Looking Ahead

Abbott:   Let’s see.   On our team we have Who’s on first, What’s on second, and I Don’t Know’s on third.

Costello:  That’s what I want to know:  the guys’ names.

          —Bud Abbott and Lou Costello, Who’s On First?


I spent some time last week watching the CPAC appearances by the major likely serious (sorry, Mr. Trump) 2016 GOP Presidential contenders.  In a change of format from prior years, each of the speakers devoted at least some of their allotted time to a Q&A session.  Although that was almost certainly pre-vetted and the speakers had canned responses at the ready, it was refreshing to see them have to move on their feet a bit.

While it’s way too early for endorsements, let me offer some early takeaways.

Governor Scott Walker

If there was star among the not-yet-announced would-bes, it was Governor Walker.  Taking a folksy approach with his sleeves rolled up while working in front of—not behind—the podium and teleprompters, the Wisconsin Governor turned in a much better performance than his lukewarm showing at the 2012 convention.  And he’s got some good things to say about what he has been doing in Wisconsin, which is why his stock is surging.  He has successfully taken on the public sector unions in a union-heavy state.  He survived a recall vote against the full weight of the DNC.  He is much younger than the GOP establishment, and presents an energy and vigor that eluded Mitt Romney in 2012.  He’ll also carry what I think will be the advantage of truly being a District outsider.  There is a long way to go, but Governor Walker established himself as one to watch.

Senator Rand Paul

Senator Paul also had a strong showing, and ultimately won the straw poll.  But you have to take that with a grain of salt: his dad (former Texas Rep. Ron Paul) won a bunch of them in his time.  I was struck by a couple of things.   One, while confronting ISIS was a constant theme of the convention speakers, he was the only American (UKIP leader Nigel Farage also took this position) to argue—correctly, in my view—that it needed to be done with American support behind the proper local combatants.  The other was I thought blue jeans plus his inability/unwillingness to get his hair under control showed a certain lack of seriousness for what is essentially a debutante ball for presumptive GOP Presidential candidates.  I like a lot of what Senator Paul has to say, but he’s going to have to polish his appearance and more consistently get beyond the hyper-libertarian staples of auditing the Fed and gutting the Patriot Act if he wants to fare better on the national stage than his father.

Governor J.E.B. Bush

I cannot tell you how much it pains me to admit this:

I thought Governor Bush had a good showing.

His name was resoundingly booed earlier in the day, but he waded into the lion’s den and I think really helped himself.  He did straight Q&A with Sean Hannity, and was articulate, funny, and appropriately self-depricating.  More to the point, he had answers to questions about his position on amnesty (frankly, it is a little hard to argue with the point there is no way to deport 11 million people), anchoring himself firmly to the proposition that border security comes first.  He did more evading than answering on the issue of Common Core, but I think we’ll see over time that he will have a way to answer that as well.  He comes across as much more intelligent and Presidential than his brother.  Unfortunately, he’s still his brother’s brother and—maybe you can skip this, but I can’t—he can’t say “noo-klee-uhr” either.

He can fundraise all he wants, I think if the electorate gets a voice, anyone named Bush is going to have tough sledding.  We just don’t do royal dynasties in this country.  And if that doesn’t bother you about yet another Bush in the White House, I have five words for you:

David Souter and John Roberts

Governor Chris Christie

Like Bush, Governor Christie came in as something less than a crowd favorite.  He also opted for straight Q&A (this time with Laura Ingraham), and that is where he is really at his best.  That said, I thought sitting down was a poor choice, and if he’s going to run he’s going to have to get some better-fitting suits.

Memo to Governor Christie:  Yes, a little shirt cuff should show, but your suit jacket sleeves really should extend past your elbows.

Christie was entertaining, and did the best he could to point to his “conservative” accomplishments.  But even when chumming the waters, he generated at best a tepid crowd reaction.  He’s backpedaling on Common Core, where he has to admit he wanted the federal money when he signed New Jersey up for the Race-to-the-Top program, but now says he regrets the degree of federal control that came with it.  This is the same Governor who was getting all touchy-feely with Obama a week before the 2012 election, in his effort to—you guessed it—collect as much federal money as possible in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.  It is hard to take his smaller-government pitch seriously with this record.  I suspect he will never win over the conservative base, and his bull-in-a-china-closet act—he referred to it as “passion,” racistly blamed it on his Sicilian and Irish parents, and made clear he has no intention of dialing it down—will ultimately turn off enough of the rest that his candidacy will not last long.

Dr. Ben Carson

I really want to like this man.  And as a man, I do.  But this CPAC appearance demonstrated that as a candidate he has weaknesses that just aren’t getting fixed.  You could excuse a certain lack of polish a couple of years ago at the National Prayer Breakfast; call it refreshing amateur outsider’s plain talk, or layman’s charm.  But running for President is no place for amateurs.  He’s now been on the major national speaking/talk show circuit for several years, and this was at least his third CPAC appearance.  Yet while he says a lot of the right things, he still says them in a way that reeks of not-ready-for-prime-time.  In a world where all that matters is now you come across on television, I’m afraid his presenting skills are not going to be up to the task.

Senator Ted Cruz

Senator Cruz is nothing if not consistent.  What you got from him at CPAC was what you always do: pure red meat.  The junior Senator from Texas was playing in his element, and with the possible exception of being a little too aggressively hawkish on ISIS, he was spot-on.  I’d like to see him spend more time on substance and less on snarky one-liners, and he’s got to learn to stop the sheepish little giggle every time he thinks he’s said something clever.

But that’s nit-picking.

The real problem is he can’t win.  He’s too polarizing, even within the GOP . . . which is why we need him to stay in the Senate.

Governor Rick Perry

If you liked your portion of red meat from Senator Cruz, you loved it with the side order of fire and brimstone served up by Governor Perry.  Someone seems to have told him that the way to out-conservative the field is to say the same things everyone else is, but louder and with more fist-waving.  Watch Lane Smith’s trial performance as District Attorney Jim Trotter III in My Cousin Vinny, and you’ll get the basic idea.

I don’t know that Governor Perry had much realistic prospect after his 2012 debate meltdown, but he didn’t help himself at CPAC by appearing at one point to get lost in his teleprompter mid-sentence.  Worse, in his effort to filter his conservative message through his inner Baptist preacher, he just came across as sort of an extremist bomb-chucker, which isn’t necessary.  And when he demonstrated that, like the Bushes, he also can’t say “noo-klee-uhr,” I suspect in many minds he disqualified himself for access to the buttons for activating same.

And, as an aside, his Drew Carey glasses look goofy.

Governor Bobby Jindal

I thought Governor Jindal had a good showing.  Once you get past the disconnect of him looking pure Mumbai yet sounding pure Baton Rouge, he had some good things to say.  Repeal Obamacare, get rid of Common Core, win the war against radical Islamic terrorism.  Good stuff, that.  Better was his willingness to call a spade a spade and say publicly that Islam has a problem within itself, and it is incumbent upon Muslim leaders to work within the Muslim community to identify, neuter, and eliminate violent radical extremists.  I suspect telling, however, was Governor Jindal’s avoidance of specifics on his conservative record in Louisiana.  Maybe he’s saving that for the campaign trail, but one wonders if it has more to do with the fact that for all his conservative rhetoric, he’s done virtually nothing to control spending and get Louisiana’s fiscal house in order.

The next 20 months are going to be interesting.  As we go through this, hopefully someone within one of the campaigns finally figures out what the Dems have known for some time: how to communicate message in the 21st Century.

Hollow Victories

“I wish I knew how to quit you.”

          —Jake Gyllenhaal as Jack Twist in Brokeback Mountain


So the Republicans gained enough seats to flip control of the Senate.  Mitch McConnell (R-KY) won re-election in a race that shouldn’t have been as close as it was, and likely gets to become the Senate Majority leader, replacing Harry Reid (D-NV).

You’ll excuse me if I’m not dancing in the streets.

For one thing, it may well be a very short party.  2016 presents the reverse of this year’s lopsided slate of at-risk seats, with incumbent Republicans up in 24 of 34 races, including purple-to-blue states such as Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, so the Democrats have much more to gain than to lose.  Of the Democratic seats up in 2016, only Nevada and Colorado are remotely in play—you think Republicans are going to pick up a Senate seat in Oregon, where they just legalized pot?—for Republicans.  The potential, if not likelihood, is that the Democrats to pick up a net of at least six or seven seats, enough to regain the majority.

But my concern runs deeper than that.

Yes, pulling Harry Reid’s cryptkeeper fingers off the levers of control over the Senate’s agenda, even temporarily, is a good thing.  Yes, having a Senate that’s a little more likely to resist Obama appointments is a good thing.  You could argue that having a Senate majority that will at least speak to the House majority is a good thing (although I see merit in a status quo that leaves Congress unable to screw anything up further).

But all of that is only true if you’re going to get something from a Republican-controlled Congress that’s appreciably different from what you got under a Democrat-controlled Congress.  If I thought you were going to get a return to Constitutional moorings and a serious reduction of the bloated federal Beast, if I thought you were going to get a real adult move towards fiscal sanity, I’d be there with you.  But if it’s just about being able to say our team won, I don’t see the point.

Unfortunately, the writing is already on the wall that there is likely to be little that changes in the District with Mitch McConnell holding the Senate gavel.  The post-election party dance floor wasn’t even cold before McConnell was giving up his bargaining position on two major issues, saying that there would be no government shutdown—meaning he will not force the President to compromise on spending—and no attempt to repeal FUBARCare.  In other words, he’s more interested in the political optics of avoiding a veto or a shutdown (by the way, does anyone even remember we had a government shutdown last year?) than he is about standing up for some kind of conservative principles.

And this illustrates the fundamental problem.  The establishment Republican leadership is not interested in advancing the principles of its conservative base; it’s interested in Republicans winning for the sake of Republicans being in office.  They’re more concerned about their personal vested stake in the system than about ideals.

Consider some of the key Republican Senate leaders who were re-elected this week:

Mitch McConnell has been in the Senate 30 years.  Thad Cochran (R-MS) has been there a whopping 36 years (41 total in Congress).   Susan Collins (R-ME) has 18 years in the Senate.  John Cornyn (R-TX), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have been there 12 years each.  Their longevity alone is a problem—I believe term limits in Congress and the federal courts may be the single most important issue in saving the Republic—but take a look at their voting records as scored by the Heritage Action for America Scorecard.  With a less-than-impressive score of 79, Cornyn comes in as the most conservative of the bunch.  From there it drops off dramatically:  McConnell 68 (last I checked, that’s an F), Cochran 53, Graham 49, Alexander 48, and Collins an abysmal 22.

And these are some of the most senior Republicans in the Senate.  Add to them other core senior Republicans who weren’t up this time, and you get the likes of Orrin Hatch (R-UT), 36 years in the Senate, Heritage score of 54; John McCain (R-AZ), 27 years, Heritage score of 51; Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) 11 years, Heritage score of 50; and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) 12 years, Heritage score of 23.

These are the people who will now be running the Senate (likely the same people who excoriated Ted Cruz (R-TX), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Mike Lee (R-UT) (Heritage scores of 93, 92, and 96, respectively) for their filibuster efforts last year), and they are not conservatives, despite what Karl Rove’s American Crossroads PAC tries to tell you.  They are anti-Constitution, big-government spenders—in other words, Democrats with different colored ties.

I recognize what I’m about to say is political heresy, and likely ends what little prospect I had of ever running for office.  But this is what you get as a conservative when you steadfastly adhere to William F. Buckley, Jr.’s admonition to “vote for the most conservative candidate electable.”  You get people who will talk just enough conservative talk to pacify the conservative base, but when they get to the District it’s business as usual because they know at the end of the day they’ll never be held accountable to walk the conservative walk.  Come re-election time, they count on conservatives ultimately holding their noses and voting for them because we see them as the lesser of two evils.

And they have good reason to think that way:  because that’s what we do.  Every time.

If, as many say, the solution for the conservative movement is reform within the existing Republican Party—and I’m not convinced it is—I fear we have an extremely painful process ahead of us.  For the Republican Party to change course, it has to be taught that the conservative base will hold its candidates accountable.  It is not enough for us to scream about fiscal responsibility and the Constitution.  It is not even enough for us to push conservative candidates in the primaries.  Unless and until Republicans face negative consequences come election time when they field non-conservative candidates, the party has no reason to change its behavior.

In other words, the party won’t change until it sees its non-conservative candidates lose not only in primaries (see ya, Eric Cantor (R-CA)), but also in general elections, and lose because the conservative base stayed home or cast protest votes.

I know I have argued to the contrary in the past, in particular with respect to the Ron Paul libertarian devotees.  But as I’ve watched the GOP in large part fail in its function as the opposition, and as I’ve watched the establishment repeatedly torpedo conservatives within its own ranks, I’ve become of a mind that more drastic action is necessary, or we’re forever going to face a choice between the Left and the near-Left.

As long as conservatives continue to settle, as long as we continue to be good soldiers every other November and show up to vote for bad RINO candidates, that’s what the GOP is going to give us.  The Reince Priebus/Karl Rove machine will continue to give us Mitch McConnells and Thad Cochrans in the Senate, and will continue to serve up the likes of Chris Christie and Jeb Bush for President, promoting the Republican brand, but with no substantive difference.

I have no interest in having a Republican President or Republican representatives in Congress for the sake of having Republicans.  If you don’t stand for conservative principles of limited government and adherence to the Constitution, I don’t care what letter you have next to your name on the ballot.

We’ll see what Mitch and the GOP do now that they’ve been handed the keys to the Capitol.  I’d like to hope that they do something to change my mind over the next two years (they’ve warned Obama not to take executive action on amnesty, although I suspect that’s only so he doesn’t steal their thunder).  But I doubt they will, and if they don’t, it’s going to take some real housecleaning to return the party to its conservative roots.

And that means 2016 (and beyond) may be even more painful than we think.

Hillary’s Kabuki Theatre


Roy:          Swear to God, Doc, this guy is *not* who you think he is.

Clint:        It’s a well-known fact that if a camera’s not on him, he treats old people and children like dirt.

Earl:         And dogs.

Roy:          Yeah, don’t forget the dogs.

        —Kevin Costner as Roy “Tin Cup” McAvoy, Lou Myers as Clint, and Dennis Burkley as Earl in Tin Cup


It seems that former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a new book out titled Hard Choices, a supposed memoir of her time in the State Department.

How convenient.

Critics have complained that there’s nothing new there, and one suspects that’s true when you note that even the title is, er, “recycled” from Cyrus Vance’s memoir of his time in the same post under Jimmy Carter.

Really?  You not only couldn’t even come up with an original title, and had to steal one from Jimmy Carter’s Secretary of State?

I haven’t read Mrs. Clinton’s book, and won’t, but what I’ve seen and read about it raises some issues it’s timely to consider.

Mrs. Clinton—in the kind of thing that gets eaten up by folks who get their news from People magazine, Stephen Colbert, and The View, and then vote in unfortunate numbers—makes the very personal and pastoral claim to have written the book herself, longhand.  To which I say, to employ a sophisticated legal term of art:


First, I find it difficult to believe that someone in her position wrote a 600 page book themself, and indeed with a little digging we find that she in the small print in fact credits a number of former State Department staffers and a President Clinton speechwriter with assistance.  Second, I don’t buy for a minute that in the 21st Century, after five years in the most techno-savvy administration in history, she wrote anything longhand.

Pandering to her populist base, she also claims to have written the book in her “little farmhouse in Chappaqua.”  Have you seen her “little farmhouse”?  Puhleez.

Rusty, why so skeptical?

Well, friend, it’s because Mrs. Clinton has, and continues to display, a certain pathological tendency to—let’s be kind for the moment—embellish things, particularly when they have to do with coloring her political narrative.  Take her comments about the “little farmhouse.”  The daughter of a Chicago business owner and graduate of Wellesley and Yale would desperately like you to believe that she’s one of the common folk; that she’s of ordinary stock; that she feels your pain.  In that same interview, she elaborated on taking lucrative speaking fees, explaining that she and President Clinton had nothing when they entered the White House in 1993, and when they left in 2001 they were so “dead broke” and “in debt” they couldn’t get mortgages for houses:

“We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt.  We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea’s [ahem, Stanford] education.  You know, it was not easy.”  (insert mine)

Don’t cry for me, Argentina/ The truth is, I never left you 

Taking her statements at face value for a second—come on, you can do it—what does it tell you about basic management skills that after her career as a partner in the most prestigious law firm in Arkansas, and eight years rent- and expense-free with a $400,000 a year Presidential salary, plus royalties and advances from the five—count ‘em, five—books they published between them during that time, she and her husband were broke?

But the real point here is her claims of ordinary brokeness like she’s been living on the set of Good Times all her life are, of course, poppycock.  She claims they had nothing when they entered the White House; but Bill Clinton told the FEC during the 1992 campaign that they had a net worth of between $350,000 and $1 million.  That’s not Bill Gates’ neighborhood, but for a couple in their mid-40s in 1993, that was hardly nothing.  She says when they left the White House they were broke; but in 2000 they reported income of over $400,000, and Hillary’s Senate campaign reported assets of between $781,000 and $1.8 million.  And those mortgages she couldn’t get for those houses?  Notice she had to say that in the plural.  Those houses, by the way, cost $1.7 million (Chappaqua, New York, September 1999), and $2.85 million (D.C., January 2000), respectively.

Yeah, tell that to a single mom in a rat-infested rent-controlled Harlem slum while you’re trying to convince her how in touch you are with her poverty.

[As an aside, if they had the millions of dollars in debt she claims they did when they left the White House, it’s worth noting that the reason for that was the legal bills incurred, in a more than ironic continuation of today’s theme, as a result of her husband’s habit of lying under oath, a habit that got him disbarred.]

I don’t begrudge the Clintons their financial success (although I might question how they got there); as of 2009, they claimed a net worth of between $10 million and $50 million, and her husband has made more than $100 million in speaking fees since leaving office. Yet she tries to posture herself as the ever-relating champion of the middle class instead of the elite Ivy League blue-blood 0.1% person she is.  And this shameless pretending, for political purposes, to be something she’s not is not an isolated incident with her.

Recall the 2008 campaign.  In an effort to use her time as First Lady as some sort of substantive credential—I will, however, give it more credit than a life spent as a “community organizer”—to burnish her image as a tough, battle-hardened foreign policy veteran, then-Senator Clinton recounted in some detail a harrowing story of making an emergency strategic landing under sniper fire in Bosnia.  Trouble is, while she had in fact been to Bosnia, the parts about the corkscrew landing and sniper fire were flat made up.  When caught in the lie, she explained she was tired.

Don’t we all hallucinate crash landings and sniper fire when we don’t get enough rest?

That wasn’t the only time on the campaign trail that Mrs. Clinton falsified some part of herself to shade her political image.  There was the speech she gave to a largely black audience in Selma, Alabama in which she quoted a song by gospel singer Rev. James Cleveland, adopting a lousy southern black drawl in the process.  At best this was cheesy political theatre.  At worst, it was effectively a racist donning of “blackface” in an attempt to pander to her audience’s racial identity, rather than reason to their intellect on the substantive issues.

Then there was the long time tale of her mother naming her after Sir Edmund Hillary of Mount Everest fame, “in an effort to inspire greatness.”  How sweet.  Except that previously-unknown Edmund Hillary climbed Everest with Tenzing Norgay in 1953, when young Hillary Rodham—who presumably had already been so named—was a first-grader.

We could recount the questions surrounding her participation in investments in commodities futures and Whitewater.  We could dredge up the ghost of Vince Foster.  But I want to go back even farther, because Mrs. Clinton, nee Rodham, has a long history of lies.

In 1974, Hillary Rodham was hired to work on the House Judiciary Committee’s investigation of Watergate.  Jerry Zeifman was her supervisor, and he says he fired her

“[b]ecause she was a liar . . . She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer.  She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee, and the rules of confidentiality.”

Specifically, according to Zeifman, his contemporaneous diary reflects that Miss Rodham lied to him about not pursuing rules changes after being instructed not to, attempted to advocate for denying President Nixon legal counsel.  More disturbing, when informed that the denial of legal counsel would be contrary to the procedure used with Supreme Court Justice William Douglas in 1970 and that the files on the Douglas impeachment reflecting that precedent were publicly available, Miss Rodham without permission removed those files to a location where they could not be accessed by then public.  In other words, when she learned there were documents contravening some unconstitutional action—denying an accused the right to counsel; see the Sixth Amendment—she wanted to take for political purposes, she hid them.

So, Mrs. Clinton is out with a new self-serving book, which she promotes with demonstrable lies aimed at polishing a false political portrait of herself.  That is, indeed, nothing new.

Of course, what difference, at this point, does it make?