State of Presidential Play, May 1.

State of Presidential Play, May 1.  One of the most insane things a person could do at the present is try to make statements of fact about what we know and predictions about what we do not know regarding the 2016 Presidential cycle.  We passed through the looking glass several miles back and are continuing headlong into uncharted territory; so the only certainty is uncertainty.  But the internet exists and speculation exists and arrogance exists and the mixture of all three is a political blog; so…here are some insane statements.

There can be no doubt that Cruz selecting Fiorina as VEEP is an act of desperation.  However, there are times when an act of desperation is the only act that makes any sense; this is one of those times for Cruz.  If he can’t beat Trump for the nomination, he can’t be the Republican candidate for President.  Given the odds against him on beating Trump, it would be foolish of him to hold back any cards at this time and the VEEP selection is one of the prize cards in his thin hand.  How will this choice impact the Republican primary?  I have no idea and I have serious doubts if anyone really has any idea.  Indiana will give us a clue; but Indiana damn sure ain’t California.  I stand by my previous position: Trump’s shot at the nomination is the first ballot; Cruz gets a shot on the second ballot; Katy Bar the Door on the third and subsequent ballots.

There is much talk about Hillary pivoting her campaign from a primary mode to a national mode.   To put it more succinctly, she is pivoting from a more liberal and Obama-friendly stance to a more moderate and anti-Obama stance.  Any way you cut it, dealing with her inextricable ties to the two terms of Obama will require diplomacy of monumental proportions.  She absolutely NEEDS Obama’s support, publicly and privately, to win the presidency.  Unless there is a miraculous change in our economy and the world stage, Obama will be leaving office in a very unfavorable and lame condition; not particularly the type of political ally you would want by your side.   Now Hillary has never had any trouble having the face on the front of her head say one thing while the face on the other side of her head says another; but it hard to see Obama being OK with any shade thrown his way, be it sincere or otherwise.  Of all the challenges that Hillary will face in her ongoing White House quest, this kabuki dance between Hillary and Barack is likely going to be the most difficult.

I find it downright amusing to read that the majority of Democratic Party leaders and the mainstream media are of the opinion that Trump would easily be dispatched by Hillary in a general election and his nomination is simply the next step in her coronation.  This attitude both overvalues Hillary as a candidate and undervalues Trump as an opponent.  There will many angles and layers to a Trump v. Clinton contest, but the one that I find the most compelling is the one involving the economy.  As stated before, Hillary will be unavoidably tied to the current economy and at the present, it is difficult to finesse that in any way other than dismal.  Now I am not, nor have I ever been, a Trump fan when it comes to economic policy; but “I” will not decide the next presidential election.   Trump has clearly convinced a lot (a LOT!) of Republicans that he has all the solutions for fixing our ailing economy, and can then proceed to straighten out the world economy after that.  Forget how cogent this supposed ability of Trump is.  The point is that he has sold it to Republicans, he is well on his way to selling it to Independents, and anyone who doubts that he can sell it to a bunch of Democrats simply has not been paying attention.  If Hillary is tied to the dismal economic performance of Obama and Trump can continue his persona of economic wunderkind, it is not difficult to see this translating to a significant political advantage in the upcoming Presidential race.  Of all the historically high-ranking concerns of the American electorate, the economy is at or near the top.  People tend to vote their pocketbooks.  

If we have learned anything from this election cycle thus far, it is that perception is everything.  A Trump v. Clinton contest would pit two of the best ever at that game in a contest to the death (politically speaking, of course).  Although both candidates have particular and unique assets in their camps, the one inexplicable intangible that seems to swing elections in today’s world is the public’s yearning for change.  After eight years of our current president, people are absolutely ready for a change.  Consider the width and depth of Clinton’s political experience, corporate knowledge and financing, and her sheer political power.  Consider the financial resources of Trump, along with his Teflon-like ability to separate rhetoric from reality.  Put them side by side and you tell me:  Who looks like change to you?

Our Reach Has Far Exceeded Our Grasp.

Our Reach Has Far Exceeded Our Grasp.  Robert Browning wrote, “Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp; or what’s a heaven for?”  Most interpretations of this line that I have read take it to mean that man should always dream of things that are beyond immediate possession.  For me, this quote carries a different message; one that applies pertinently to our nation and its people.  It strikes me that our reach is best reflected in some peoples’ opinion that basically any type of action or behavior can be characterized as acceptable or possible if it fits neatly within an agenda.  It also strikes me that our grasp is best defined as the fundamental basics of compassion, fairness, common sense, and the pragmatic rules of finance.

It seems that the use of the terms unacceptable and behavior in tandem is simply not acceptable in today’s high tolerance society.  But the reality is that there are, in fact, some actions and some types of behavior that require passive tolerance without accompanying tacit approval.  The LGBT community demands various things, but foremost among them is the admission by those who are opposed to their lifestyles that they (the LGBT community) are morally equivalent to traditional, heterosexual lifestyles.  And, by the way, it is required that this admission must be made in a very prominent and public fashion.  I have always believed that regardless of an individual’s moral code on sexual orientation, the majority of people are happy to live and let live, reserving their moral judgment for personal consideration and higher authority.  But we have reached a point where it is deemed insufficient by some to simply tolerate another person’s lifestyle choices without rendering a public moral judgment, an open affirmation of approval.  A lack of that moral proclamation, or even one that is considered by some to be intolerant and insensitive, is considered to be the equivalent of hateful bigotry.  In these instances, our grasp to live and let live should be adequate while acknowledging that our reach to judgment is wholly inadequate.   If businesses or corporations believe so strongly in the right of transgender individuals who represent a fraction of one percent of our population, then rather than foisting uncomfortable and inordinate behavior on the rest of the population in order to accommodate transgenders, they could simply leave the status quo in place for most people and build new facilities solely for transgender use. 

The nanny-state ambitions of the far left is another example of this tolerance zealotry.  The majority of people who pay taxes and fund the operation of this government understand that there are some things that are best suited to government for administration and therefore must be funded.  The private sector is a marvelous machine; but it can be terribly corrupt, exhibit ravenous greed, and fail to address all of the basic human needs that exist in our collective lives.  Understanding and maintaining the balance between government support and private sector freedoms is a delicate struggle; it has always been present and will continue to be fought into our futures.  The plain and simple fact is that when we have the freedom to succeed, we must also have the freedom to fail.  I have written before that the real tragedy of Obamacare is the fact that fully 75-80 percent of the legislation could have been passed on a bi-partisan basis, rather than the extraordinary legislative process foisted on this nation by the Democrats.  The 75-85 percent of the law would have insured mobility of plans, broken state line barriers to regional coverage, increased the age of dependent beneficiaries, insured certain people from being unfairly dropped from existing coverage, and might even have led to an improvement in this county’s health care industry.  This area of practical steps that could have gained support from both parties represents our grasp; that which could be reasonably achieved and financed given our tax-funded resources and many competing governmental needs.  Instead, we ended up with a reach that every single person who wanted health coverage ought to have it and if they cannot afford it, then it should be provided to them free of charge.  As we are now discovering in the real world, that premise was never feasible.  Our reach exceeded our grasp.

Whether we are considering government programs that support those in need, the number and location of national parks, or interstellar investments in NASA versus national transportation infrastructure; there must always be an understanding that reality will almost always dictate that our reach will exceed our grasp.  Our government cannot be all things to all people.  Our government cannot address all the needs of those among us who are less fortunate.  No matter how noble or well-intentioned our goals, we as a nation are limited in those things which we can sustain.  The role of government is take the limited resources made available to it by those who work and pay taxes, make decisions based on fairness and compassion, and simply decide which priorities can be addressed and which ones must either go begging for other benefactors or else wait their turn.  We as a people must always dream of, and strive for, a better tomorrow; where all needs are met, respect is mutual, and individual freedoms are cherished and embraced.  But that dream must be grounded in the realities that resources and assets will always be limited, there will always be winners and losers, and there will always be some who demand their own freedoms and liberties without respecting the freedoms and liberties of others.

Tolerance for all things is nothing more than passivity without principle.  As long as people live their lives without infringing on the rights of others to live their lives, our society should keep their moral judgments to themselves and get on with their own destinies.  But when those seeking tolerance also demand public moral approval, then a choice must be made.  As difficult and complicated as it may be, there is indeed a time and place in this world for intolerance; certain actions and behaviors demand it.   There are other actions and behaviors that may or may not beg for it, but that verdict is best left to a higher and wiser authority.  If we as individuals demand that verdict here and now, we must accept the fact that we are the ones who are insisting on the line being drawn between tolerance and intolerance.  A judgment not rendered is one that can be lived with; a judgment that is demanded is one that more times than not creates conflict.

Sky Diving and Touchy-Feely

Sky Diving and Touchy-Feely.  The New York primaries are in the book, and the national party presidential primaries haven’t really cleared up that much. Trump had a huge night, sweeping in 89 of the 95 Republican delegates on the table.  On the other hand, Clinton walks away from New York with 139 delegates compared to Bernie’s 106; not as impressive as the media might lead you to believe.  So…as we enter into the 90-day window for the national party conventions, what is the state of play for our national candidate selection process?

Trump now sits with 845 delegates, needing 1,237 to win the nomination.  Cruz has 559, Kasich has 147, and Rubio (who has put his campaign on hold) still retains 171 delegates.   As incredible as it may seem when considering his rhetoric, it remains true that Kasich is running fourth in a three-man race.  The biggest question to answer on the Republican side is whether or not Trump will acquire 1,237 delegates prior to the Republican convention in July.   If he does, drop the mike, the game is over, he is the nominee.  On the other hand, if he fails to reach that magic number, either by a handful of delegates or a few hundred, the question is certainly open as to whether or not he will be the nominee.  Political experts (there are so, so many) are all over the board about Trump’s chances to reach 1,237 and not only do you have to consider their factual arguments about the math; you have to consider their agenda also.  At this juncture in this campaign, I do believe that every single political pundit has some type of bias factored into their journalistic product.  Some hide it better than others, but the presence of that prejudice seeps into their observations and prognostications and the only way to account for it is to read a broad sweep of varying opinions.   After reading my broad sweep, I must confess that I simply don’t know what Trump’s chances are of winning the nomination.  I honestly think that his prospect of reaching 1,237 prior to the convention is 45% for and 55% against.  That is obviously a close call and can easily break either way.  Given the chaotic nature of this Republican primary season, one would be foolish to ignore the likelihood that there are a few non-anticipated surprises lying in the weeds.  The prevailing notion appears to be that if Trump fails to win the nomination on the first ballot at the convention, then he will not be the nominee; the thinking is that he will begin to bleed delegates on the second ballot.  It is fair to surmise therefore that the best opportunity for Cruz to seize the nomination will be the second ballot; during which he can commandeer some wayward Trump delegates, gain the allegiance of released delegates who are no longer bound after the first ballot, and maybe make a deal with Kasich or Rubio to consolidate their numbers.  Now if we get through two ballots at the Republican convention and there is no nominee who has reached the 1,237 mark, then we are truly through the looking glass.  History be damned; there is no precedent for what will then occur.  Neither Trump nor Cruz has many supporters in the RNC power structure and both have many political enemies.  The common theory is that a parachute candidate will be dropped in and will end up being the one that can pull together a sufficient number of delegates to win the nomination on the third, fourth, or subsequent ballot.  The RNC Convention Rules Committee will soon decide whether that parachute candidate (if such a thing occurs) must be one of the original 17 Republican nominee candidates or if it can be someone from out of left field.   Now even though this has been a campaign season bordering on the bizarre, it is difficult to imagine a parachute candidate from outside the original primary pool.   A maneuver such as this will be difficult at best; to expand the selection beyond the original candidates would make it nearly unpalatable for many.   So…as we sit here today, my guess is that the Republican candidate will be Trump, Cruz, or one of the other 15 original primary candidates.  How’s that for caution?  No, really…all of those options seem to be on the table at this time and it would be foolish to dismiss any of them out of hand. 

Clinton continues to lead Sanders in the Democratic primary; but her margin of lead is a very deceptive number.  Based on the number of delegates she has won, her lead is only 1,428 to 1,151.  But when you add in the Democratic super delegates, her lead expands to 1,930 to 1,189.  The Democratic candidate must reach a delegate count of 2,382 in order to win the nomination.  Clinton is closing in on that number and the odds are very good that she will reach it well before the Philadelphia Democratic convention on July 25.  Now lest we get too upset with the Democrats for having these super delegates who are nothing more than transparent power brokers; we must realize that the Republicans do the same thing in states where delegates are not bound by state-wide voting.  I really have no problem with this on either side; the party should select the candidate that best represents their philosophy and has the best chance to prevail in November.  Neither party (nor the media) has any grounds to criticize the other as to how they select their nominee.   If the respective parties can pick their candidate without blowing up their house, then they have accomplished their mission.  Now, back to Clinton…  I find the most interesting aspect of the current Democratic race to be the lack of enthusiasm for Clinton and the hyper-sensitivity she is showing in regards to Bernie’s increasingly harsh criticisms.  For all of her power and political assets, Clinton has still not achieved anything close to a public personality.  I honestly believe that at most of her events, you could simply put up a cardboard cutout of her and play a taped message; no one would notice that she is not there. However, having said that, the Republicans are fools to believe that her dry persona and her cloud of legal/ethical issues will make her a weak candidate; they make her vulnerable but not weak.  If she is not indicted, she will be a formidable candidate in the general election and stands a very good chance of being our next President.  But first, she must dispatch Bernie and his troublesome antics that are pulling her ever more leftward.  I’ve always thought that Clinton was much more of a true liberal than she is portrayed to be and that she never really bought into her husband’s pragmatic approach to governing.  I hope I am mistaken, but I truly suspect that if she becomes President, she may well bring in a Democrat Senate with her.  If so, she will have an unprecedented opportunity to stack the Supreme Court with liberal members who will help her to accelerate and basically complete the changing of our nation to a European model of socialism-light.  It is becoming increasingly clear that Bernie will not go quietly into the night and that Clinton will have to do more than simply throw shade in his direction to end this contest.  Whether or not she manages to win her primary contest in a fashion that is perceived to be gracious will go a long ways towards keeping her party united and improving her chances of winning in November.

The media is full of stories about primary campaign anarchy; mostly in the Republican ranks.  The fact is that chaos rules equally in both parties at this time.  But the larger truth is that once nominees are selected by both parties in July, there will be over three months for a lively debate about who can best lead this nation.  The length of the national campaign will be another interesting twist to this year’s Presidential election.  The typical national Presidential campaigns of the past have been about twice as long as this one is shaping up to be; with the candidates more times than not already selected by this time and the conventions simply being coronation ceremonies.  This time around, it will be a much more intense and compressed contest; so much money to spend and so little time to spend it. It may end up being half as long, but it will likely feel like it is twice as long.  This will no doubt be a very interesting contest; but first…we have to get down to two.

Three-For-One Entry

What Republicans Must Do to Win In November; Rubio Might Be Ted’s Ace in the Hole; and Kudos to Ohio State Treasurer.  Three-for-one on this entry; let’s get to it…

Every civics high school class in America should be covering the national party presidential primaries this year; they might very well prove to be of historical significance.  In the Republican’s case, I am fascinated by the increased anticipation that there might be an open or brokered July convention in Cleveland.  Some very intelligent people are putting forth opinions on this matter and once you get past their obvious candidate bias, many of them make compelling arguments.  First off, it is ridiculous for anyone to assert that any candidate should be ordained as the nominee if they come to the convention with a plurality lead in delegates short of 1,237.  The majority rule has been in place for decades and everyone understood what the magic number was when the primary season started.  Secondly, if in fact any candidate fails to reach the 1,237 number on the first ballot, I see no reason why one of the original primary candidates cannot once again be considered as the nominee.  To me, the fact that they originally contested for the nomination should be sufficient to make them eligible for consideration in the case of deadlock.  Now a move to consider someone other than one of the original list of candidates (i.e. Paul Ryan) strikes me as a deviation too far from the will of the voters.  If an open convention occurs, primary voters will have expressed their will that no single candidate had clear majority support and therefore, a further winnowing or determining will be required on the convention floor.  Trump wants it confined to a plurality; Cruz wants it confined to the two leading delegate holders; Kasich wants it confined to only the remaining candidates.  The point is that for the campaigns that are no longer actively pursuing the nomination, their operations were suspended…not shut down.  The likeliest outcome is Trump or Cruz, but I see no problem with the delegate process leading ultimately to any one of the original candidates.  The goal for the Republican delegates should simply be to nominate someone who has the best chance to defeat the Democrat nominee.  That someone must be viewed by the general electorate as qualified, reasonable, and with sufficient vision to lead this nation out of the troubles it is now in.  If the delegates do that, then the Republicans will enter 2017 with the White House and Congress in hand and the prospects for some long overdue, fundamental changes in our government will rise considerably.

Another interesting topic that has been surfacing recently is the status of the Rubio campaign.  Folks are wondering why he has not yet endorsed any other candidate.  He has come tantalizingly close to endorsing Cruz, but has not done so explicitly.   Furthermore, his campaign organization has been reaching out to states that have already concluded their primaries in an attempt to retain the loyalty of the delegates he had won prior to his campaign suspension.  Given his rhetoric, one has to believe that Rubio supports Cruz over Trump and Kasich.  One would also suspect that since his withdrawal from the campaign following his home-state Florida loss, he has had some communication with the Cruz campaign.  One might venture a guess that Rubio’s endorsement of Cruz is a fait accompli and has been presented to Cruz to use to his best advantage.  If that is true, the Cruz campaign may have decided that the value of having the Rubio delegates in hand (as much as one might) at an open convention exceeds the perceived value of a public Rubio endorsement of Cruz at this time.  If in fact Rubio’s delegates have been presented to Cruz in this fashion, they could be a Cruz ace in the hole for a convention card game.  The unknown factor is this: Rubio might simply be withholding any public endorsement in hopes of being the fallback winner of a contested convention.  I see this as a very distant possibility and therefore ascribe to the previous conjecture.  Time will tell.

As a final note, Ohio State Treasurer Josh Mandel has instituted a new system in his state that takes governmental transparency to a whole new level.  Read about it @ http://www.weeklystandard.com/transparency-ohio-treasurer-creates-searchable-database-for-government-spending/article/2001857.  According to the article, several other states have been looking at the Ohio model and are considering similar searchable databases.  One can only hope that this type of effort expands across the nation to all levels of government and ultimately, to the nexus of all political mystery…WDC.

When We Lose Touch With Our Past.

When We Lose Touch With Our Past.  These days, as I ease into my retirement years, I marvel at how truly removed I feel from the mainstream.  Most of the time, I simply chalk it up to being old school and enjoying the limited grace of longevity that allows one a minimum amount of changing with the times; I take full advantage of that grace.  At some point in the mid-90s, I began to sense that the equilibrium of my conventional thinking was tilting a bit.  I don’t mean to imply that the culture and the society suddenly began adhering to a new moral and ethical code at that time; it’s just that I began to somehow sense a subtle and creeping change in the world around me and it has now come full circle to, as Emmylou Harris so eloquently sings, a slow surprise.  

Since the dawn of time, evolution has been a constant.  The inevitability of change and the unpredictable nature of that change has been one of the few certainties in this world.  But no matter how much time we might devote to the study of history, our perspectives are most perfectly framed within the years of our lifetimes.  And even though it is quite possible that the beginning shift that I detected in the 90s was simply a product of me paying more attention to the world around me, I do believe it was also the beginning of a larger and more significant change; a change that we now witness coming to a much fuller stage of fruition.

Once President Bill Clinton decided that he could absorb the perjury hit and keep his political career intact, the toe was in the water.  From that day forward, and unlike what we witnessed in the Watergate struggles, neither political side has been willing to cross the centerline to stand with the other.  It is win at all cost, the end justifies the means, truth is only what we acknowledge, and the only power that matters is the power that is maintained.   Republicans and Democrats have, since that time, been racing to the bottom of the ethical and moral ladder to keep the power they possess and steal away whatever they might from their philosophical opponents.  Having spent his entire political career (which happens to be his only career) applying and perfecting these techniques, our current president has dramatically accelerated the drift of this trend and has changed its apparent characteristics from subtleties and nuance to naked ambition and blatant shamelessness; his Republican counterparts have been all too willing to ratchet up (or down) their standards in an effort to keep pace. 

Where arrogance and excessive pride used to be largely condemned as unseemly, they are now noted as admirable and considered useful tools in the pursuit of an appropriate agenda.  Statesmanship is derided as radicalism, humility is viewed as weakness, and one in public life is simply foolish to behave in a civil manner and expect commensurate conduct from their political opponents.  Unfortunately, this sloughing off of acceptable standards has permeated our culture.  Perhaps it is largely a product of the technological explosion that has enveloped the planet.  The world is shrunken; we live in a time of instant communication and sound bites.  Sensationalism has supplanted reason and research as debate’s winning points. 

To me, the phenomenon of Donald Trump fits perfectly in this trend’s maturation.  Now you might disagree with my dim view of Mr. Trump, but anyone who has been paying attention at all must concede that he is indeed a phenomenon.  Is it conceivable that his ascendancy, such as it is, could have occurred prior to Bill Clinton?  And yet today, many of us seem to simply stand with dumbstruck awe on our faces and acknowledge the fact of a TV reality show star on the cusp of a national political party nomination.    Sure, we had the Terminator in California; but that was California.  We had Wrestlemania in the Governor’s mansion up in Minnesota, but most every state in the union has had a character or two in their statehouse.    It is apparently now normal to conceive of a Socialist being President of our nation or putting the Apprentice Mastermind in charge of our national security and nuclear arsenal.  Any semblance of presidential qualification seems to have gone out the window with the One and obviously, we haven’t learned much from that episode. 

Professional sport is in many respects a microcosm of our culture.  Bryce Harper contends that major league baseball should simply toss aside the etiquette that has existed for generations in exchange for a more exciting and fan friendly demonstration of personal celebration.  Maybe he is right; maybe his vision is more attuned to our current culture than many of us think.  The Houston Texans pay out their arse for an unproven backup quarterback from Denver to marshal their pro football team into the future.  Are they nuts or are simply spending the money that is available to them (from obscene profits) in a high stakes game of guess who’s going to blow up or who’s going to implode?  Fans now fill out numerous NCAA basketball tournament brackets and then simply talk about the one that turns out to be the most accurate.  The King talks of assembling a cast of superstar buds as his present team prepares for a playoff run amidst internal turmoil.  The premier players in all avenues of sport have become larger than the sport itself. 

By any definition, this is reason turned on its head.  It strikes me that over past decades, the best evolution has been that which is reasoned, deliberate, and supported by a clear majority of the people.  Fame and success in all walks of life can now occur overnight and apparently has the equal value of that which is earned over a decades-long career of paying dues and accomplishment.  Entire economies are based on making next month’s payments without consideration to debt or equity.   A large portion of our future is growing up without caring parents and entire generations are being willingly, and unwillingly, confined to a lifetime of governmental dependency.  Irrational exuberance has replaced studied analysis and investment; the immediate gratification of binge-watching has turned us into flat screen zombies instead of weekly viewers; and rhetorical performance has basically overshadowed any consideration of established records and truths.

In such a context, how in heavens can anyone be expected to look into the future with any degree of accuracy?    When the fundamental lessons and principles upon which our lives are based turn to sand and crumble beneath our feet, how do we adjust overnight to that new-found feeling of floating in space with no moorings?  Many cling to their faith and have that to give them direction and purpose; but many have no faith in their lives and are simply going through the motions.  To point…none of this is to imply that the world and our country is becoming worse; that is a very subjective term and likely one that only history is qualified to judge.  Life unfolds as it should; the rules are made and revised by the majority of those who must abide by them.  But there can be little doubt that as our ilk has evolved throughout the ages and the generations, we have cast off many things that were considered ill-conceived and have perpetuated many things considered to be of eternal benefit.  We have always seemed to somehow kick the can down the road a piece for our children and the future.  For one that is so obviously out of touch as me, it certainly seems that these days, we are discarding a much larger amount of the eternal benefit stuff and clinging rather tenaciously to the ill conceptions.  We’re throwing some stuff away that we’re gonna wish we had kept.