LISTEN HERE:
By Mark Green
Shrum-Cooke debate the sharp political contrasts of Oscar Week: Obama is Jimmy Stewart at the end of It's a Great Life while Republicans see only the despotic villain in Fury Road. And: Who won the Trump-Cruz exchange over Canada and New York... plus what really is PC?
On Obama's State of the Union. Depending on your POV, Obama was either withering or condescending when he mocked the GOP for implying that food stamps caused the Great Recession, and no one denied Sputnick was in the sky.
When it came to his unusual "regret" that he couldn't reduce the partisan "rancor," Charles thinks it's misplaced, given Obama's own misconception: "He has a Wilsonian ideal of the president as symbol of the nation rather than a country with diverse regions and views with Congress having the right to say 'no.'" While Bob agrees that there's extreme polarization, he implies it's not because of a President who's tried bi-partisanship in Springfield and Washington, but because of GOP derangement over Obama.
Is POTUS's pride in his economic record warranted given that Carter unsuccessfully ran for reelection with a "Misery Index" of 20 (inflation + unemployment) while Obama's Misery Index is only six. But the panel agreed that it may still not be a winning issue for the Democratic nominee this Fall if, says Charles, people don't believe they're better off." Steady growth without real, perceived income gains is politically dangerous for the party of government.
What about Obama's rejection of "Political Correctness" as an excuse for hating on Muslims and calling kids racial names? The panel agrees that often Republicans use it to defend the indefensible ("Mexican rapists," "Obamacare worse than slavery") but then Charles attempts a more useful definition going forward: "PC is the reflexive shutting down of opinions that challenge popular opinion."
On the GOP Debate. The Hateful 7 (Bill Maher) in the GOP debate describes a stupid President and apocalyptic America. Charles questions whether this is fundamentally unusual "since the out-party's job is to take power from the in-party, like what Democrats said about Bush." But he acknowledges that the belligerent shrillness of a Chris Christie -- "dictatorship...petulant child... kick his butt" -- is unhelpful and unpresidental. Bob thinks that the relentless collective shriek coming from the contenders may help each in their nomination fight but turns off the 5-8% undecideds who will decide the result in November.
The panel can't yet decide net-net who bested whom on the furious exchange over Canada and New York between Trump and Cruz. But Charles admits -- along with Peter Wehner, David Frum, other GOP leaders -- that he could not support the erratic Trump were he the nominee. Indeed, that occurrence "could spell the end of the conservative party in America and our existing constitutional order" (referring in part to Obama's facile use of executive orders). Bob notes that "executive orders of course have a long history, like one called The Emancipation Proclamation," but doesn't disagree about the fate of the GOP should today's Lonesome Rhodes (A Face in the Crowd) become the nominee.
Host: The Mainstream Media swooned after Trump called Cruz's "New York values" line a "terrible insult"... yet ignored the irony of an aggrieved candidate who otherwise has insulted nearly every group in America other than White WASPs and casino owners. No, Trump is not looking more "presidential."
And while Cruz won on points whether he is qualified to serve as president, this is dangerous ground if even 5% of Cruz voters abandon him because of this uncertainty ... especially if Trump remembers two truthful hits in the next debate: "You were a Canadian citizen who renounced that status only 18 months before your candidacy...and isn't it true that if you asked the Founding Fathers their 'original intent,' they'd say that a person born outside America could not become president?"
On Going to Extremes.
^ When Governor Greg Abbott proposed nine constitutional amendments to allow states to more easily ignore Supreme Court decisions and congressional laws, was that an example of "Texas Values"? Shrum said it was "an example of the values of John C. Calhoun" whose philosophy of states rights and 'nullification" helped justify the Civil War. Cooke argues that such an approach now is "fools gold" since if indeed there were such supermajorities to overturn the exiting Constitution, "we'd have a balanced federal budget already without having to call a Constitutional Convention." Both agree that this shouldn't and won't happen though Charles would like to go back to a pre-New Deal view of the Commerce Clause and a smaller regulatory state.
^ No responsible D or R believes that armed, extremist ranchers can take over federal property because of their view of western land use. But Cooke notes that the left too has occupied space (OWS) "though without guns" and it's reasonable for the local sheriff to allow the protestors to vent and strut "since there's no immediate harm" in order to avoid Waco-like bloodshed."
^ The Host wonders why GOP contenders seem miserable that Secretary of State Kerry helped solve the problem over 10 American sailors seized when they wandered into Iranian territorial waters. Would they have preferred a 'Gulf of Tonkin' justifying another Middle East war? Long term, this was a kerfuffle not a crisis, the panel agrees, but Charles objects to the Administration citing any such diplomatic success the result of the Iranian Nuclear deal. "Why?", asks Bob, who lauds that deal and the relationship that Kerry developed with Taziz that facilitated the sailors release (and perhaps also the following days prisoner exchange that brought four Americans home).
On Clinton-Sanders. Anticipating the Sunday night debate, the Host asks what might plausibly happen IF Sanders won both Iowa and New Hampshire? Shrum, who's advised a half dozen presidential campaigns, made three telling points: then Nevada becomes quite important since it falls between NH and South Carolina; if Sanders won the first two or even three, then it could be a long primary slog; and "if Clinton showed real weakness, it's not inconceivable that the party could turn to someone else -- and that would be Joe Biden."
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
from The Huffington Post | The Full Feed http://ift.tt/1OYkjs4
0 التعليقات:
Post a Comment