Wednesday November 25, 2015
November 23rd, 2015
Republicans are supposedly even more worried that Donald Trump or Ben Carson could win their presidential nomination. Yet the one thing they could do about it -- send a clear signal in support of a single alternative -- still hasn't happened.
The obvious choice at this point would seem to be Marco Rubio, the only true coalition-style candidate remaining in the contest. He has been steadily gaining in the endorsements race ever since September.
But compared with other cycles, Republican party actors are well behind their pace: They're mostly sitting on their hands.
Why? It's hard to explain something that isn't happening, but here are several reasons they may be holding back:
1. Perhaps these Republicans are a lot less worried about Trump (and Carson) than they appear to be. If so, they may believe the nomination will be in relatively safe hands, and may be holding out in order to retain leverage over all the candidates.
Nothing says "America" like "Shoo, huddled masses! Move along!"
This has been a bad week for parody.
Governors and candidates on the right of the aisle have been falling over themselves to see who can take a more hard-line stance against . . . refugees fleeing Syria's civil war. Twenty-six governors have made statements opposing letting refugees past their borders.
Gov. Chris Christie vowed that he would oppose letting even "3-year-old orphans" come to New Jersey. Apparently Christie has been replaced with a Dickens villain. Then again, Dickens villains traditionally poll well in the GOP primary, with their hard-line stances against handouts ("MORE? You want MORE?"). When you are taking a hard-line stance against 3-year-old orphans, you can feel confident that you are on the right side of history. We all know of those many tales of terrorists sneaking into places disguised as 3-year-olds.
Once in a great while, a circumstance occurs that poses a clear-cut challenge to our nation and people to demonstrate that we truly are who we say we are. Such is the current public debate over accepting refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria, specifically in the wake of the Islamic State terrorist attacks on the people of Paris.
Standing in New York Harbor to remind us is that long-ago gift from the French people of the Statue of Liberty, whose pedestal quotes the 1883 sonnet of poet Emma Lazarus. She called the lady with the torch "the Mother of Exiles" from whose "beacon hand glows world-wide welcome," who cried "with silent lips, Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
What happened to the tea party?
It is in serious decline, according to the 2015 American Values Survey released this week by the Public Religion Research Institute.
The proportion of Americans who identify with the tea party movement has declined by nearly half over the last five years, from 11 percent in 2010 to 6 percent today. tea party affiliation has also dropped among Republicans, from 22 percent in 2010 to 14 percent today.
The PRRI survey, which uses a large sample of 2,695 adults, is widely respected. And it has solid support on this finding: In a Bloomberg Politics poll out this week, only 10 percent of Republicans say they're best described by the tea party label.
Perhaps you've seen the arguments on social media since the Paris attacks: One faction rants that of coursethe U.S. must take in huge numbers of Syrian refugees, and fast, because of courserefugees are not terrorists. Another faction argues that literally any amount of risk at all is too much. And then there's Donald Trump, whose ideas about how to deal with the potential threat of Islamist terror are making me rethink my longtime ban on the use of the word "fascist" as a pejorative.
Actually, scratch that. Not "arguments." The posts are not intended to convince anyone. They are to signal tribal loyalties to people who already agree with you, while you marinate in your own sense of moral superiority.
If these factions want to convince other people, they're going about it all wrong.
As soon as some picture of the Paris attacks began to come into focus, the debate over Edward Snowden started again. Senior officials are now saying the former contractor's leaks made it harder to catch the perpetrators of the atrocity in France. The known facts so far tell a different story.
On Monday, CIA director John Brennan said terrorists had practiced more "operational security" after leaks about some intelligence programs. The next day, Politico published an interview with Brennan's predecessor, Michael Morell, who said Snowden's leaks helped contribute to the rise of the Islamic State and that had they not occurred, the West would have had a "fighting chance" to prevent the terror in Paris. Former CIA director James Woolsey over the weekend was more explicit, saying Snowden has "blood on his hands."
The criticism poured in from friend and foe alike when Hillary Clinton invoked 9/11 on Saturday night to justify Wall Street's generosity to her presidential campaign.
Yes, it was a weird moment in the Democratic debate. But her real mistake wasn't in clumsily trying to turn the attention to her role as a senator in rebuilding downtown New York after Sept. 11, 2001.
It was in not using the opportunity to make a stronger case for her proposals to update the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial-reform law. With one exception, her reforms go to the heart of what more needs to be done to keep the financial system safe.
But, first, let's look at how the financial sector spends its money on politicians. Wall Street's contributions, which are by far the largest source of funding for candidates in both parties, have historically swung between favoring Democrats and Republicans.
For a growing number of politicians, this month's attacks in Paris mean it's time to stop bringing Syrian refugees to the United States. The risk that the Islamic State might send inﬁltrators in disguise, the theory goes, outweighs America's usual attitude toward taking in desperate people from around the world. "Our nation has always been welcoming, but we cannot let terrorists take advantage of our compassion," House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, R-Wisconsin, said Tuesday. "This is a moment where it's better to be safe than to be sorry." By the middle of this past week, more than half the country's governors had declared that their states wouldn't accept any resettled Syrians. Things had changed after Paris.
Erick Erickson, the editor-in-chief of the website RedState.com, is a serious power in right-wing circles. Speechifying at RedState’s annual gathering is a rite of passage for aspiring Republican politicians, and Erickson made headlines this year when he disinvited Donald Trump from the festivities.
So it’s worth paying attention to what Erickson says. And as you might guess, he doesn’t think highly of President Barack Obama’s anti-terrorism policies.
Still, his response to the attack in Paris was a bit startling. The French themselves are making a point of staying calm, indeed of going out to cafes to show that they refuse to be intimidated. But Erickson declared on his website that he won’t be going to see the new “Star Wars” movie on opening day, because “there are no metal detectors at American theaters.”
It's truly shameful that xenophobia and ignorance are playing such powerful roles these days in Virginia when it comes to Syrian refugees.
It gives new meaning to the "No Nothing" movement of nativist Americans who dogged Catholic immigrants in the 19th century.
Virginians are shocked, as are people everywhere, by the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris on Nov. 13. That somehow has led Roanoke Virginia Mayor David Bowers, a Democrat, to call for blocking any Syrian refugees from coming into his city until "normalcy is restored."
Adding to the fire, Bowers added incredibly thoughtless allusions to the internment of Japanese Americans, who, although they were U.S. citizens, were forced into concentration camps during World War II. The vast majority were loyal Americans who endured a huge racial insult.