Apparently there are recent news stories that Beto O'Rourke has apologized for statements he recently made. Apologized for joking that he occasionally helped in raising his kids, apologized for his white privilege, and apologized for something he wrote as a teenager.
Is this the sort of person we want as President? Contrast this to the way Donald Trump won election. Every time some misstatement or past misdeed came out he didn't apologize, he either ignored it or bulled his way through the controversy. Perhaps he should have apologized for a few things, but Mr. Trump knows that most people will forget the scandal of the day and those who don't forget probably won't change their minds because of an apology. Those complaining about Trump's statements on the Access Hollywood audio recording are complaining about the statements made, not that he didn't apologize.
Yet conventional political wisdom is to apologize for any sort of misstatement and withdraw from a race if something too embarrassing comes out. Looking recent presidential races a number of candidates who seemed to be gathering traction had some past action or statement released and promptly dropped out of the race. Finding a scandal about an opponent has become a reliable technique for getting ahead in a race. And often the survivor of the presidential primary process is the candidate who doesn't give into the demands of scandal -- Hillary Clinton ignored the claims about classified emails, Uranium One, and Benghazi (admittedly coming mainly from the right) and Donald Trump ignored the Access Hollywood recording and similar claims. In fact, doing this probably helped Mr. Trump win some voters -- he's a flawed human being and not ashamed of it.
So today as the 2020 presidential race gets going, with what's shaping up to be an auditorium's worth of Democrats running, we'll see who survives. I don't give Beto O'Rourke much of a chance -- those he's apologizing to (the Social Justice left wing) are going to give their support to a woman or person of color regardless of what Mr. O'Rourke says.
Amy Klobuchar has a chance -- she's letting the scandal about her temper and poor management style blow over, though I think this doesn't say much about her qualifications for the presidency, she's essentially accused of doing the things which many say makes Donald Trump a menace.
As for the others, most candidates so far are either unknown or have their own skeletons. Elizabeth Warren has her "Pocahontas" scandal and Kamala Harris was far too tough on crime for the typical liberal democrat to name a couple that come to mind.
So time will tell which Democrats have the fortitude to stand up against accusations and make it to the election.
Sunday, March 17, 2019
Monday, February 11, 2019
Number of detention beds and a new shutdown
The latest news on the negotiations to fund the government and avoid another shutdown is that Democrats are insisting on a limit on the number of detention beds for illegal immigrants who are caught away from the border.
Rather than demand more detention beds, perhaps President Trump should insist on funding to double the number of judges handling immigration cases. That way we can avoid detaining more people by getting their cases through the court faster (and thus deporting or properly releasing them sooner).
Rather than demand more detention beds, perhaps President Trump should insist on funding to double the number of judges handling immigration cases. That way we can avoid detaining more people by getting their cases through the court faster (and thus deporting or properly releasing them sooner).
Saturday, January 26, 2019
Thoughts on the Roger Stone indictment
The latest Russia collusion, get Donald Trump news is about the indictment of Roger Stone. There are the usual attempts to show how this is horrible for Donald Trump. Yet what is really in the indictment?
Reading the indictment, it basically says that Roger Stone lied to congressional committees about having advance knowledge of Wikileaks hacked email releases, having contact with Wikileaks, and having told people involved with the Trump Campaign that hacked emails might be released (5 counts of false statements). He apparently told an associate to lie or use the 5th amendment to avoid contradicting Stone's testimony (witness tampering), and in doing all this obstructed justice (obstruction count).
In terms of actual actions by Mr. Stone, the indictment says that Roger Stone was in contact with Wikileaks, either directly or indirectly, and might have known in advance when hacked emails would be released. These actions are not the subject of any criminal complaint. Apparently the actual contact with Wikileaks was not a crime. As in so many cases in the past, the crime was covering up the contact.
As to the Russians, the indictment doesn't state that Roger Stone had any direct contact with Russians, just contacts with Wikileaks. Any Russian connection is most likely true but I'm not sure it's been definitively proven. The indictment doesn't make any allegation against Donald Trump name anybody high up in the campaign actively colluded with Russians. Instead it says that the Trump campaign was interested in dirty on Hillary Clinton and might have actively solicited it. If that's a crime then most political campaigns are committing crimes.
This indictment still leaves us asking "where's the beef?" There will be claims that Mueller can now "turn" Roger Stone to get closer to Trump, but it seems more likely that all the Mueller probe will produce is more allegations of false statements of obstruction.
Reading the indictment, it basically says that Roger Stone lied to congressional committees about having advance knowledge of Wikileaks hacked email releases, having contact with Wikileaks, and having told people involved with the Trump Campaign that hacked emails might be released (5 counts of false statements). He apparently told an associate to lie or use the 5th amendment to avoid contradicting Stone's testimony (witness tampering), and in doing all this obstructed justice (obstruction count).
In terms of actual actions by Mr. Stone, the indictment says that Roger Stone was in contact with Wikileaks, either directly or indirectly, and might have known in advance when hacked emails would be released. These actions are not the subject of any criminal complaint. Apparently the actual contact with Wikileaks was not a crime. As in so many cases in the past, the crime was covering up the contact.
As to the Russians, the indictment doesn't state that Roger Stone had any direct contact with Russians, just contacts with Wikileaks. Any Russian connection is most likely true but I'm not sure it's been definitively proven. The indictment doesn't make any allegation against Donald Trump name anybody high up in the campaign actively colluded with Russians. Instead it says that the Trump campaign was interested in dirty on Hillary Clinton and might have actively solicited it. If that's a crime then most political campaigns are committing crimes.
This indictment still leaves us asking "where's the beef?" There will be claims that Mueller can now "turn" Roger Stone to get closer to Trump, but it seems more likely that all the Mueller probe will produce is more allegations of false statements of obstruction.
Sunday, November 4, 2018
What if with Gary Hart
Former senator and presidential candidate Gary Hart has been in the news lately. I first saw this with an article in The Atlantic. According to this article, Lee Atwater engineered the scandal which took Gary Hart out of the presidential race, fabricating Mr. Hart's extramarital affair. Mr. Atwater reportedly told this story to his counterpart in the Hart campaign shortly before his death from a brain tumor.
I'll ignore whether the account is true or not. Lee Atwater did report creating the Willie Horton scandal against Michael Dukakis but didn't publicly take responsibility for the Gary Hart scandal, just a private statement to his opposite number.
Still we are now seeing a stories speculating about what might have been if Gary Hart had won the presidency instead of George Bush, including an interview with Gary Hart. This speculation is filtered through the lens of today, of course. Thus, speculation centers around there never having been a Gulf War, extending to neither George Bush being president and by extension no Donald Trump.
Let's look at the what if's. First, in 1988 when Mr. Hart was running and through 1989 the big foreign policy issue was not the Middle East but the fall of Communism. The Berlin Wall fell in November, 1989, 9 months after Mr. Bush was inaugurated. So the unasked question is whether the Berlin Wall would have fallen under President Hart, or would he have come into office announcing defense cuts (reversing the Reagan buildup), giving Soviet Russia time to rebuild its strength. Of course we'll never know.
On the subject of the Gulf War there are two questions. First, would Iraq under Saddam have still invaded Kuwait? I haven't investigated but Saddam's invasion was based on Kuwait being a province of Iraq. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with George Bush being president. So the Kuwaiti invasion would still have happened. The argument seems to be that Gary Hart as president would not have invaded to drive out the Iraqis.
If there had not been a Gulf War then Osama Bin Laden would most likely not have turned as strongly against the United States and would not have created Al Qaeda. So there likely would not have been a Twin Towers attack and Middle Eastern history would have changed.
On the other hand, there would have been a Middle East with a strong, beligerent Iraqi regime bullying its neighbors. Iraq had just concluded its war against Iran (fought to a stalemate). Iraq would likely have turned against Saudi Arabia or more directly against Israel. So instead of a Gulf War in Kuwait we might well have had another oil embargo or a new Arab Israeli war. Either of these results would not have been the peaceful result that commentators and Mr. Hart envision but could easily have been a much less stable world.
This is the nature of "what if" speculations. It's easy to change one event and argue how great the world would be but we need to consider other events which may go a different direction.
As to the argument there would never have been a Donald Trump, Mr. Trump was elected 20 years after the election Mr. Hart pulled out of. Many things could happen over 20 years. Much of the support for Donald Trump was opposition to "coastal elites", to use a broad stereotype. None of the coastal elite philosophies tie even indirectly to the Gulf War, so the rise of Trump or a similar nationalist leader likely would still have happened even if there were a President Gary Hart.
I'll ignore whether the account is true or not. Lee Atwater did report creating the Willie Horton scandal against Michael Dukakis but didn't publicly take responsibility for the Gary Hart scandal, just a private statement to his opposite number.
Still we are now seeing a stories speculating about what might have been if Gary Hart had won the presidency instead of George Bush, including an interview with Gary Hart. This speculation is filtered through the lens of today, of course. Thus, speculation centers around there never having been a Gulf War, extending to neither George Bush being president and by extension no Donald Trump.
Let's look at the what if's. First, in 1988 when Mr. Hart was running and through 1989 the big foreign policy issue was not the Middle East but the fall of Communism. The Berlin Wall fell in November, 1989, 9 months after Mr. Bush was inaugurated. So the unasked question is whether the Berlin Wall would have fallen under President Hart, or would he have come into office announcing defense cuts (reversing the Reagan buildup), giving Soviet Russia time to rebuild its strength. Of course we'll never know.
On the subject of the Gulf War there are two questions. First, would Iraq under Saddam have still invaded Kuwait? I haven't investigated but Saddam's invasion was based on Kuwait being a province of Iraq. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with George Bush being president. So the Kuwaiti invasion would still have happened. The argument seems to be that Gary Hart as president would not have invaded to drive out the Iraqis.
If there had not been a Gulf War then Osama Bin Laden would most likely not have turned as strongly against the United States and would not have created Al Qaeda. So there likely would not have been a Twin Towers attack and Middle Eastern history would have changed.
On the other hand, there would have been a Middle East with a strong, beligerent Iraqi regime bullying its neighbors. Iraq had just concluded its war against Iran (fought to a stalemate). Iraq would likely have turned against Saudi Arabia or more directly against Israel. So instead of a Gulf War in Kuwait we might well have had another oil embargo or a new Arab Israeli war. Either of these results would not have been the peaceful result that commentators and Mr. Hart envision but could easily have been a much less stable world.
This is the nature of "what if" speculations. It's easy to change one event and argue how great the world would be but we need to consider other events which may go a different direction.
As to the argument there would never have been a Donald Trump, Mr. Trump was elected 20 years after the election Mr. Hart pulled out of. Many things could happen over 20 years. Much of the support for Donald Trump was opposition to "coastal elites", to use a broad stereotype. None of the coastal elite philosophies tie even indirectly to the Gulf War, so the rise of Trump or a similar nationalist leader likely would still have happened even if there were a President Gary Hart.
Friday, September 14, 2018
Climate change "disappointment"
A few days ago I was at an event and one of the people I was sitting near expressed concern over Hurricane Florence hitting the Carolinas, opining that it's an example of the rise of stronger storms due to climate change.
As frequently occurs, Florence lost much of its strength before hitting the coast. While billed as a potential Category 5, it was Category 1 at landfall and soon after has been labelled a tropical storm. While there was flooding and damage from the storm, North and South Carolina have weathered stronger storms in the past.
Thus I sympathize with disappointed Climate Change activists who have lost a prime example of the coming climate apocalypse.
As frequently occurs, Florence lost much of its strength before hitting the coast. While billed as a potential Category 5, it was Category 1 at landfall and soon after has been labelled a tropical storm. While there was flooding and damage from the storm, North and South Carolina have weathered stronger storms in the past.
Thus I sympathize with disappointed Climate Change activists who have lost a prime example of the coming climate apocalypse.
Thursday, September 6, 2018
Revolt against the establishment
Recent books have explained the election of Donald Trump is a revolt against the establishment. See for instance The Great Revolt by Selena Zito or White Working Class by Joan C. Williams. Trump voters report having voted for candidates who claim to share their concerns only to see the candidate become part of the Washington establishment after the election. They saw Donald Trump as an outsider who would actually make changes, albeit from the political right.
The recent primary victories of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley, though left wing, are in many ways the same phenomenon. In both cases voters rejected the establishment, opting for radical change. These candidates follow Bernie Sanders run at the presidency, again a vote against the establishment.
Though considered opposite ends of the political spectrum, Donald Trump and these left wing candidates are different aspects of the same political movement. Rejection of incumbent / establishment politicians, instead embracing a call for change.
Next year should be interesting as these left wing candidates will most likely be elected.
The recent primary victories of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley, though left wing, are in many ways the same phenomenon. In both cases voters rejected the establishment, opting for radical change. These candidates follow Bernie Sanders run at the presidency, again a vote against the establishment.
Though considered opposite ends of the political spectrum, Donald Trump and these left wing candidates are different aspects of the same political movement. Rejection of incumbent / establishment politicians, instead embracing a call for change.
Next year should be interesting as these left wing candidates will most likely be elected.
Saturday, June 23, 2018
Executive social change
I've read the magazine The Economist for many years. For those unfamiliar with the magazine, it is a British news weekly directed toward the wealthy, business leaders, politicians, etc. In the past I've routinely seen ads by banks for "high interest rate CDs for the small investor, $50,000 minimum." The help wanted section is generally for CEOs, CFOs, or similar.
Today I'm looking at the latest issue and find two full page ads. One for Selective Search, the other for Gray & Farrar. Both are matchmaking services for the wealthy.
From bank investment ads to millionaire's match.com, the world has certainly changed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)