by wj
But so soon?
It appears that Senator Cruz' campaign is gaining enough ground to worry Mr Trump. How do we tell? Because Trump has come out saying that "the party might face a legal headache if it nominates Cruz." Specifically, "“Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’" while the courts make a decision on the subject.
It's no secret that Cruz is a US citizen who happens to have been born in Canada. He's a citizen by birth because his parents were US citizens. Just as Senator McCain is a citizen, even though he was born in Panama. (And just as Obama would be a US citizen by birth, no matter where he was born.)
But apparently Trump is concerned enough that Cruz might cut into his support that he felt it worthwhile to return to a favorite theme. For those who have argued that the whole carrying on around Obama had nothing to do with his race, consider: last month Trunmp was in Iowa saying "not too many evangelicals come out of Cuba." Sounds as if Cruz, like Obama, just isn't white enough for him -- or at least Trump thinks a lot of his supporters will feel that way.
"For those who have argued that the whole carrying on around Obama had nothing to do with his race, consider: last month Trunmp was in Iowa saying "not too many evangelicals come out of Cuba." Sounds as if Cruz, like Obama, just isn't white enough for him -- or at least Trump thinks a lot of his supporters will feel that way."
Say whaaaat?
Posted by: Marty | January 06, 2016 at 12:46 PM
I thought it wasn't entirely clear that McCain was a US citizen at birth under the law at the time (constitutionally it's a different question).
Posted by: Ugh | January 06, 2016 at 12:52 PM
Cruz also has Cuban citizenship through his father, a citizenship that he has yet to renounce.
I, for one, look forward to the Castro Bros. endorsing their "native son".
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | January 06, 2016 at 01:34 PM
Marty. ask yourself this. What is the difference between Senator McCain, who was born in Panama, and who nobody worried was not a "natural born" citizen, and President Obama and Senator Cruz? Can you see any other explanation for Trump's statements about the latter? I'm open to suggestions....
Posted by: wj | January 06, 2016 at 01:41 PM
So lets not become all birthers here, by Cuban law he is not a Cuban citizen, they explicitly do not recognize dual citizenship among other things. As far as Trump goes, I cant find that line wj drew between his previous Canadian citizenship and not being white enough.
Posted by: Marty | January 06, 2016 at 01:49 PM
You have three Presidential candidates. Two were born outside the US (to parents who were US citizens); one has it called into question whether he was or was not born in the US (even though his mother was a US citizen -- so it would be the same situation regardless). And yet, Trump et al showed no signs of worrying about whether McCain was eligible. But got really worked up about Obama and now Cruz.
What is the difference there? I can see race/ethnicity. I don't really see anything else. But, as I say, I'm open to suggestions.
Posted by: wj | January 06, 2016 at 01:54 PM
So Trump ran a close race against McCain? Which is the difference I see in all those people. Trump really never had a reason to try and get people to worry about McCain. Just like he didn't worry much about Cruz until now.
Posted by: Marty | January 06, 2016 at 02:03 PM
last month Trunmp was in Iowa saying "not too many evangelicals come out of Cuba."
Could be he was pandering to parochial religious interests, rather than racism.
To the degree that Cubans are religious, they're mostly Catholic.
As far as race, Cubans run the gamut, although Trump's audience may or may not be aware of that.
Posted by: russell | January 06, 2016 at 02:04 PM
And in 2008, when both McCain and Obama were running (and Trump was not)? And Trump was leading the charge on where Obama was born....
Posted by: wj | January 06, 2016 at 02:11 PM
Obama was the Democrat? You know, Trump is called every name, racist, misogynist, homophobe. But he really is just anti Democrat AFAICT. They created the tent, he is just against anything in it.
Posted by: Marty | January 06, 2016 at 02:18 PM
Right, because e.g. Mexicans are Democrats. Having said that, I have no idea if he's actually racist, but he's certainly willing to pander to racism.
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide | January 06, 2016 at 02:30 PM
I'm betting a high percentage of illegal aliens are Democrats at this point. As I watched a protest last night of undocumented aliens protesting to get a drivers license. Like there was no cognitive dissonance in that at all. You are a criminal, protesting and being interviewed on the news because you have no fear of being arrested or deported by this administration.
I cant understand how anyone watching could think badly of them. You know, they just want a better life. Like bank robbers and wall st con artists and drug dealers and ....
Posted by: Marty | January 06, 2016 at 02:38 PM
I'm betting a high percentage of illegal aliens are Democrats at this point
because they vote in Democratic primaries ? because they vote Democratic in Presidential races ? because they give money to Democratic politicians ?
Posted by: cleek | January 06, 2016 at 02:54 PM
Because this administration has deported more than any previous ones?
Posted by: Berial | January 06, 2016 at 02:58 PM
not today....
Posted by: Marty | January 06, 2016 at 02:58 PM
I am not at all sure why anyone cares what Donald Trump thinks.
But evidently, enough people do. These are people I don't hold in high regard. Donald Trump is a huckster. People who cannot see that he's all about self-promotion aren't worth my time.
Sorry if I've stepped on any toes, here.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 06, 2016 at 03:01 PM
Slart,
Donald Trump is an accomplished CEO and corporate equivalent of a huckster. However, IMHO, the Trump phenomenon is an important event, the other side of the Obama coin. As Obama ran on hope and change as a marginally qualified candidate almost 8 years ago, Trump is employing the same tactics to attract another demographic. Sweeping statements and rhetorical resonance that bonds him to a previously unrepresented demographic is what got Obama elected and reelected. It may, though probably not, be enough to get a nomination for Trump.
The message is that there is some reasonably large percentage of people in this country who are ready to follow whoever tells them that their thoughts and feelings, fears and hopes matter. Same message, delivered the same way, different constituency.
So who will ever be the candidate that candidly says s/he will represent all, or most, of the people and convinces people s/he means it? Not Trump, Obama didn't even want to, Hilary can't. You really can't self describe as a socialist or libertarian and hope to. IDK.
But just ignoring Trump will be a mistake in the sweep of history.
Posted by: Marty | January 06, 2016 at 03:20 PM
We can hope that from the sweep to the dustbin is but a short step.
Posted by: ral | January 06, 2016 at 03:44 PM
No question that Trump cannot and should not be ignored. Or that he is speaking to a significant constituency that feels like their views are ignored by (most) other politicians. But what he says speaks to what those people's views are, does it not?
As for the comparison to Obama. Yes, Obama spoke to a different group of voters. But did he do it by demonizing anybody? I don't remember it that way, but my memory may well be faulty.
Posted by: wj | January 06, 2016 at 03:52 PM
Comparing the rhetoric of Obama and Trump and finding any sort of equivalency beyond that which can be found between that of any two politicians taken at random is, well, interesting. Consider my so-called mind boggled.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | January 06, 2016 at 04:16 PM
there is some reasonably large percentage of people in this country who are ready to follow whoever tells them that their thoughts and feelings, fears and hopes matter.
Not all thoughts, feelings, fears, and hopes are the same.
Ergo, not all messages are the same.
Just as a point of interest.
As far as representing all, or most, of the people, that's a tall order, because all, or most, of the people don't want the same things.
Whoever wins will represent a distinct set of demographics. Everybody else will piss and moan about it until 2016.
Then it's lather, rinse, and repeat.
GLTA
Posted by: russell | January 06, 2016 at 04:18 PM
ladies and gentlemen, Ted Cruz:
the whole party is completely devoid of intelligence.
Posted by: cleek | January 06, 2016 at 04:21 PM
^That
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 06, 2016 at 04:23 PM
Cleek, is Cruz concerned that the atheists will force removal of any religious symbols in the National Cemetery? Or is he thinking that the Muslims will take over and remove any symbols but their own?
Just curious which fantasy he is embracing.
Posted by: wj | January 06, 2016 at 04:28 PM
God is going to remove them all, just to remove all doubt that he has abandoned us.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | January 06, 2016 at 04:30 PM
I think I have to agree with Marty's initial point (not with the later ones). It does not matter whether Trump is actually racist. His racially tinged attack on Cruz is just tactical since he knows that stuff like this works and he will always use the crudest way of attack possible since that is part of his persona (and shtick). If McCain was still running and seen as a danger by Trump, he would probably warm up the old 'non-white love-child' stories to discredit him in the eyes of the (undoubtedly racist) base.
Personally I think Trump is a general despiser of others and considers the very base he is pandering to as just more rubes to deceive for gain. He just lacks the intellectual underpinnings of some of the great demagogues of the past (like Dr. Joseph Goebbels who noted in his diary after his most famous speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportpalast_speech how he totally despised his audience that fell for his cheap tricks and added 'if I had asked them to jump out the window, many would have done so').
Imo Trump has no ideology and is in it just for himself (btw I see Cruz similarly as mainly a user of but not believer in his own ideology unlike his father).
Posted by: Hartmut | January 06, 2016 at 04:32 PM
"So who will ever be the candidate that candidly says s/he will represent all, or most, of the people and convinces people s/he means it?"
First off, you just lost a good @40% of the conservative electorate with this politically correct s/he stuff.
For them, candidly, a big swinging dick is required to deal with Putin, at the very least. In fact, Putin could run for the Republican nomination in this cycle and be second of third in the primary polls right now, given his strong, erect leadership in showing Ukraine what for.
Trump, Putin's admirer, (we know this from the former's rhetorical resonance: "I know da guy. Me and him, we're like two peas in the a whatchamacallit, the pod. We did a satellite feed together, well, separately, but never actually spoke cause he tawlks funny. Whatissat, Russkie? Anyways, I look at Vlad as Vice Presidential material in my administration."
Soaring rhetoric. Like the Gettysburg Address. Return to sender.
Second, name one of the 44 American Presidents who has met your criteria.
If you name George Washington, think about it. Who'd he run against?
I was going to say Abe Lincoln, but then that wouldn't account for the belligerent conservative Democrats who shot him in the head, and who then switched sides at a later date, but with more guns.
I tell ya what, you want "candid" and a guy who "convinces most of the people he means it."
He shot himself in a bunker in Germany circa 1945.
So, as the now deceased and sometimes misogynist, but very likable uncle (this was in the 1960s, I think) in a family I was once part of told his wife after she tried to give him directions from the back seat of the car when he was obviously lost:
"Batsh*t, Betty. Batsh*t!
Posted by: Countme-In | January 06, 2016 at 04:34 PM
Just curious which fantasy he is embracing.
the context was 'what happens if liberals get 5 judges on SCOTUS'.
http://abovethelaw.com/2016/01/supreme-court-to-desecrate-soldier-graves-just-another-day-in-ted-cruzs-crazy-machine/
because, you know, all liberals are militant, scorched-earth, atheists who desperately want to desecrate the graves of American soldiers. after they dig up the bones and turn them into bongs, of course.
Posted by: cleek | January 06, 2016 at 04:34 PM
though i suppose the bong thing would be the desecration and the headstone thing would be vandalism.
but, whatddaya want from me... i'm just a liberal and got all excited at the thought of being an anti-American ghoul.
Posted by: cleek | January 06, 2016 at 04:41 PM
Trump already called McCain a loser and not a war hero. The DC press corps thought that was the end of Trump's campaign. His supporters ate it up.
That was almost 6 months ago.
Posted by: Ugh | January 06, 2016 at 04:44 PM
Meanwhile, Cruz takes on Rubio's Cuban heels:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-marco-rubio-boots-tweet-217388#ixzz3wTLS2kEw
It's like Tony Montana threatening Desi Arnaz.
Say hello to my liddle frweind!
The entire party is a load of disgraceful sh*t. Just a bunch of killers.
Posted by: Countme-In | January 06, 2016 at 04:48 PM
I can't recall a time in my life when I wasn't bored by Donald Trump. My best guess is it was sometime around when I first was aware of his existence. Certainly, before 1987.
It's enough to make me go full libertarian, even though I know full well the futility of doing so.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 06, 2016 at 04:49 PM
Why not go fot the libertine party? ;-)
Posted by: Hartmut | January 06, 2016 at 04:52 PM
Maybe Jerry Lewis will enter the race.
The Republican Party could use more contemptuous schtick:
https://www.vice.com/print/jerry-lewis-is-still-alive
The only person who ever believed Trump when he told her that her thoughts and feelings, and her fears and hopes mattered was Marla Maples:
http://www.accesshollywood.com/articles/marla-maples-speaks-out-on-sex-with-the-donald-the-best-shes-ever-had-94989/
As it happens, that was a load of crap too, but there are a substantial numbers of voters right now who are loving the rogering he's giving them.
Posted by: Countme-In | January 06, 2016 at 04:58 PM
By the way, McCain has said several times he will vote for Trump if the chump is the nominee.
But then McCain would vote for the Vietcong who dislocated his shoulders and beat the crap out of him if they were the Republican nominee.
Anyone besides a Democrat.
Posted by: Countme-In | January 06, 2016 at 05:12 PM
Please FSM, let The Donald be the GOP nominee. Pretty please ...
Being a pessimist, I cannot bring myself to believe that my prayer will be answered. So I worry that He, Trump will fizzle out somehow. Has anybody got a guess how?
--TP
Posted by: Tony P. | January 06, 2016 at 05:36 PM
Anyone besides a Democrat.
This. Yes. More every day.
Posted by: Marty | January 06, 2016 at 05:51 PM
Just for fun, how about an alternative reading of "natural-born citizen." Do you suppose that it could mean that anyone born via cesarean section is not eligible. After all, they weren't born naturally. ;-)
I wonder if birth certificates track that....
Posted by: wj | January 06, 2016 at 05:53 PM
Just for fun, how about an alternative reading of "natural-born citizen." Do you suppose that it could mean that anyone born via cesarean section is not eligible. After all, they weren't born naturally...
Wasn't there something in Macbeth about that ?
:-)
Of course, 'untimely ripped' could have a quite different meaning these days...
Posted by: Nigel | January 06, 2016 at 06:24 PM
"This. Yes. More every day."
Candid and convincing.
You are obviously just the man to represent all of us and bring us together.
Posted by: Countme-In | January 06, 2016 at 06:32 PM
You are obviously just the man to represent all of us and bring us together.
I couldn't win last time....
Posted by: Marty | January 06, 2016 at 06:40 PM
Hate to go all Reaganesque on the conservative sad sacks, but cheer the f*ck up:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/everything-is-even-more-awesome-213505
I have no doubt though that conservatives may well talk us into an economic collapse, World War III, and the first real nationwide disruption of domestic tranquility since Fort Sumter.
Because it serves their purposes.
Ebola is sweeping the American countryside.
There, feel better now?
Posted by: Countme-In | January 06, 2016 at 06:41 PM
Just in time for Slart's already abandoned conversion to pure Libertarian, one of them opens his mouth. ;)
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-ted-cruz-prime-minister-qualifications
Posted by: Countme-In | January 06, 2016 at 06:47 PM
The problem with Cruz is not that he was born in Canada to a Cuban father, the problem is that this sick, cynical, arrogant, belligerent, dangerous demagogue IS in fact an American citizen and eligible to take the reins of the Presidency and murder Americans.
We'd be safer if he lived in Ottawa or was the long-lost third Castro brother inviting Russian missiles into Cuba.
Posted by: Countme-In | January 06, 2016 at 06:59 PM
You don't need a BC for that, it can be seen just by looking at the shape of their head. "Normal" birth squeezes the skull into a more oblong shape, cesarean is much more obviously rounded.
Once you know it, you can get TMI just by looking at someone.
In the case of GOP candidates, you can also discern brain damage within about 5 seconds of them opening their yap.
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | January 06, 2016 at 07:10 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/opinion/anyone-but-ted-cruz.html
Posted by: cleek | January 06, 2016 at 09:06 PM
@Snarki: You don't need a BC for that, it can be seen just by looking at the shape of their head. "Normal" birth squeezes the skull into a more oblong shape, cesarean is much more obviously rounded.
Once you know it, you can get TMI just by looking at someone.
Can you give a reputable cite (i.e. not just anecdata from discussion boards) for differences in head shape because of vaginal vs cesarean birth lasting beyond the first few months of life? Or were you just being snarki?
Posted by: JanieM | January 06, 2016 at 09:10 PM
@ marty--"As Obama ran on hope and change as a marginally qualified candidate almost 8 years ago, Trump is employing the same tactics to attract another demographic. "
i told myself i would not get sucked into another discussion with you over race because you and i have too many differences in our worldviews to be even agree as much as my limbaugh-loving ex-brother-in-law do but this, really? what about trump speaks to you the thought "hope and change." i mean, change, sure, in the sense that cholera represents a change from good health, but hope? what part of the trump message bespeaks hope to you? i'm not being rhetorical here, i really want to know what it is about his message that calls to you to fill you with hope?
Posted by: navarro | January 06, 2016 at 09:59 PM
marty is mistaken, they're not the same.
trump is huge. obama is not huge.
Posted by: russell | January 06, 2016 at 10:20 PM
Obama was HUGE. Hundreds of thousands of people came to hear him speak.
Posted by: Marty | January 06, 2016 at 10:58 PM
"i mean, change, sure, in the sense that cholera represents a change from good health,"
Yes,sure, I now want to discuss this further.......
Posted by: Marty | January 07, 2016 at 06:01 AM
oh, it's simple. Obama is a wily trickster who used his evil sorcery to brainwash tens of millions of people into thinking he was awesome and then into voting for him. and "conservative" graybeards think Trump is using his own kind of evil sorcery to trick the GOP base into thinking he's just as awesome as Obama was. sure, they stand for different things, but they're possess the same kind of evil.
they're both evil sorcerers who have fooled the ignorant and easily-led masses. only the wise anti-Trump "conservatives" can see this, however. i'm just repeating what i've read, because it sounds like horseshit to me.
alternately, Trump's rise is Obama's fault.
whatever it takes to absolve "conservatives" of having to admit that Trump has found their party's sweet spot.
Posted by: cleek | January 07, 2016 at 07:27 AM
McCain, for his part, ignores Marty's advice upthread that we not go all birther around here, like WE'RE the ones checking people's papers and building walls:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/john-mccain-ted-cruz-citizen-president
McCain then went on to point out that his suspicions of Cruz's origins started when he figured out that the man's IQ was some 100 points above Sarah Palin's, who can see Cruz's Canadian manger from her back deck, and who's native American stupidity was the main qualification for McCain's elevation of her to within a heartbeat of the Presidency, because you don't want too much brainpower in government, especially Canadian, because then you get things like too many Americans having health insurance and once you do that, that's millions of fewer American necks for conservatives to keep their jackboots firmly pinned on for sadistic purposes.
When reminded that Cruz's IQ was roughly that of the later advanced velociraptors (Palin's being roughly equal to early cephalopods) and THAT might come in handy for the legions of domestic enemies the Republican Party plans to eviscerate when it gets its way, he joshingly chuckled the chuckle of a man who has literally bullsh*t his way to success, save for the fortuitous accident of the Tiger cage torture in Vietnam, which set him up for life, and then commenced a little soft shoe off camera while muttering something along the lines of "this gander can handle any kind of sauce as long it f*cks the enemies of Republicans" and "call Meghan and have her correct my diction".
Trump gives hope to the hairless and succor to the suckers.
Meanwhile, there's a section of Rocky Mountain National Park that I've had my eye on as a homesteader sanctuary for just me, so I thought I'd gather up the Glocks, the Uzis, the AR-15s, the Kalishnikovs, the Claymores, the nunchucks, the Swiss Army couches, the magic bullet-repelling creams, and don't forget the Oath Keepers branded hands-free masturbation and onanism devices they distribute to their lucky cadres -- some rightwing members of the Freedom Causcus in the House favor the "Auto-Blow" for the good Christian boys who want to keep their hands free for plugging park rangers between the eyes if the latter go all Smokey the Bear Commie Muslim on a patriot -- and head up there and stake my claim before the conservative riffraff get it all, seeing as how the Federal government has wussed out on the Rule of Law so egregiously in Oregon and Nevada by letting the Bundys and company off the hook for their f8cking armed criminal rampages.
Bonnie and Clyde wish they'd lived long enough to enjoy the freedoms sh*theads have today in this here Love In The Ruins we're careening towards.
And, I don't expect to be trifled with on my provisioning trips into Estes Park and into town for the weekly Cheetos, Slim Jims, and Jim Beam roundup, as much as I'm really looking forward to a Republican trifling with me in any way, shape, or form.
The stock market is crashing again. Trump, Cruz, and Carson polls will elevate, along with the rest of the filth running in that Party because if there is anything fascists hate it's when their shares decline in value because too many of the poor find employment and get a leg up.
Posted by: Countme-In | January 07, 2016 at 08:20 AM
JanieM: Of course I'm Snarki, I'm always Snarki.
My anecdata is based on personal observation of people where I know their birth circumstances, resulting in just about the worst form of "looks-ism" imaginable, I know.
Well, except for not implying any sort of mental/physical consequence to the differences, I guess.
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | January 07, 2016 at 08:30 AM
cleek: But Obama is a Kenyan witch-doctor. Marty has photographic proof! Can you say the same about Trump?
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | January 07, 2016 at 08:31 AM
Obama was HUGE.
OK, Obama was HUGE, but he wasn't and isn't YUUUUUGGGEEE!!
Where's his hotel?
Posted by: russell | January 07, 2016 at 08:59 AM
I'd prefer that he not touch me there.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 07, 2016 at 09:15 AM
Here's more of Trump's rhetorical resonance:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/petty-is-new-manly-by-bloggersrus.html
Insulting Samuel L. Jackson's gay golf swing, while denying in the face of all the facts that he witnessed Jackson's swing up close and personal.
Thrilling, uplifting rhetoric. Presidential, say, in Guatemala or Idi Amin's Uganda, but we in America aspire, we do.
This resonates with Trump's white trash, bed-sh*ting enthusiasts because they've never forgiven Jackson for subduing the young Republican honey-bunnies in the restaurant scene in "Pulp Fiction" in the manner that it should be accomplished:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ydhXAImrro
Kids and workmates should wear earmuffs.
Still, I consider Jeb Bush much more dangerous than Trump, because Jeb is a professional.
Posted by: Countme-In | January 07, 2016 at 09:22 AM
I recommend President Obama sign the Republican bill that repeals Obamacare and the Medicaid expansion and defunds Parenthood and then order the disbursement of surplus American military weaponry and ammo into the ready and willing hands of the tens of millions of Americans who will be without healthcare and consigned to early penury and death in this loosely arranged confederation of pigf*ckers we call a country.
Indeed, let's draw a sharp contrast between them and us, as Ryan and McConnell and the Republican Presidential candidates (also remove their Secret Service protection.... the Oaf Keepers can supply that muscle) so desire and get down to the inevitable business this country needs to attend to.
Posted by: Countme-In | January 07, 2016 at 09:37 AM
Jeb is much more dangerous, because just look what he did to Florida.
Just look!
Ok, I can't find anything all that objectionable, but maybe someone else can.
Jeb is a center-right Republican. Some people here moan how more center-right Republicans can't get into office, as opposed to the fringe right.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 07, 2016 at 09:57 AM
if i absolutely had to vote R, Jèb↓ would be near the top of my list, just because he doesn't seem insane. Trump is a buffoon; Cruz has the charm and slime production abilities of a hagfish; Carson is deranged and doesn't want the job anyway. in the green room, producers come and go, talking of Marco Rubio; but i think there's something strange about him.
Posted by: cleek | January 07, 2016 at 10:11 AM
I've never so moaned.
I've ask that more "decent" Republicans not get RINOed into obscurity, but by "decent" I mean "liberal".
;)
Posted by: Countme-In | January 07, 2016 at 10:17 AM
Personally, I don't think it's important that I like the President, so my list goes Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Fiorina, Sanders.
Yes, I know ;)
I don't like Cruz, either. But he's absolutely the most knowledgeable, and the best equipped to run the Executive of the whole gang. If we hadn't had two previous Bushes in the WH, Jeb would be on top of my list. He's the most experienced at actually running a government, and he did a good job. The teachers' unions didn't like him, but part of the point was to get teachers' unions to permit dismissal of teachers for cause.
IMO, the worst part of the Bush governorship was what he did along the lines of education. Kids got a better education, but they also got near yearly pass/fail testing (in addition to their normal school work) rather than periodic aptitude testing to monitor the performance of the school systems and individual schools. Some teachers decided to terrozie their classes with the FCAT test, which just utterly failed, with me, to accomplish the desired end. If you're stressing out my kid, I don't blame Governor Bush. Just teach them what they need to know. If you tell anyone about the pass/fail nature of the test, tell the parents.
Unfortunately, a lot of schools were run by people whose entire end-goal was administration, and not administration of an effective educational system. We were fortunate to have one of the latter for a principal. If there is any justice at all, she should be promoted to where she can affect things on a wider scale. Unfortunately, the I-don't-like-her mentality (as if _liking_ someone is relevant to the job that they do) had a lot of parents forming cabals to try and get her fired. Didn't work, but it didn't make for cooperative PTA meetings.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 07, 2016 at 10:30 AM
Rubio and Bush are the only real choices for me, everyone else would get a vote against the Democrats. Fiorina might get me to vote for Hilary, she is simply dense. Cruz, see what Slart said, Trump would hire his daughter who I believe is competent, the rest are ideologically impaired.
Except I saved Kasich for last. He is the most qualified and least objectionable of the far right wing ideologues. I think he would step up to the office. I would vote for him almost gladly.
Posted by: Marty | January 07, 2016 at 10:54 AM
I don't like Cruz, either.
It seems that hardly anybody does.
I see Cruz as potentially the most harmful of all possible candidates. It's one thing for someone to be unlikable, and another for someone's personal issues to make it impossible for them to be effective as a leader or an executive.
IMO, Cruz is an example of the latter. Even folks who agree with his positions don't like dealing with him or working with him.
Bush and Kasich are, IMO, not insane and not obvious panders. Plus, they both have relevant executive experience, which is to say, experience as the executive of a polity rather than a business. I would not look forward to either being POTUS, but I would not immediately fear for the fate of the Republic if either was elected.
Rubio seems like an OK guy, he just seems, to me, like he needs more experience before stepping into a role like POTUS.
And yes, the same thing could have been said about Obama, and I think Obama's lack of experience was an issue for him as POTUS.
Of the (D)'s, Sanders is closest to my point of view, Clinton is probably most qualified in terms of sheer political savvy, O'Malley appears to be a very good guy but is basically getting buried by the theater associated with Another Clinton and The Socialist.
I have no idea how all of this is going to turn out. My best guess is that we are looking at Madame President Clinton, which will make lots of people's heads explode, but, this year, people's heads are going to explode no matter what.
Posted by: russell | January 07, 2016 at 11:14 AM
If you think you have an obstinate Congress now, just wait until Madame Clinton swears in.
Not hoping for that, just noting what is almost certainly the truth. Congressional Republicans didn't see things her way when she was First Lady; they're unlikely to have changed, other than the names.
Jeb is actually the most qualified and (as far as I can see) most personable, reasonable, decent member of the Bush family to throw his hat in the ring. IMO, of course. I can't say that his politics and mine are entirely parallel, but he has respect for the opinions of others that I think is mostly lacking in the rest of the candidates in either party.
Therefore, he'll wash out. My prediction. There are other reasons for him washing out, but I think it'd happen anyway.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 07, 2016 at 11:48 AM
Kasich might actually be a decent guy as well, but I frankly am not familiar enough with him to make any kind of comment.
Given my propensity for opining from practically nothing, that's saying a lot.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 07, 2016 at 11:56 AM
"but he has respect for the opinions of others that I think is mostly lacking in the rest of the candidates in either party."
No, he doesn't. He's an entitled plutocrat. Members of his own party can't even deal with him:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/04/swamped-the-political-scene-dexter-filkins
I'm not a great Clinton fan, but this reasoning that she shouldn't be President because obstinate, contemptuous, belligerents in Congress and the media will just have to obstinately, contemptuously, and belligerently shut the business of government down and then blame her for their behavior sounds ..... exactly .... like the Obama chronicles.
Not saying it won't happen. It most certainly will.
For any Democrat who wins the Presidency.
There is no talking to these people.
Posted by: Countme-In | January 07, 2016 at 12:04 PM
seriously. there is no Democrat in the country that would get the GOP to cooperate. the Movement wouldn't allow such treason.
Posted by: cleek | January 07, 2016 at 12:09 PM
Given my propensity for opining from practically nothing...
Blog regular!
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | January 07, 2016 at 12:10 PM
Kasich . . . is the most qualified and least objectionable of the far right wing ideologues. I think he would step up to the office. I would vote for him almost gladly.
Gotta go with Marty on this one. Except that I'm not sure Kasich really qualifies as a "far right ideologue." I mean, the man implemented the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare in Ohio. What far right ideologue would even consider that???
Of course, not being a far right ideologue is pretty much a disqualification again this year -- unless you count the Trump Theatrical Troupe. (Which is why Rubio is running so hard to the right.) So Kasich doesn't really have a chance at the top slot. At best, he gets a VP nod, in an effort to make the nominee seem less extreme to the general election voters.
Posted by: wj | January 07, 2016 at 12:49 PM
It's somewhat of a hit piece. I'll accept that Bush was entirely too cozy with the sugar lobby. I have been openly against sugar price supports for years and years and years; that is the sort of thing that your (and my) tax dollars are propping up.
But it's entirely untrue that Bush impeded Everglades restoration in any significant way.
This business about the sugar industry being responsible for the delay in reducing phosphorus levels, though, is pure bunk. Such obviously partisan organizations as the American Geosciences Institute notes that phosphorus levels in the Everglades have reduced from 150ppb 25 years ago to 30 ppb today, toward an eventual target level of 10ppb, which: who knows if that is even achievable, considering that Florida is host to a number of phosphorus mines. Even people who persistently sue the State of Florida (Friends of the Everglades) for failing to adhere to the 10ppb requirement, acknowledge that it may take decades to hit that requirement, on account of phosphorus accumulation.
So, some good points. But it's also, to a large degree, a hit piece. Accidentally or deliberately.
That Bush was brusque with some unnamed aide is, well, not really surprising. I imagine I've pissed on some people here and there. Sometimes they even deserved it.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 07, 2016 at 12:54 PM
None of which is to say that the sugar industry isn't lobbying like crazy to get the requirements lifted, delayed, or any other thing that will make them more money. Just that a lot of progress has been made, and continues to be made.
The Kissimmee River restoration, for instance, is very close to completion, and that's a very big thing. Not that Jeb invented that, or helped it along, but he didn't exactly put the brakes on it either.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 07, 2016 at 12:57 PM
538 had an interesting item yesterday on whether the GOP Establishment is Blowing Its Anti-Trumnp Campaign. But I'm wondering if that isn't a misreading of their intent.
Certainly the GOP establishment (to the extent that such a thing exists in any coherent form) sees Trump as an electoral disaster in the making. But is that a bad thing for them? They realize, if they hadn't figured it out before, that they made a deal with the devil when they embraced the arch-conservatives. But how to get out of the deal?
The only apparent option is to let someone like Trump (although Cruz might be sufficient) win the nomination and then get trashed in the general election. That is, let the Democrats do the heavy lifting. And then they can take control of the party back, in the name of "electability." Maybe even get rid of the far right, and move the GOP back to the center.
I have my doubts whether that would actually work. But it doesn't seem like an impossible dream for those who otherwise are stuck with a monster of their own creation.
Posted by: wj | January 07, 2016 at 04:35 PM
Larison thinks the establishment candidates themselves are pretty much helping Trump by beating up on the other establishment candidates.
The comments there are pretty interesting too.
Posted by: Berial | January 07, 2016 at 04:49 PM
I'm no expert on ethanol mandates, but I did find
Posted by: bobbyp | January 07, 2016 at 04:59 PM
2nd try:
I'm no expert on ethanol mandates, but I did find this regarding the impact of the mandates on corn prices.
submitted for your consideration.
Posted by: bobbyp | January 07, 2016 at 05:01 PM
Just how moderate is John Kasich?
Posted by: bobbyp | January 07, 2016 at 05:06 PM
Just how moderate is John Kasich?
Everything is relative.
Posted by: russell | January 07, 2016 at 05:14 PM
Thanks for reading the link, Slart.
Posted by: Countme-In | January 07, 2016 at 06:18 PM
i think there's something strange about him.
I would agree...he seems emotionally shallow, inattentive, and not really deeply wedded to any particular public policies beyond his own personal advancement(cf immigration reform about face).
Combined with his youth and lack of experience, he is practically oozing out-of-control opportunism that gives off a real aura of, well, desperation (for lack of a better term), in his public demeanor. It is an attribute I find not at all equivalent to "earnestness", and it leaves me cold when assessing his effort on an emotional level, aside from the execrable policies me mouths.
Either that, or he just needs a good speech coach.
But then again, everyone knows I am a totally unbiased observer.
Posted by: bobbyp | January 07, 2016 at 07:51 PM
Everything is relative.
that is approximately true, and there are exasperating measurement issues as well.
we'll never know nothin'.
Posted by: bobbyp | January 07, 2016 at 07:54 PM
Bobby, could it be that Rubio feels desperate because he has bet the ranch on this Presidential run? He has already said that he is not running for re-election to the Senate. So if (when) he blows this run, his career in politics is probably over.**
And it isn't obvious that he hankers for a second career as a Fox News commentator. Or to settle for being a law professor or something.
** Yes, Nixon managed to make a comeback after a similar disaster. But that was closer to unique than merely exceptional.
Posted by: wj | January 07, 2016 at 08:15 PM
"FOX News commentator", "law professor or something"
Could Rubio bring himself to show up for work at those jobs?
I doubt it.
Posted by: Countme-In | January 07, 2016 at 08:39 PM
Well, it's not like he would have to vote or anything....
Posted by: wj | January 07, 2016 at 08:44 PM
Except I saved Kasich for last. He is the most qualified and least objectionable of the far right wing ideologues. I think he would step up to the office. I would vote for him almost gladly.
I'm torn. Speaking as an Ohioan, there's a part of me that would love to see Kasich elected just to get him out of Columbus. However, I'm honest enough that I'd feel bad seeing our problem become everyone's problem, and I also have faith that the awful track record of the Ohio Republican Party's gubernatorial selections would not waver when it came time to fill the void.
The nicest thing I can say about Kasich is that he seems like an old-school systematically corrupt crony capitalist rather than a nationalistic demagogue like a number of his rivals. But he's awful. He really, truly is. He may seem comparatively bland and unobjectionable because he's more tactful than a lot of the hopefuls, but policy-wise, he's just awful. If he's the least objectionable candidate the GOP can muster up, I weep for it, and I'd not think I had any tears to spare for the likes of them...
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide | January 07, 2016 at 09:51 PM
And it isn't obvious that he hankers for a second career as a Fox News commentator.
I am unsure of the relevance there, wj. I get the feeling of unbridled, but unfocused ambition. Nixon knew what he wanted. Rubio doesn't seem to have a firm grasp in that regard....or at least that is the way I read his body language and demeanor.
And it could just be me.
Posted by: bobbyp | January 07, 2016 at 09:51 PM
russell: Everything is relative.
Absolutely.
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | January 07, 2016 at 10:01 PM
am unsure of the relevance there, wj. I get the feeling of unbridled, but unfocused ambition. Nixon knew what he wanted. Rubio doesn't seem to have a firm grasp in that regard
That's because he is still young enough to believe in doing something good. He may be the one person in the race that thinks this is about making the country great again.
Posted by: Marty | January 07, 2016 at 10:22 PM
Oh yeah, NV, if your objections to Kasich are crony capitalism and policy issues then he is a shining star on the hill. There might be a policy discussion in one of the debates if he were nominated.
Posted by: Marty | January 07, 2016 at 10:24 PM
slarti,
I don't like Cruz, either. But he's absolutely the most knowledgeable, and the best equipped to run the Executive of the whole gang.
I don't understand this at all. For all the standard disclaimers about how smart Cruz is supposed to be, he says an awful lot of incredibly stupid things.
Do you want a President who thinks we should go on the gold standard and seems not to have a clue how the economy works?
One who thinks climate change is a hoax? (He's not just skeptical. He thinks it's a big con. That's paranoia.)
One who thinks we can carpet-bomb ISIS without killing civilians?
One who thinks that if there were five liberals on the Supreme Court the religious symbols on the tombstones at Arlington would soon be chiseled off?
Oh yeah. He also thinks pens have erasers.
Where does he get this stuff? My impression is that the man is a total nut case, no matter how good he is at formal argument in a courtroom or debate tournament. I'd vastly prefer Trump.
Posted by: byomtov | January 07, 2016 at 10:51 PM
... this is about making the country great again.
Marty, correct me if I'm wrong:
The US once WAS a great country (otherwise "again" is superfluous), and it is NOT a great country right now (otherwise nobody would be campaigning on "making" it so), right?
So I'm curious: when did it STOP being a great country? Bonus question: is there some other country that's great enough for the US to model itself on?
Don't get me wrong: I'm sure you have reasons to consider the US not-great, and I'd love to know what they are. Just to compare them with my own, you understand.
--TP
Posted by: Tony P. | January 07, 2016 at 11:40 PM
byomtov, I personally think that Cruz does not himself believe most of the stuff he says in front of the rubes. There are claims that he already did a Romney behind closed doors, i.e. telling rich donors the opposite of what he says publicly (in his case that abortion will not matter to his administration). They guy is not just a digestive rear exit but also a fraud.
Posted by: Hartmut | January 07, 2016 at 11:51 PM
I get the feeling of unbridled, but unfocused ambition.
I can see that. But, having failed at the top prize (at least as far as politics goes), where does he go? Maybe there is a company out there who would make him CEO. But unless it is a really big company, it's going to look like a major comedown to an ambuitious man. (And a really big company is probably going to want a CEO who has at least spent some time doing something related to their line of business. Not sure Rubio has that.)
In short, even if it is just unfocused ambition, it isn't clear to me how he focuses it beyond here. And I could see him getting desperate because it isn't clear to him either.
Posted by: wj | January 08, 2016 at 12:51 AM
"this is about making the country great again"
TP, I was just paraphrasing Trump. But, in kind of an answer, there is no country to copy, IMO. Then, I am an ardent exceptionalist, what's wrong here is trivial compared to what is right. King Obama aside.
Posted by: Marty | January 08, 2016 at 05:48 AM
Show me a Democratic candidate for President who hasn't said anything verifiably incorrect, laughably disconnected with reality, or deliberately mendaceous, and I'll give you a prize.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 08, 2016 at 08:46 AM
I'm willing to settle for a President who understands the limits of executive power. I think Cruz has that one locked up. I am not so sure about Trump, Clinton or Sanders. Bernie talks about $5/transaction ATM fees as if it's an average, and as if it's something the Government Must Do Something About. That's a fairly harmless variety of stupid, but it's just a sample.
Sure, there are things that Cruz talks about wanting to do, but he knows he cannot and must not do them without Congress. I am not so sure about Trump, Clinton, or Sanders.
Gold standard would be a disaster. I think Cruz is hankering for some economic sanity, and it's expressing itself badly. Fortunately, I also understand the limits of Executive power, and know he's not going to get that.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 08, 2016 at 08:53 AM
us-democrats-furious-over-obama-administration-deportations
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | January 08, 2016 at 09:16 AM
I'm willing to settle for a President who understands the limits of executive power
what about him makes you willing to overlook the fact that he doesn't seem to understand that carpet bombs don't seek out enemy troops while leaving buildings and good people unharmed ?
Posted by: cleek | January 08, 2016 at 09:32 AM
"Bernie talks about $5/transaction ATM fees as if it's an average, and as if it's something the Government Must Do Something About."
I agree. The banking industry should voluntarily scale back ATM transaction fees as a customer service. $3.50 is too much. Years ago, I was not charged to cash a check with an underpaid human teller at a bank not my own.
But the machines, supposedly more productive than their lesser human counterparts, seem to live high on the hog and must drive Ferraris.
It's odd to be inconveniently charged for convenience. I mean, if I walk into the back to cash a check, it would be strange if the teller said "my salary is meager, so I'm keeping $3.50 of your withdrawal for grocery money."
That I could see. But the announcement on the ATM that you can choose to pay the fee with no explanation of why or how the fee is arrived at is odd. If I decline the transaction, that's yet another five minutes of my life I've wasted in the expectation of time-saving convenience.
If I decline, the machine should at least say: "Have it your way, cheapskate, and go f*ck yourself on your way back to the car."
Honesty and convenience is my motto. For today. I'll have another by tomorrow.
The banks won't do this, of course. The market bears plenty of bullsh*t and is allowed to because ... well .... because .. the market is religion.
Thus Sanders' ill-advised remarks.
I won't vote for Sanders because he's unelectable and besides, I don't want to see a self-proclaimed Socialist, since there are so few of them, gunned down by right-wingers, probably on camera while he curses like Larry David at an ATM.
"I think Cruz is hankering for some economic sanity, and it's expressing itself badly"
His vaunted experience and soaring rhetorical attacks and parries on the debate teams at Princeton and Harvard must have failed him in a massive way.
Something is surprising about that, but we probably differ about the nature of the surprise.
It could be know-nothing glibness only gets a guy so far and sticking your chin into the wind and arrogantly declaring something seems to make it true for way too many people ... not you, but it's not you I'm worried about.
King Ted rings too many bells. I prefer Commandant Cruz.
Posted by: Countme-In | January 08, 2016 at 12:01 PM