And Then There Was, Let’s Face it, One

Tuesday, March 8, AD 2016

There have been roughly 456,343,455 articles written explaining the Trump phenomenon. My estimate might be off by one or two, but it’s in the ballpark. While I’ve long maintained that Trump is the most inappropriate vehicle possible for those who rightly feel dissatisfied with the Republican party, to me the anger expressed in the pro-Trump movement is entirely justified.

You would think by now that Republican party boosters would have a firm grasp on the political culture in which we’re operating in. Alas, based on the continued intransigence of a certain subset of the #NeverTrump movement, it is clear that they are as pigheaded and foolish as any Trump supporter.

#NeverTrump, for those of you who (smartly) don’t use Twitter, is a hashtag to express the solidarity of a movement that not only seeks to deny Trump the nomination, but which has also indicated its unwillingness to support Trump in the general election, no matter what. This group – and I am or was a part of this movement – has advocated strategic voting meant to deny Trump the ability to win the needed delegates before the GOP convention to secure the nomination. Many anti-Trumpsters advocated strategic voting wherein people voted for non-Trump candidates that were not necessarily their first choice but who had better chances in select states. So, for example, Cruz supporters should back Rubio in Florida, while Rubio backers were advised to go with Cruz in Louisiana.

We are now nearly two-fifths of the way trough the primary season, and it has become manifestly obvious to all but the most strident of Rubio and John “let them bake cakes” Kasich boosters than Ted Cruz is the only viable option to Donald Trump. Cruz has now won six states, and finished ahead of Trump in another. He has, moreover, won in the northeast, the northwest, and the heartland. In other words, the GOP electorate is coalescing around Cruz, while Rubio and Kasich struggle to even win enough votes to garner delegates. Cruz continues to poll the strongest against Trump, and regularly maintains an advantage in a two-man race.

Unfortunately Rubio supporters have acted much like Homer Simpson chasing the pig in the clip above. They deny the reality of the situation, and instead insist on strategic voting despite evidence that such a strategy will, at best, simply deny Trump getting the required 1,237 delegates. If this strategy works we’re left with a nominee being selected at the convention. If that nominee is anyone other than Donald Trump (unless it’s someone like Cruz who garners a similar amount of delegates during the primary season), then the result would be just as disastrous for the long-term future of the Republican party as a Trump outright win in the primary.

Considering the mood of the electorate – Democrat and Republican alike – a brokered convention that nominates Marco Rubio or, even worse, John Kasich, would completely turn off not just Trump supporters, but a fair number of other voters as well. Sure, it would be within the rules (as people are fond of repeating), but such a nominee – again, if it’s someone who didn’t have at least 1,000 or so delegates going into the convention – would be utterly damaged. Whatever your opinion of Trump supporters, completely turning them off and making them feel disenfranchised is an awfully stupid election strategy.

No, this thing needs to get settled in the primary, and the only two men who can win the Republican nomination outright are Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Rubio backers have relied to a great extent on the argument that Marco Rubio is the most electable Republican in the general election. This argument from pragmatism – which is dubious to begin with – is countered by another pragmatic reality: Rubio is not nominateable. Neither is Kasich. It’s over for them, and any process that gives them a nomination through the back door of a contested convention will damage any general election chance they have.

So if you live in Ohio, Michigan, or Florida, and you don’t want Donald Trump to be the nominee, here’s your strategic play: vote for Ted Cruz.

NB: Rubio backers might argue with some credibility that Rubio’s poor numbers are due to strategic voting. While I can’t deny that there might be something to this, it’s hard to believe that the enormous gap between Cruz  and Rubio/Kasich is due to any great extent to Rubio/Kasich backers voting strategically. Voters are not quite that sophisticated.

Continue reading...

29 Responses to And Then There Was, Let’s Face it, One

  • Dumb question time. Is a brokered convention the only way one candidate can pass delegates to another candidate? If Rubio were to bow out in the primary, could he say he endorses Cruz and passes his delegates to Cruz? I’m thinking the answer is no.

  • Delegates are obligated to vote for their candidate on the first ballot. After that they are free agents.

  • “So if you live in Ohio, Michigan, or Florida, and you don’t want Donald Trump to be the nominee, here’s your strategic play: vote for Ted Cruz.”

    I disagree. If you live in Ohio vote for Kasich. If you live in Florida vote for Rubio. If you live anywhere else vote for Cruz, probably. Cruz is not winning those states and since they are winner take all it is important to keep their delegates from Trump.

  • In Michigan, I took your advice this morning before I read it.

  • There’s another famous traditional “pig saying” in America-l (sometime it is about an ox) … that saying is:
    .
    “When the pig is in the ditch, get the pig out of the ditch”
    .
    A great old saying and one of my dad’s favorites… get to work and do something about the problem instead of continuing the fear talk and what if talk
    Lets start talking positive about Rubio and Cruz and not talking so much about trump, except to point out his slipperiness. Cruz and Rubio and Romney are trying to do that but so many people would rather talk about the phenom than the good possibilities we have to move forward as a country.

  • “If you live in Ohio vote for Kasich. If you live in Florida vote for Rubio. If you live anywhere else vote for Cruz, probably. Cruz is not winning those states”

    Only because of people voting as you suggest.

  • Good advice Anzlyne. I hope to get something more substantive up about Cruz in the coming days.

  • “Only because of people voting as you suggest.”

    Do you think Cruz has a chance of winning Ohio and Florida outright?

    Cruz is doing well in large part because of strategic voting, but if you make a suggestion that people strategically vote for someone other than Cruz, all of a sudden it is a bad idea.

  • I was going to say something about either Kasich or Rubio delivering the nomination to Trump on the second ballot in a madcap dash for the bucket-o-warm spit boobie prize. . .
    .
    . . .bur Anzlyne told me not to!

  • Paul is right, by the way. Voting for Kasich instead of Cruz in Ohio and Rubio instead of Cruz in Florida only serves to encourages both also rans to remain in the race as spoilers. They may or may not succeed in denying Trump the necessary number of delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. They will succeed in preventing Cruz from closing the gap and overtaking Trump.
    .
    Personally, I think the GOPe we’re all knocking here looks on that prospect as a feature and not a bug.

  • I swear I closed that tag

  • 🙂 no wrath here

    You’ll get plenty of positive Cruz stuff on Christian radio!

    1. immigration
    2. 2nd ammendment
    3. anti-establishmentarian

    my thoughts:
    rubio good on immigration, end amendment, best on international concerns, Catholic outlook, practical on working together with people, seeking good advisors, independent thinker -not a pre-determined template for tea party nor establishment. he has a lot to offer
    its not a two man race yet- I started out for Cruz but something niggles- don’t know what.
    when things seem a foregone conclusion in human thinking, I sometimes think of God’s overnight change 2 Kings 7 — actually chapters 6 and 7

  • “They may or may not succeed in denying Trump the necessary number of delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. They will succeed in preventing Cruz from closing the gap and overtaking Trump.”

    The first statement is a lot more important than the second. Also keeping Trump from adding 165 delegates helps with Cruz overtaking Trump.

    While Rubio dropping out helps Cruz, I’m not sure Kasich dropping out before New York does help. Kasich does well in states that Trump is likely to beat Cruz, so he keeps Trump from reaching 50% limits. Kasich also does less well in states where Cruz is liable to do well thus keeping him from winning winner-take-all states like Arizona. I think this is why Cruz hasn’t put any pressure on Kasich to drop out like he has Rubio or why Cruz has not really made any effort in Ohio. My guess is that Cruz is fine with Kasich staying in until after Connecticut but before Indiana.

  • thanks for the link- I think that was a pretty biased reporter buying all the tea party aghast at the attempt of Rubio to work across the aisle–
    but I don’t really think Cruz could win nationally against a Democrat. He is polarizing. His brand of Christian doesn’t like too many other brands of Christian. HIs brand of republican doesn’t really like other brands of conservatives.

  • Here are 2 paragraphs from an article By Ed Morrissey that make a good argument:
    “Both Rubio and Cruz have had high and low points in Washington. Rubio’s low point came with the Gang of Eight bill, which he admits now was a mistake. Cruz led a poorly conceived shutdown over the fantasy demand that Barack Obama sign a budget defunding ObamaCare, which ended up leaving Republicans on the defensive in 2013 and nearly overshadowed a catastrophic failure in the program’s rollout. Neither of these mistakes did any long-term damage, but the two mistakes reflect a key difference between the two candidates. Rubio tried too hard to work with others and made a bad deal but eventually recognized that, while Cruz doesn’t work well even with members of his own party and makes the kind of impossible-to-keep promises that end up disillusioning voters.”
    and
    “Rubio, on the other hand, saw a way to block crony payoffs to the insurance companies that pushed for that mandate with the restriction on funds for “risk corridor” payments. Rubio demanded a rider on the 2013 “cromnibus” that blocked general-fund payouts under that program, limiting them to taxes collected specifically for that function. Rubio’s effort remains the only effective Republican legislative limitation of ObamaCare since its March 2010 passage, and the one that has pushed most of the government “co-ops” out of business.”

    from http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/29/caucus-time-why-i-choose-marco-rubio/

  • I’ve never bought that Cruz can’t win in a general. First of all, the polls consistently show him ahead of Hillary. Admittedly such polls are not incredibly meaningful, but honestly Hillary is such a damaged candidate any actual Republican should be able to defeat her in a general election. For all of his supposed unlike-ability, Clinton is markedly moreso, and might also be under indictment.

    A Cruz-Sanders showdown would be multiple levels of fascinating.

  • fascinating,but not very funny ! ( remembering 🙂 “Laugh-In”)

    The fact that she might be under indictment is not a deterrent to some– but if she were Actually hauled in by the FBI- that would be any Republican’s ticket to ride.
    .
    The division among voters between those who want to carry on Obama’s legacy and those who don’t doesn’t break 50/50. conservatives are at a disadvantage because of the division in the ranks, and they need to find a way to gather a crowd.
    .
    Trump’ does pull people in- they are the happy “hell-yes voters” who are having fun just b being kids again.. It looks to me like Cruz may represent some very angry voters – and their anger may frighten other voters- even more than Trumps voters do since Cruz’s see themselves as Righteous and smarter than everyone else. Talk to Cruz supporters and you see that while Trump’s are against the secular establishment, Cruz’s are against the secular. Americans will not vote for a theocracy. that’s why I say he won’t win nationally.

  • sorry Ernst- didn’t follow my own advice

  • In case you were wondering what the optimal strategy is if you live in Illinois:

    https://twitter.com/justkarl/status/707309429620801536

    move to a different state.

  • Now that the floodgates are opened: You know what the strongest ticket would be to overcome the polarization /enthusiasm gap through base turnout?
    .
    . . . wait for it . . .
    .
    Trump/Cruz
    .
    (particularly if the GOPe presses ahead with their brokered convention strategy)

  • Anzlyne, it isn’t that Cruz cut a bad immigration deal, it is that he sponsored a bill that was so awful that everyone involved should be unemployable.

    The bill was horribly constructed, both internally and externally inconsistent. It referenced sections of law that have been abolished, or would be by the bill itself. It included provisions that barred immigration authorities from pursuing fraudulent filers, from using statements and documents presented in other proceedings, and circumventing security checks. It even included a provision for waiving ALL fraud… Not just fraud in filing for Amnesty but all fraud… Of every type.

    Now, I know that holding together a 1000+ page text is a challenge and I am well aware that most legislators have about as much to do with legal drafting as I have over car repair, once the vehicle is in the garage BUT, Rubio was charged with serving our interests and either should have known or did know that the bill was so very bad.

    Do we ignore such derelictions of duty under a rubric of “yeah, but he can beat our opponents?”

    I just don’t think saying “I should have mad a different deal, sorry… My bad” covers it.

  • I guess an essay that bemoans mid 20th century anti-catholic rhetoric about divided/subverted loyalties of Catholics before going on to employ precisely the same kind of rhetoric could be described as provacative.

  • Good post. Good comments. BTW, Cruz is a Seven Mountains Dominionist. He believes in a sort of Baptist theocracy. Visions of Oliver Cromwell come to mind. Maybe that is what we need. The Catholic Church in America (as well as the Vatican from the Seat of Peter on down) needs a drastic pruning (Romans 11). I am not saying Cruz would do that. But he is a Protestant fundamentalist.

  • He’s also a Constitutionalist who respects Freedom of Religion. Unlike the current occupant of the Whitr House or either of his would-be successors on the Democrat side.

  • That’s what I am hoping for, Ernst, but even if he is a theocrat I would vote for him just to see Democrats go into stroke on his winning.

  • Looking at the returns in the Mormon portions of Idaho and in other polling data so far, Mormons at least are not buying Trump at all.

Illegal Immigration and Injustices

Monday, June 10, AD 2013

Last week Jason Hall posted a column at the Catholic Stand that somewhat snarkily takes on the question of why illegal immigrants don’t just come here legally. Jason rightfully points out that it’s not exactly a piece of cake to legally immigrate to the United States. The process is terribly cumbersome, and it takes years for most people to finally gain legal residence, and that’s the case for people who have more connections and resources than the typical migrant worker.

That being the case, while Hall’s column does a good job at highlighting the inefficiencies of the immigration system, what it does not do is provide justification for the comprehensive immigration reform proposal being discussed in the Senate. As I said in the comments to his post, the question of whether the current process of legal immigration is cumbersome  is not germane to the question of what to do with those individuals who have nonetheless entered the country illegally.

Now some have addressed this by stating that the current system is unjust, and therefore those who have entered the country illegally should not be punished for breaking an unjust law. I should emphasize right up front that Hall himself does not state this, at least in the column, but I have heard other immigration reform supporters make this claim. There are a couple of problems with this argument.

First of all, as admittedly burdensome as the immigration process is, that alone does not make the system unjust. Yes, it’s a bureaucratic mess, but unjust? I am not quite sure that an excess of red tape is an injustice that justifies blatant disregard for American laws and the violation of our sovereign border.

Furthermore, if our system were unjust, those who have immigrated illegally are in fact themselves guilty of committing an injustice, and any legislation that effectively rewarded their behavior would be an even graver injustice. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people have begun the process of legally immigrating. The current proposal would effectively grant legal status to millions of people who cut in line, and would do so with minimal punishment. So now some ten million people would have been granted legal privileges ahead of those who respected the laws of this country. Moreover, the already over-loaded immigration bureaucracy would undoubtedly be stretched to even greater degrees in the process of legalizing or normalizing the statuses of those here illegally. I have a hard time believing that the overall immigration process would be smoothed out by such a dramatic change.

There are no easy solutions to this mess, and there are legitimate arguments to be made on behalf of some kind of comprehensive immigration reform plan. Of course it’s hard to avoid the feeling that we’re being sold a bill of goods by disappointingly dishonest politicians. But if we’re going to lament having a broken system, perhaps it’s time to acknowledge that those we are trying to help played a large part in breaking it in the first place.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Illegal Immigration and Injustices

  • I don’t know if the present system is unjust. It may very well be. Cumbersome does not necessarily equal an injustice. Do these migrants (or anyone else for tht matter) have an absolute right to emigrate here?

    That said, I would be inclined to agree that those who are here illegally ought not to be punished nor be looked down upon. But not because of whether or not our present immigration is unjust but because why should we demand they respect our immigration laws if we don’t respect our laws enough to enforce them?

    I don’t think anything other than allowing them to stay is necessarily punishment. I am not, in principle, against making provision for some kind of legal status. I think once we get the border situation under control then we can debate whether or not allowing these people to stay would be a win win situation. But not until we have the will to get the border under control.

  • That said, I would be inclined to agree that those who are here illegally ought not to be punished nor be looked down upon.

    I agree with that, and with most of your comments. I’m not exactly a hard-liner on this issue. It seems that there has got to be some kind of middle ground approach between deporting them all and legalizing them all, as neither is practicable or necessarily just.

  • ” I’m not exactly a hard-liner on this issue. It seems that there has got to be some kind of middle ground approach between deporting them all and legalizing them all, as neither is practicable or necessarily just.”

    I don’t know of any of the more of the even hard liners who favor mass deportations, at any of those on the mainstream.

  • I don’t know of any of the more of the even hard liners who favor mass deportations, at any of those on the mainstream.

    For the most part, no. What I’m getting at is that at least to me there is no solution that will be fully just. The status quo is unworkable, but the reform being offered now is a bridge too far. So what then? It’s honestly a difficult question for me to answer.

  • I disagree about the need for a middle ground. You cannot compromise on principles and much of the illegal immigration was encouraged by the purposeful lack of enforcement of our immigration laws and safeguarding both our borders, the integrity of our sovereignty and welfare of the citizens of the United States and its institutions.

    You can go to many high end construction job sites in both the Hamptons on Long Island and the Jersey Shore and you will not hear one word of English spoken among the workers who have co-opted tens of thousands of formerly well paying positions in the building trades.

    And there is also the matter of criminal activity among many of the illegals including the formation of one gang in Florida which boasts a membership in excess of thirty thousand. How does that number compare to the ranks of National guardsmen in many of our smaller states?

    Time to face reality and adopt the same immigration laws enacted in Mexico and most other countries around the globe.

  • The assertion that immigration is cumbersome and a mess is simply not true. Look at the processing times on USCIS.gov. Greencards are under six months processing times nationally and, in some locations, under three. Naturalization hovers at around six months year after year. Work authorization is at 2 months with travel authorization. Asylum is at record processing times – around five months for those who don’t continue their own cases.

    Pray tell, where is the agency failure everyone keeps talking about?

    What we here are individual case and those narrative, even if true an based on full knowledge, are not significant if they don’t tell a wider story supported by data.

    Frankly, USCIS’ problem is the exact opposite of that which is posited: the agency is so focused on timeframes that it swallows a lot of fraud to avoid statistics that would damage its reputation. Make no mistake, the borderline case is always approved. It is only the clearly proven frauds that are denied.

    Immigration’s “mess” is wrapped around the unlawfully present and those persons seeking visas where there are none available. What is so often overlooked is that USCIS and the USDOS can only issue as many visas and in the timetables authorized by congress.

    But what of that? So what if Zeke has to wait 10 years to bring his siblings here? He files the petition, waits out the time, and they enter. Why should we lose sleep over that? It isn’t as though we are talking about minor children or spouces, their visas are immediately available and, if those relationships existed prior to the petitioner getting their status, they were eligible to ride then.

    The delays immigration advocates decry aren’t for those who entered legally, maintained their status, filed for a Greencard, and sought naturalization. That entire process takes between 4 and 6 years. Not a bad timetable in my book for obtaining the most valuable citizenship on the planet.

    You know I have the utmost reapect for you, Paul. Your intelligence dwarfs mine. However, on this narrow topic, I respectfully ask you to seperate the two questions: the “mess” is what to do with the unlawfully present; it isn’t with the legal immigration system and it isn’t with USCIS.

  • One more thing, Jason is an hysterical child by the way and his piece shouldn’t garner any mor attention than an internet recipe for boiling an egg. I was in the midst of responding to him when I realized that he was just another, tired, bleeding heart immigration advocate. If he can’t be bothered to find out what the process is and whether it is working, he doesn’t deserve to be engaged.

  • One more thing, Jason is an hysterical child by the way and his piece shouldn’t garner any mor attention than an internet recipe for boiling an egg.

    No, he is nothing of the sort. The piece is disfigured by an unarticulated premise that steals every base: that people should be able to immigrate to the United States without irritants or impediments.

    The issue at hand has a mess of elements that drive one to despair: contrived helplessness and contumely on the part of the bureaucracy and their political superiors, an elite cartel conspiring against both the interests and the sentiments of the populace, and much confused discussion and argument.

  • Thank your for your input, Dave. I will defer to you on the ins and outs of our immigration system as you have vastly more experience in this matter. Those I know who have immigrated to this country have certainly faced enormous hurdles, though I don’t think think it took them quite as long as Hall suggests people must wait.

    I won’t comment on Jason’s temperament other than to say he didn’t acquit himself very well in the comments to his post, but that is a failing I think all of us are guilty of on occasion.

  • I apologize for my characterization of Jason as a person.

    I do not know him, have read few of his pieces, and read into his character what I wanted to see in an opponent. It was unfair to do so and I retract my statement without reservation.

    If it is possible to remove it from the comments so that it does no more harm to him while leaving this apology, I sure would appreciate it.

  • The delays that people experience over the last decade or so are in struggling to find and use an employment remedy to their lawful nonimmigrant status.

    Many H1bs decide that they want to stay in the US. Sometimes that was their intention all along. Often it was a general idea that, if the occasion arises, they would like to stay. However, H1bs often stay for six or more years and, after so much time here, become desperate to remain.

    With luck, their employer files an I140 petition for them to get a greencard. There is a problem though: congress never allocates enough visas to grant all that are pending. (I wouldn’t call this a “backlog” since the agency is forbidden to grant them until their is a visa to allocate.) Thus they sit in limbo: able to work and travel but without the assurance of permanent residence. Further, their time in “limbo” doesn’t count towards citizenship.

    It is a thorny problem though because, while their hardship is real and likely detrimental to the US economy, visa allocation is theoretically based upon industry employment figures. The theory is that the alien beneficiary of an employment visa is being granted the visa to fill a hole in employment that cannot be filled by US persons. Further complicating this is that the jobs we are talking about are sought-after jobs that pay between 75K and 225K a year.

    Politically, congress is hamstrung: industry wanting those visas allocated yesterday and yet their constituents are unemployed and rightfully looking at the intended immigrants and saying “there ARE people here who need and are eligible for that job. You only got it because you are willing to be paid less.”

    They aren’t entirely wrong about that view either.

    My points is only this: immigration is an incredibly complicated subject and narratives are only so useful to the discussion. The statistics have to matter and USCIS and the US DOS have performed, in my view, admirably. We can do better in allocating visas and such. There is room for improvement in the system but it is the system, not the agencies and our work ethics that create the complained-of hardships.

    Dealing with the unlawfully present and preventing the circumstances that led us to this place are similarly complicated subjects but they are distinct subjects from the legal immigration system that we have and it does no good to mingle the two in discussion.

  • They merely want to pad democat voting rolls with 25,000,000 more dependents.

    This chimera has been squishing around in dem and GOP politicians’ hare-brains for generations.

    The open borders lobby (OBL) wants you to believe “immigration reform” (a.k.a. amnesty) will not encourage more law-breaking.

    The politicians, socialist justice whiners, and OBL don’t want you to know the history, which tells you that the invasion will worsen.

    Between 1986 and 2000, the “over-sized children” in congress enacted seven illegal alien amnesties that made 5.7 million illegal invaders “legal.” In 2006, after 20 years, we still had 11 million additional illegal invaders.

    If we don’t do it differently now, we will have 25 million more illegal invaders in America by 2016.

    None –not one—of those amnesties resulted in a drop in illegal immigrants.

    Today there are what-four times as many illegals as in 1986.

    We need to start sending adults to congress.

    – The 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act blanket amnesty for an estimated 2.7 million illegal aliens

    •1994: The “Section 245(i)” temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens

    •1997: Extension of the Section 245(i) amnesty

    •1997: The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act for nearly one million illegal aliens from Central America

    •1998: The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti

    •2000: Extension of amnesty for some 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed eligibility under the 1986 act

    •2000: The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, which included a restoration of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty for 900,000 illegal aliens]

    The OBL does not care about the average American. OBL cares about lower salaries and fewer benefits.

    The OBL (the 1%, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Buffett, Soros, Wall Street) is making more money while your wages are falling, hospitals are closing, taxes are rising, schools are falling apart, and our quality of life is being trashed.

    Your liberal, abortion-supporting saints believe that every poor man, woman, and child that can scrape up the $3,000 to $5,000 to pay to be smuggled into the USA has the God-given social justice/blessing/grace/right to stay and live off of us.

    Try doing your social justice with your money, not my children’s and grandchildren’s.

    This from Cafeteria man (Gaius Maus) before he crashed hard left.

    “Yes, and if there were no laws against theft, there wouldn’t be thieves. It’s not the immigration policy that has created “a large underclass”, it’s the ignoring of the immigration policy that created it. Ignoring by, in no particular order, a) government, which doesn’t have the balls to enforce the border, b) business, that continues to knowingly hire illegals and c) illegal immigrants who disrespect American sovereignty. Nothing in American immigration laws creates an “underclass” or exploits people. If people lived by them, there’d be none. It’s the collective IGNORING of the laws that did. It is indeed “morally unacceptable” that a), b) and c) continue to do so.”

  • I didn’t bother to respond to the original post; it’s pretty obvious when someone has their mind made up, especially with the unstated assumption that an individual’s desire to come here is all that’s important in deciding if they should be coming here.

    I like America. I want folks to come here and make it better, not just come here because they can get more stuff faster. Looking around the areas that have large numbers of illegal aliens– for some reason, folks are surprised that Washington has a lot of them– I notice that there’s no interest in becoming an American.

  • “First of all, as admittedly burdensome as the immigration process is, that alone does not make the system unjust. Yes, it’s a bureaucratic mess, but unjust? I am not quite sure that an excess of red tape is an injustice that justifies blatant disregard for American laws…”

    If burdensomeness was per se unjust, then how many laws may we as individuals or groups and businesses disregard as unjust? How about Obamacare (independent of its clearly unjust applications) with its 13,000 + pages of regulations/

  • Drew M has a piece that makes many of the same points, though I think he does a better sense conveying what I was getting at.\http://ace.mu.nu/archives/340830.php

A Future President of these United States

Friday, August 31, AD 2012

 Our national motto, “in God we  trust”, reminding us that faith in our creator is the most important  American value of them all.

Marco Rubio

Three predictions from this convention.  Mitt Romney will be President of the United States, Paul Ryan will be President of the United States and Marco Rubio will be President of the United States.  Here is the transcript of Senator Rubio’s introduction of Mitt Romney last evening:

Continue reading...

24 Responses to A Future President of these United States

  • I agree, Don. And those aren’t the only convention speakers who may wind up in the White House some day.

    If I were the Democrats, the prospect of “President Romney” (as leftist Michael Moore has now told Democrats to get used to saying) is far less frightening than the fact that what the GOP convention primarily displayed was the depth of the Republican bench. AT LEAST 3 future Presidents spoke during the convention, and perhaps the first Latina President or Vice-President. Not to mention possible future Presidents of East Indian descent (male and female).

    WHO do the Democrats have to put up to rival a Paul Ryan, a Marco Rubio, a Suzanna Martinez, a Bobby Jindal, a Nikki Haley, and a Rob Portman? (And I know I’ve left out some names, such as Condi Rice (yeah, I know) and that delightful and beautiful mayor from Utah, but these just seem to be the most promising.)

    When you look at the Democrat Party’s scheduled line-up, all you’ll see is a bunch of has-beens and never-wases, wallowing in their “victim” status. Who is the “future” of the Democrat Party? Hillary Clinton !!! Talk about “Back to the ‘Future'”. After that, who do they have? Debbie Wassermann Schultz? Sandra Fluke?

    Seriously, if the Democrats are smart (yeah, I know), THAT will be their take-away from this Convention. Be afraid of “President Romney” as Moore aptly warns. But be EVEN MORE afraid of what comes after, ’cause you got nothin’ to match it, and, what’s worse, you’re not even aware of it. And your strategy of going back to the “war on women” well yet again (it might’ve worked 20 years ago in ’92, but, again, we’re talking about the future) PROVES that you got nothin’ and that you’re not even trying to build a decent farm system with solid prospects for the future.

  • The disparity between the benches of the two political parties is shocking Jay. One of the problems for the Democrats is that so many of their members of Congress and Governors come from safe blue areas where they never have to develop the skills necessary to convince voters who might initially oppose them to switch to their side. Ryan and Rubio are typical of many elected Republicans, in that they have won races in areas where they needed to persuade and convert. Obama, launching his political career in an icy blue region of Chicago, is typical of the career path of a Democrat pol these days. Democrats that do come from red states, or red areas in blue states, are often not around long enough on the political scene to “rise to the top of the greasy pole”.

  • Gosh, I forgot to mention the GOP’s “keynote speaker”, which may or may not be a testament to the impression his “keynote speech” left on me. Nevertheless, suffice it to say that the Democrats don’t have anyone to match the heft of the Governor of New Jersey (pun only slightly intended). Christie could easily appear on a Presidential ticket some day, and would stand a better-than-even chance of winning election.

  • Indeed Jay, and underscores my point about Republicans running successfully in blue areas having to develop the political skills necessary to survive. Although he is too much of a Rino for my taste, Scot Brown in Massachusetts, who looks like he will keep “Ted Kennedy’s seat” is another prime example. If I were a Democrat strategist I would be greatly alarmed at the new crop of Republicans who can thrive in hostile territory, while Democrats are increasingly relying on areas that can give them an overwhelming advantage.

  • That would indeed be an example of God shedding his grace on America…

  • Totally agree! Great point. It seems the Democrat party is aging and there aren’t any young people rising up among them. Not the case with the Republicans.

  • I’ve made a few sarcastic comments lately about political predictions. Maybe it’s becaue I was convinced that George Allen would be president by now. But the thing is, parties need to constantly develop their minor league players, because a lot of them won’t make it to the majors. There’s always a word like “macaca”, or a sex scandal, or you just get unlucky and the party machine pits you against a popular incumbent. I look at the latest crop of rising stars and I see a lot of potential, though.

    As a side note, I don’t think that either party has done a good job of grooming candidates in the executive branch. Bush I was the last president to put in the effort. You always want to have two or three cabinet members who are potential future presidents, and a lot of deputy assistant secretaries who could win a seat in the House. But lately the shift has been to policy experts (who may not have the interpersonal skills to manage a government agency anyway) and people nearing retirement. The president should also be generous to the congressmen in his party and let them get some camera time. The last few presidents haven’t put much attention into this.

  • Senator Rubio will be good to go in 2028 when Ryan is finishing his second term.

    If the election goes the other way, there will be no America for Rubio or the rest of us. It recall a awfully hot day in July 1863 when Gen. Pickett said, “General, I have no division.”

    I saw a post on Instapundit saying Hillary Rodham will flee the country the week of the DNC. Let’s see.

  • It will be interesting to see if the Democrats continue their plans to focus on their whinny, “you can’t do anything for yourself, we need abortion on demand and contraception for free” agenda for the DNC. I agree that our future presidents were featured this past week. It’s wonderful seeing such talent.

  • One thing that the Democrats have yet to realize is that when it comes to their absurd “war on women” meme, time is NOT on their side. I’m 32 and before I ever converted to Catholicism I became pro-life because of science and technological advances that allow us to see our babies at their most vulnerable, inside the womb. My husband would argue with me over abortion, that is until he got to see the very first ultrasound of our son- his little limbs, his precious little heart beating- at four weeks post-conception. From that moment on he has been pro-life.

    An entire generation of women have been able to actually see inside their wombs and observe for themselves the great lie that “it’s only a clump of cells.” And as science advances, more and more women are seeing the devastating links between abortion and hormonal contraception and a myriad of health problems- both mental and physical- including cancer. It is not out of ignorance that the younger generations are becoming more and more pro-life by the year. And that will not work out in favor of the Democrat party so long as they continue to embrace the extreme “feminist” agenda.

  • And yes, they should be very, very afraid of Marco Rubio. I hitched myself to his wagon the minute he announced his run for Senate. He just GETS it.

  • Bit dubious about Mr. Rubio. He maintained a solo law practice on the side for a number of years but is close to a pure career politician. Mr. Ryan has the same problem: non-electoral and then electoral politics have been his whole life. Also, neither has held an executive position. I would hope Mr. Romney would put Mr. Ryan in charge of the Office or Management and Budget so he gets to be a boss for a while. Would much prefer someone about 60 who has had two or three careers.

  • “It seems the Democrat party is aging and there aren’t any young people rising up among them. Not the case with the Republicans.”

    Hmm, let’s see… pro-choice… smaller families… not too many young Democrats. Whereas…

  • I watched most of the speaches, and I think Rubio was the most impressive. How old is he – 38? His speach was impeccably scripted, and masterfully delivered.
    Could well be a log jam of candidates over the next couple of decades 😉

    But I thought his brief introduction of Spanish when talking about his father was a touch of genius.
    To me, it has been very enlightening how many of these people – men and women – who are only 1 or 2 generations removed from being immigrants, or are in fact immigrants when in their infancy.

  • “It seems the Democrat party is aging and there aren’t any young people rising up among them. Not the case with the Republicans.”

    The sample size is too small to say much, but it does seem you have had a secular decline in the quality of the Democratic Party’s competitive presidential candidates. The trio of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards were just the sorriest bunch to compete in either major party in forever. The contrast between them and the quintets which competed in 1972 and 1988 is depressing.

  • In any endeavor, whoever is hyped to be the next great thing rarely lives up to the hype. So I would be careful in hyping Rubio as a future president.

  • The problem I see in most of your comments is not that you are supporting one corrupt, pro-corporation, irreligious phony political mob over another mob that is equally corrupt. The problem is that many Catholics, including much of the U.S.-based leadership of the Catholic church, mislead our people into believing in a warped “patriotism” and political ideology that is completely inconsistent with proper Catholic morals and values. Most of the contributors here are also kidding themselves: Ryan, Rubio and other young “rising stars” are simply puppets of strong corporate and financial interests. Your admiration should be for the puppet-masters, the organized corporate forces that controls the Republican Party, not B-grade actors in their employ.

  • Got it GC. Everybody is corrupt except you.

  • Got it DRM: You apparently love to pretend that you are very clever. But this still does not explain why you so admire puppets of organized corporate interests, like Ryan and Rubio. Some would argue that David Koch and others, whose money and power orchestrate the direction of the Republican Party, is a far more significant player. I think as Catholics we should really love the very pious Christian David Koch!!!

  • “You apparently love to pretend that you are very clever.”

    Glib certainly, clever occasionally.

    “But this still does not explain why you so admire puppets of organized corporate interests, like Ryan and Rubio.”

    Because they aren’t “puppets of organized corporate interests” but rather politicians who have the audacity to hold beliefs that obviously differ from your own.

    “Some would argue that David Koch and others, whose money and power orchestrate the direction of the Republican Party, is a far more significant player. I think as Catholics we should really love the very pious Christian David Koch!!!”

    Now don’t say a word against David Koch!

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/08/24/don-theres-a-nut-on-the-phone/

    You GC are a prime example of a paranoid style in American politics that has become commonplace on the Left in this country. Honest, intelligent people simply couldn’t come to different conclusions from you on policy issues. They must be controlled by evil puppet masters! You are the mirror image of the John Birch Society and some of the more “ardent” supporters of Ron Paul.

  • Once again, Mr. MCClarey, let me satisfy your need for self importance: You are SOOOOOOOOOOO clever!!!! However, a personal attack on me because you assume I have political views that are very different from yours is unwarranted.

    I respect the U.S. political system for its resilience. The anti-Catholic English Protestants who originated and formed the United States are to be deeply admired for the institutional structures they constructed. This includes — of course — the U.S.’s enduring political system. However, it is a certainty that the U.S. political system was never designed to be a moral system, and a greater certainly that its politics and policies were never intended to correspond to Catholic morals and teachings. So, with that in mind, it is a stretch — I think, as I am free to do — to imply, as many people do, that to support this or that Republican person or policy makes you somehow a better Catholic.

    To me, the Catholic Church has — or should have — a higher moral standard than secular, corporate-funded institutions and individuals.

    And let’s stop the silly, groundless personal attacks, which reflect your own personal insecurities more than anything else.

  • “You are SOOOOOOOOOOO clever!!!!”

    Clever enough not to believe that shadowy puppet masters control those who disagree with me politically.

    “The anti-Catholic English Protestants who originated and formed the United States are to be deeply admired for the institutional structures they constructed.”

    Some of the Founding Fathers were quite pro-Catholic, including the greatest of them all, George Washington. Of course one can never forget Catholic signer Charles Carroll of Carrollton.

    “However, it is a certainty that the U.S. political system was never designed to be a moral system, and a greater certainly that its politics and policies were never intended to correspond to Catholic morals and teachings.”

    Nope, it had quite enough to do establishing a frame work for ordered liberty and democratic self rule that has endured for more than two centuries.

    “So, with that in mind, it is a stretch — I think, as I am free to do — to imply, as many people do, that to support this or that Republican person or policy makes you somehow a better Catholic.”

    No, it is supporting politicians who vote for abortion on demand that puts someone in the status of a poor Catholic in my opinion.

    “To me, the Catholic Church has — or should have — a higher moral standard than secular, corporate-funded institutions and individuals”

    What that has to do with your original assertion about sinister corporations and the Koch brothers controlling the Republican party is beyond me, but I assume that you are in full retreat from that assertion now, since I reminded you of just how absurd that sounds to people not wearing tin foil caps.

    “And let’s stop the silly, groundless personal attacks, which reflect your own personal insecurities more than anything else.”

    My comments about you are not ad hominem GC, but merely descriptive based on your comments.

  • Mr. Cravins is a perfect example of another group within the “a pox on both your houses” camp – the paranoid, conspiracy mongers. Frankly they’re simply not interesting or original enough to merit coverage.

  • “Who is the “future” of the Democrat Party? Hillary Clinton !!! Talk about “Back to the ‘Future’”. After that, who do they have? Debbie Wassermann Schultz? Sandra Fluke?”

    Very late for this thread, but it just occurred to me – Andrew Cuomo is on deck, not Hillary. If Mitt is elected, he’ll probably face Cuomo in 2016. And it won’t be easy, unless the economy gets a lot better by then (in which case, Cuomo might keep his powder dry for 2020).

Where They Stand: Senate

Thursday, October 28, AD 2010

With five days until election day, I decided to take a close look at each of the Senate races, and to offer some prognostications about how I think each will end up.

First, the lock-solid holds for each party:

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Where They Stand: Senate

  • Paul,
    I have been following the Senate races fairly carefully, and I agree 100% with your predictions and caveats.

  • Good analysis Paul. I differ from you in regard to California and Washington. I think the huge anti-Democrat tide will carry Fiorina to victory in the formerly Golden State, and Rossi to victory beyond the margin of fraud often used by Washington Democrats to steal state wide elections in that state. I recall in 2006 that the Democrats won all the close Senate races and I expect the Republicans to do the same this year. However, I suspect that even I underestimate the true power of the anti-Democrat tide running in this country right now, which is something unprecedented in living memory.

  • I hope you’re right Don, but my gut says Boxer hangs on. The problem is Fiorina doesn’t seem to be getting any help from the top of the ticket. And even in wave elections like this one, there are always a few races that the surging party leaves on the table, and I have a feeling this will be one. As for Rossi, he’s starting to seem like one of those perpetual candidates who always just loses. (Well, the first time around he arguably didn’t really lose, but that’s a topic for another time.)

  • An interesting look at the polls in the Rossi-Murray race.

    http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/19875/Murray-Rossi:-Why-the-polls-are-a-coin-flip/

    I think most pollsters are understating Republican strength at the polls by around 3% this year, because they are dealing with an unprecedented situation as to the anti-Democrat wave, the enthusiasm gap between the parties and the fact that independents around the country are breaking hard for the Republicans. We will soon find out, and the accuracy of the polls will be a subject I will be intensely interested in post-election. Watch many polls this weekend showing a mini-surge to the Republicans in the Senate races as pollsters hedge their bets.

  • Great analysis and predictions Paul!

    There may even be a surprise in Delaware ( I realize it is unlikely though) – http://weaselzippers.us/2010/10/27/dnc-at-defcon-1-is-christine-o%E2%80%99donnell-now-leading-in-dem-internal-polls/

  • “… there are always a few races that the surging party leaves on the table …”

    Not in 2006. Every close Senate race broke to the Dems(see, e.g, Missouri, Montana, Rhode Island, Virginia).

  • On the ground here in WA… Murray holding on to her seat is the likely scenario from my perspective. First and foremost, we are a blue state. King, Snohomish and Pierce counties make it so. The corruption in King County (think Seattle) elections makes it even more so (as you alluded to the gubernatorial race of 2004).

    What’s more, there are two different feelings among tea party folks around here. One, which is more aligned to the GOP is that we must defeat Murray at all costs. You heard this all over local talk radio after the primary when Clint Didier withheld his endorsement of Rossi (based on a lack of support for some key GOP platform issues).

    The second element in the tea party is the more libertarian leaning group, one that strongly identifies with the ideas put forth by Ron Paul (and strongly behind Didier). They feel rather disgruntled about the primary, where Rossi was a late comer, and ran something of a non-campaign saving his war chest for the general.

    We’ll see… will the third time (for a state-wide election) be the charm for Rossi? If he loses, blame will be placed squarely on the Didier die-hards for with holding their vote. One thing is for sure, if Rossi loses, it will be one more tick mark in a long string of losses by moderate Republicans in state-wide elections. This begs the question… should the WSRP court more conservative candidates?

  • I’d love to see Her Royal Senator Highness overthrown, but CA is one of those states where getting rid of an incumbent liberal is akin to Hell freezing over.

    If you wish to disagree with that assessment, fine, but don’t call me sir or RL. Call me Beloved General Field Marshall of the L homestead; I worked hard for that.

  • The just released Rasmussen poll on the Washington Senate race has Rossi up by one 48-47. Murray still being under 50% this close to election day is trouble for her.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/washington/election_2010_washington_senate

  • A sign of the public mood:

    “According to pollster Doug Schoen, whose new poll shows vast support for the Tea Party movement among voters, the president is still liked by about half the nation. In fact, more like him personally than like his policies. Some 48 percent think he’s a nice guy, while just 42 percent approve of his job performance.
    But that personal favorability doesn’t translate into re-election support when voters are asked if Obama deserves a second term. Says Schoen: “Despite voters feelings toward Obama personally, 56 percent say he does not deserve to be re-elected, while 38 percent say he does deserve to be re-elected president.” Worse, Schoen adds, “43 percent say that Barack Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, while 48 percent say Bush was a better president than Obama has been.”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/28/shocker-bush-beats-obama-4843-in-poll/

  • In Wisconsin, I wouldn’t count Feingold out. While Johnson has been ahead in most polls, the gap’s been closing in recent weeks and Johnson hasn’t fared well in the debates. Feingold, with three terms under his belt and being a smooth debater, is still pretty popular in a purple state. Johnson may still win, but his lead is shrinking.

  • New York is a sad case. Less than a year old it looked like both Gillibrand’s seat and the governorship would easily go to Republicans. Unfortunately for Republicans, Paterson decided not to run and the GOP basically conceded the senate seat without a fight.

  • Joe, you probably have a better sense of what’s going on in Wisconsin than I do, but the polls seem to have flattened out over the past week. Feingold certainly can make it interesting, but with Johnson now consistently polling in the low 50s, I’d be surprised if he lost.

    As for 2006, there was one race the Dems lost that was considered something of a toss-up. It was the TN Senate race that Harold Ford (call me) lost to Corker by about 3 points. That said, I can’t really think of any other close race over the past 2 cycles that the Dems have lost.

  • RR –

    New York is just an embarrassment for the GOP. Rudy Giuliani could certainly have won any of the statewide races had he decided to run, but evidently he is under the delusion that he could still be President one day. And as bad as Pataki is, he certainly could have been competitive with Gillebrand. The same is true for Lazio if he had set his sights on the Senate instead of the Governor’s Mansion.

  • “whatever the party breakdown is after Tuesday is the way it will remain for the 112th Congress”

    Maybe, maybe not. If the Republicans get to 50, they’ll be throwing every deal they can think of at the most nervous-looking Democratic senator they can find. If Sestak loses badly, that could be Bob Casey.

  • New York is just an embarrassment for the GOP

    The candidate for Comptroller and the candidate for Attorney-General have both shivved the Gubernatorial candidate, refusing to endorse him and (in the latter case) even to appear at public events with him. The Onondaga County executive endorsed Andrew Cuomo. The state party chairman (Richard Nixon’s corporate lawyer son-in-law) has been a pillar of Jell-O. I keep telling you: these people lose and lose and lose because of their irredeemable inadequacies.

  • Re Kirk vs. Giannoulias in IL: I voted early a couple of weeks ago. If either candidate had been ahead by a comfortable margin (meaning my vote would probably not make any difference), or if either party were pretty much assured of taking (or keeping) control of the Senate, I would have skipped this race and not voted for either candidate.

    Kirk is about as RINO as one can be — pro-abort, pro-ESCR, voted for cap and trade before he was against it, etc. However, I went ahead and voted for him, very reluctantly, ONLY because the race is so close AND because control of the Senate may hinge on the outcome. I am not going to sit back and allow a liberal Democrat to win under those circumstances.

  • On a side note: there are some prognosticators who believe that if Harry Reid loses his seat but the Dems hold on to the Senate, the next Majority Leader will be none other than Illinois’ other (ahem) esteemed Senator, Dick Durbin, who comes up for reelection in 2014. Now THAT is a race I am looking forward to. Hopefully the GOP will come up with a much better candidate than they have had the last three Senate election cycles. Lord knows they can’t do much worse.

  • Paul, I wouldn’t disagree that Johnson looks like the winner by a nose. Interestingly, more TV spots have been run in Wisconsin than any other state. Spending at $10.8 million in the Badger state, according to the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks federal races.