The election campaign . . . just prior to Iowa votes

Everyone, me included, has been outraged, bemused, incredulous, and downright disgusted by the level of discourse and lack of policy substance in the Republican presidential campaign thus far.

On the Democratic side, it was a higher level of discourse, but rather ho-hum until the competition between Clinton and Sanders heated up and they began differentiating themselves.

Frankly, however, here on the day of the first voting in Iowa, my view of the importance of what's been happening has shifted a little bit.    As messy as it has been, I do believe that issues are more clearly defined than they were at the beginning.

For Republicans, there is a clear division.  Will they go rogue with either Trump or Cruz, or be able to govern with experienced political operatives.?  The more moderate group needs to pick one of the four and get others to drop out.  Then they can concentrate on a two-way race -- pick one from column A (Trump, Cruz) and one from column B (Rubio, Bush, Kasich, Christie) that defines the two wings fighting for control of their party.

On the Democratic side, it's already down to a two-person race, with a clear choice between progressive idealism with Sanders, or center left pragmatism with Clinton.  That's a very good choice to have.   It's also a choice between taking a chance on Sanders' electability and a more sure thing with Clinton.

All in all, there's been an unprecedented interest in this race for this early in the election cycle, and I'm coming to believe that it has actually helped to define the issues and sharpen the decisions that now need to be made by the voters.

Let's see as we get the returns from the Iowa caucuses tonight.

Ralph

This actually happened: Fox News vs Ted Cruz

This actually happened on Fox News today in an interview by Chris Wallace with Ted Cruz.  

Fox News host Chris Wallace cornered Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz on Sunday about his claim that President Barack Obama’s health care reform law had cost jobs.

"The fact checkers say you’re wrong," Wallace told Cruz.   "Since that law went into effect, the unemployment rate fell from 9.9% to 5% as 13 million new jobs were created, and 16.3 million people who were previously uninsured now have coverage.

"There are plenty of problems with Obamacare, but more people have jobs and health insurance,” the Fox News host added. 

Cruz, however, argued that the fact checkers were wrong because they were biased. 

“Fact checkers are not fair and impartial,” he stated.  “They are liberal editorial journalists. And they have made it their mission to defend Obamacare.”

“Wait,” Wallace interrupted. “There’s certainly no question that more people have jobs and more people health insurance.”

“Yes, there is question,” Cruz insisted “The fact is from 2008 to today, we’ve seen economic growth of 1.2% on average.”

The Texas senator became irritated as the Fox News host pressed for an answer to his original question.

“Chris, don’t interrupt me,” Cruz snapped.

“That’s changing the subject,” Wallace noted. “Thirteen million new jobs have been created.” 

“And that is a historically slow rate of job creation,” Cruz replied.

According to the GOP hopeful, small business owners told him that they were “praying” to be saved from Obamacare.  

Wallace pointed out that the Cruz plan to replace the Affordable Care Act — by selling insurance across state lines, expanding health savings accounts and making insurance portable between jobs — “would have almost no effect in giving people who are not uninsured health coverage.”

Cruz said that the conclusions of organizations like that Congressional Budget Office about his plan were “simply not accurate.”

“This law is a disaster,” Cruz opined. “People are hurting.”

Remember, folks, this is Fox News confronting Ted Cruz about his lies about Obamacare !!!  The transcript is from David Edwards at RawStory, but you can watch the actual video clip here:  

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/fox-host-shreds-ted-cruz-over-obamacare-falsehoods-more-people-have-jobs-and-health-insurance/ 

Meanwhile, here's Donald Trump's answer to health care reform, as told to George Stephanopolis on ABC News.  "Nobody knows health care better than Donald Trump. . . .  I want people covered. . . .  We're going to work with our hospitals.  We're going to work with our doctors. We've got to do something. ... We'll work something out. That doesn't mean single-payer."

There you have it -- the two front runners in the Republican Party on the eve of the first voting.  They both vow to get rid of Obamacare.  But Cruz's plan can't pass the fact checkers, and Trump has no plan other than that he is great and he "will work something out."

Vote for a Democrat. 

Ralph

Meanwhile, back to the Democrats . . .

Paul Krugman wrote his New York Times column a few days ago on:  "While idealism is a strong virtue, politics is pragmatic."   Here's the gist of his argument:

"The point is that while idealism is fine and essential, it's not a virtue unless it goes along with hardheaded realism about the means that might achieve your ends."

And another quote:  "There's a sort of mini-dispute among Democrats over who can claim to be Obama's true heir -- Sanders or Hillary Clinton?  But the answer is obvious:  Sanders is the heir to candidate Obama, but Clinton is the heir to President Obama."

There's an important truth here.   But I think too many people too quickly dismiss Sanders as the dreamy idealist who inspires people to empty pipe dreams of a progressive utopia.   Why not say that realism is fine and essential, but it's not a virtue unless there is some idealism to propel it into action?

Wouldn't it be great to have both in the same package?   Isn't that what we have had in Barack Obama, really, in the end?   In the final voting, I'm probably going to go with the pragmatist -- but I'm deeply grateful that we have the idealist defining the terms of this debate and pulling it in more progressive directions.

Ralph

NYTimes endorses Clinton

The Editorial Board of the New York Times has endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.

*     *     *

"For the past painful year, the Republican presidential contenders have been bombarding Americans with empty propaganda slogans and competing, bizarrely, to present themselves as the least experienced person for the most important elected job in the world. Democratic primary voters, on the other hand, after a substantive debate over real issues, have the chance to nominate one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history. . . .

"Mrs. Clinton’s main opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist, has proved to be more formidable than most people, including Mrs. Clinton, anticipated. He has brought income inequality and the lingering pain of the middle class to center stage and pushed Mrs. Clinton a bit more to the left than she might have gone on economic issues. Mr. Sanders has also surfaced important foreign policy questions, including the need for greater restraint in the use of military force.

"In the end, though, Mr. Sanders does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers. His boldest proposals — to break up the banks and to start all over on health care reform with a Medicare-for-all system — have earned him support among alienated middle-class voters and young people. But his plans for achieving them aren’t realistic, while Mrs. Clinton has very good, and achievable, proposals in both areas."

*     *     *

The full article of endorsement is much longer and more detailed.   It's available online at
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-endorsement.html?action=click&pgt 

Cruz's duplicitousness gets revealed

More and more evidences of Ted Cruz's lies and hypocrisy keep surfacing.   He really took a beating in this week's debate from Rubio, Bush, and Paul -- and his mean personality shone through in his petty attempts to flaut the debate rules and to challenge the moderators.   The crowd even booed him loudly when he did that.

Here's some evidence that his honeymoon may be over.  He has to win Iowa to stay in the race, yet he is slipping behind Trump in the polls there and has very little support in New Hampshire.

But he's still saying the nomination is down to a two way, Cruz-Trump race.  Yet he has suddenly shifted all of his tv ads from attacks on Trump to attacks on Rubio.   Sounds like he's now really fighting to come in second in Iowa, not first.

Ralph

The irony of Cruz's (in)eligibility to be president

Factcheck.org looked into whether Ted Cruz's birth in Canada makes him ineligible to be president according to the requirement that one must be a "natural born" citizen.  They concluded that the issue "isn't quite as settled as Cruz makes out."'

The Constitution does not define "natural born," and the Supreme Court has never been called on to rule on its precise meaning -- even though the question came up when George Romney (Mitt's father) ran and, more recently, in 2008 when John McCain was the GOP nominee.   In both those cases, the parents were living temporarily abroad, the Romneys as missionaries and the McCains as a U.S. military family.   In Cruz's case, his American mother had moved to Canada to live with her Canadian citizen husband, but retained her U.S. citizenship.

There are some constitutional scholars who have concluded that natural born literally means born in this country and, therefore, Cruz is not eligible.

Other law professors, two former U.S. solicitors general, and the Congressional Research Service have all said that Cruz qualifies.   This has practical implications, because a law suit has already been filed in Texas challenging his eligibility, and Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) has said that he will bring a suit if Cruz is nominated.

The political implications are currently being exploited by Donald Trump in his usual way:  "I'm just saying . . . I don't personally care, but people are raising the question."  None is raising it so loudly as Trump himself, of course.   Despite Trump's rhetorical manipulations, it is a serious question.  What if a major party's nominee were, after the fact, found to be ineligible?

But here's where it becomes an ironic paradox.   I quote the article from Factcheck.org:

"During the debate, Trump repeatedly referred to another legal scholar, Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard who once had Cruz as a student.  In an opinion piece penned for the Boston Globe on Jan. 11, Tribe opined that while 'no real court is likely to keep Cruz off the ballot, much less remove him from the White House if he were to win,' the kind of 'originalist' judges that Cruz has said he would appoint to the Supreme Court are the very ones most likely to conclude he is ineligible."

Tribe then explains that an originalist claims to interpret the Constitution according to its narrowly historical meaning at the time of its adoption.   "To this kind of judge," Tribe writes, "Cruz ironically wouldn't be eligible."

Tribe contrasted that with the kind of judge he admires, a "living constitutionalist," who believes that the Constitution's meaning "evolves with the perceived needs of the time and longstanding practice. To that kind of judge, Cruz would be eligible to serve because it no longer makes sense to be bound by the narrow historical definition that would disqualify him."

What makes this so ironic is that, in the debate, Cruz dismissed Tribe as "a left-wing judicial activist, Harvard Law professor who was Al Gore’s lawyer in Bush versus Gore. He’s a major Hillary Clinton supporter.”   Again, quoting Factcheck.org:

"But Tribe didn’t say he thinks Cruz is ineligible, only that he thinks Cruz is 'a fair weather originalist' when it comes to interpreting the Constitution’s definition of 'natural born.'

This may yet have to be decided by the Supreme Court.   If it comes to that, Cruz might do well to hire Laurence Tribe to defend his case, since he has already argued that he favors the evolved interpretation of the Constitution that would find Cruz eligible.   "I'm just saying . . . "

Ralph

Republican's last debate before Iowa -- Trumpless

Ho Hum.   So Trump didn't appear after all.   And Megyn Kelly began by asking "about the elephant that is not in the room."   Ted Cruz responded with a well-crafted reply that got the intended laugh.

I sort of half-watched the debate while doing some other things.   Lots of noise and misstatements.  Cruz still doesn't seem to understand what "carpet-bombing" means, citing the 1991 GHW Bush bombing of Baghdad as an example.   But, in fact, the New York Times at the time praised it for its "precision-guided bombs and missiles," which is the exact opposite of carpet-bombing.

Rubio yelled a lot about Obama, and said, in effect, that he would tear up the Iranian nuclear agreement on day one, even if it is working.   Christie lied a lot.  And Jeb Bush was . . . bumbling Jeb was also there.

Cruz was asked what he would do about the people who would lose health insurance, since he has vowed to end Obamacare.   He bloviated about how bad Obamacare is, told several lies in the process, and then reveled that he has no comprehensive plan to replace it.

John Kasich did his usual thing.   Rand Paul made one good point and another silly one.  And Ben Carson recited the Preamble to the Constitution as his closing remarks.

But enough about the ones who showed up.   What about Trump?    He claims that Fox News called today to apologize and beg him to join the debate.   Fox's Roger Ailes says Trump offered to come if Fox would donate $5 million to his (Trump's) charities.   Ailes refused.   Trump says he "can't be bought."    Did this spat end in a tie of lies?

This is what the Republican Party has devolved into?

Ralph