Republican brand.

Then there is the clear unevenness of the audience response to Trump’s misogynistic remarks: You may recall that Megyn Kelly asked Trump about his comments by illustrating some of his caustic remarks, and Trump interrupted her by saying, “That was only about Rosie O’Donnell.” And then the right wing audience snickered. It was clear that his abusive comments about Rosie O’Donnell, a left wing lesbian comic, were permissible and even considered funny by the Republicans; but his ugly remarks about the trim, blonde, conservative, Fox representative were beyond the pale. What a difference sexual orientation, fifty pounds and hair color can make to Republicans.

Then there are the polls: What has happened to Trump’s fan base in the few days since the debate and the “disinvite” in Alabama? The only poll we have is from an outfit called Survey Monkey. In spite of the name they have a decent reputation. Trump is at 23 percent and Cruz, who is closest to him, gets 13 percent; the rest quickly drop out of sight. A Republican functionary assured everyone that this poll was irrelevant but I’ll bet that if Trump and Cruz had switched places this guy would have been very enthusiastic about the poll’s results.

Trump has had some issues with Fox news and he has been quite vocal about them. Today he and Roger Aisles have had a discussion and apparently Fox will, according to one report, try to be scrupulously fair with Mr. Trump; smart move by both parties. Fox is clearly the voice of the RNC and also, equally clearly, neither Fox nor the RNC want to drive Trump into splitting himself off from the Republicans into his own party. The best the Republicans can hope for is that Trump just fades away. Not likely; Trump like all the (other?) Democrats is just having too much fun.

 

Aug 9^th

No villain emerges today so I’ll comment on some who have been around a while. First we have that gentleman and scholar, Donald Trump, whose thin skin manifested itself on the Fox debate stage Thursday night. The first question was certainly designed to put Trump in a corner. The group was asked to raise a hand if they could not support whoever was chosen as the nominee. This was asking Trump to declare that he would not run as an independent if he didn’t like the way the candidate ball bounced. He didn’t knuckle under and raised his hand; surprise surprise…and he was not happy to be the obvious butt of the first question.

Then they hit him again; Megyn Kelly asked him why he was so nasty to women interviewers. Well, provoke a rattlesnake and it’ll strike at you. Trump accused this poor woman of being out to get him, of having blood in her eye and “wherever.” This was an obvious accusation that Kelly’s upset was attributable to her menstrual period. Asked later if his comments were out of line his handlers indignantly (and hilariously) claimed that the “wherever” meant her nose, blood coming out of her nose. That only a deviant could think he (Trump) meant anything else. But if he meant nose why didn’t he say nose at the time, instead of saying wherever?

Poor Donald, (?) who because of his wealth, has never had to worry about how his comments affect anybody, is now playing in a very different ball park. His remarks got him disinvited to a Red State rally in Alabama where he would have been the keynote speaker. Oh Pshaw! His ratings out today are affected not at all.

As an aside: The lovely blonde interlocutor, Megyn Kelly, who asked the question that got Donald into trouble, is no stranger to “misspeaking.” A year or so ago, as Christmas closed in, there was some comment about kids who weren’t white identifying with a white Santa Claus. Ms. Kelly, quickly seizing the anti-politically correct torch and waving it high, claimed, “Santa Claus is white. Deal with it!” This comforting word to Santa Claus fans was followed by, “Jesus Christ was white too.”

Not entirely true. Saint Nicholas was Turkish and Jesus was a Levantine Middle-Eastern Jew so we are not describing a pair of pail skinned blue–eyed blondes here. Kelly was asked to explain her remarks because many people were upset by them. Guess what: they were a joke, that’s right—Megyn said it was all a joke. In fact, if you listen to her explanation she is very upset that her listeners didn’t understand the obvious humor in claiming that Santa Claus and Jesus Christ were white. Megyn should stay with Fox because she will never make it as a comic… on second thought?  This is not to excuse Donald Trump’s boorish comment about Megyn Kelly, but it is possible that in some twisted sense they deserve each other.