Tag Archives: Bernie Sanders

The culling of the fields is about to begin

Leader

The American presidential nominating process is a grueling exercise.

It’s also a useful one.

The Iowa caucuses are about to begin in three weeks. Right after we’ll witness the New Hampshire primary elections.

The usefulness comes in the form of the culling of the fields that’s about to commence.

The candidates at the back of the Republican and Democratic packs have been able to retain their campaign viability by insisting that “no votes have been cast.” That argument ends in Iowa.

Who’ll pack it in?

Martin O’Malley will exit the Democratic Party race, leaving the field to just Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

On the Republican side, the outcome is a bit murkier.

It has become a battle for third place. The top two spots will go to Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Third? It’ll be either Marco Rubio, Chris Christie or maybe Jeb Bush. After that, the rest of ’em ought to bail out.

Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Rand Paul and Jim Gilmore (yes, the former Virginia governor’s still in the hunt) all need to exit the stage.

Of the also-rans, my biggest disappointment would be Ohio Gov. Kasich. He’s got a tremendous substantive argument to make: that he, as House Budget Committee chairman in the late 1990s, helped produce a balanced federal budget by working with President Bill Clinton.

That hasn’t worked with the GOP base, which lusts for the red meat being fed to it by the likes of Trump and Cruz.

The process, though, does produce winners. It’s often not pretty to watch. This year has been ugly, to be sure.

However, the process has worked every four years for as long as most of us can remember.

The serious winnowing of both parties’ fields will commence soon.

Let’s all stay tuned.

 

Climate change produces terrorism … huh?

climate-change

I thought maybe I misheard Sen. Bernie Sanders on Saturday night when he blamed climate change for the terrorism that’s plaguing the planet.

Then he said it again the next day, on CBS News’ “Face the Nation.”

Here’s part of what the Democratic presidential candidate said: “The reason is pretty obvious: If we are going to see an increase in drought and flood and extreme weather disturbances as a result of climate change, what that means is that peoples all over the world are going to be fighting over limited natural resources.”

Then he said: “If there is not enough water, if there is not enough land to grow your crops, then you’re going to see migrants of people fighting over land that will sustain them, and that will lead to international conflict.”

You know, many of us have had plenty of laughs courtesy the Republicans running for president. Sen. Sanders is not going to be outdone, apparently.

I get that he believes that Earth’s changing climate is caused greatly by human activity. What I don’t get is his linking it directly to terrorism.

The cause of terrorism comes from lunatics who think nothing of killing innocent people, of terrorizing civilized society to further some crackpot philosophical or political cause.

There might some link to climate change on the fringes of the terrorism plague. However, the issues are unique and separate. They might not be mutually exclusive.

Direct linkage? Come on, Sen. Sanders.

One doesn’t cause the other.

 

Ratings tank for Democratic debate … who knew?

debate stage

Why is anyone surprised that the TV ratings for the Democratic Party presidential debate headed for the tank?

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley duked it out in Des Moines, Iowa. CBS carried it and by many accounts, the big winner of the event was John Dickerson, host of “Face the Nation” and the moderator of the debate.

I’ll offer a couple of theories on the ratings tumble.

First, the identity of the eventual Democratic nominee is pretty well known. It’s likely to be Clinton, the former first lady/U.S. senator/secretary of state. She stumbled a couple of times in Des Moines, but she did very little to harm her status as the prohibitive favorite to face whomever the Republicans nominate next summer.

Second, and this is probably the more telling reason, the debate was up against some late-night college football games.

I hate to acknowledge this, but a football game between two competitive teams is far more exciting than watching three politicians try to out-insult each other.

(A point of personal privilege here: I was in and out of the debate, tuning in finally to the final quarter of the Oregon-Stanford game that Fox was broadcasting. Oh yeah: the Ducks won it with a last-second defensive play in their own end zone. Go Ducks!)

Sure, the debate shed some light on important policy positions.

But there were no surprises. There was even less drama.

Hey, if it had been Republicans debating opposite those football games — even with their carnival atmosphere — I’m pretty sure football would have won those ratings, too.

 

 

 

 

Can the Carson/West Point matter get muddier?

MainstreamMediaLogo1000x400

My head is spinning over the past day or two regarding revelations about Dr. Ben Carson’s alleged, purported, supposed misstatements about whether he got a scholarship offer to West Point.

It’s turning into a game of semantics.

Moreover, the arguments have turned the discussion into a mud bath, meaning it’s becoming “clear as mud” about what Carson — a leading Republican presidential candidate — wrote about himself and whether it comports to the truth about what actually happened and when it supposedly occurred.

Steve Kornacki is a smart young political analyst who’s a regular on MSBNC’s talk-show circuit. He hosts a weekend talk show on MSNBC called “Up with Steve Kornacki.”

I’m beginning to believe that Kornacki might have the right take on how this Carson imbroglio is going end up. He said the other night on “Hardball,” another MSNBC show, that Carson and his allies have managed to turn the tables on the so-called “liberal mainstream media,” and have turned the argument into a game of “gotcha” in which the “liberal press” is “out to get” the good doctor.

Thus, if I read Kornacki’s analysis correctly, they’ve built enough reasonable doubt over the original story published by Politico that they’ve managed to deflect the argument back to the messenger … the aforementioned “liberal mainstream media.”

To be plainly honest, the story has taken so many turns I’m having trouble keeping up with it all. I need to stay focused entirely on the saga — chapter by chapter — to make sense of it all.

I guess I’ve boiled it down to simply this point: Dr. Carson could have written any reference to West Point with much more clarity than he apparently has done so far.

Or … he could have just not mentioned West Point at all.

I suppose another presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont — who’s seeking the Democratic nomination — had the best take on it all: Maybe we ought turn our focus more on Dr. Carson’s peculiar current public policy views and less on what he has said about his past.

 

Biggest loser at Dem debate? The guy who wasn’t there

biden

The pundits, analysts and partisan strategists are right: Vice President Joe Biden likely saw the end of his hopes of ever becoming president while he watched the Democratic candidates’ joint appearance on CNN.

Why? Hillary Rodham Clinton has assumed the role of prohibitive front runner for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

Thus, with a strengthened Clinton getting ready to reassert her place, there becomes a shrinking opportunity for the vice president to jump into the primary race to “save the party” from nominating someone with cumbersome political baggage.

My hunch just a day after the debate is that no one will need to persuade the VP that a 2016 presidential campaign is futile. He’ll know it. I suspect that he knows it today.

The vice president has had a long career of public service. He can be proud of what he’s done — as a member of the U.S. Senate and as vice president of the United States for two terms.

Yes, there have been the occasional hiccups, gaffes and blunders along the way. Hey, no one is perfect.

Clinton’s performance has gone a long way toward cementing her front runner status.

I expect former Sen. Jim Webb to drop out soon, along with former Govs. Martin O’Malley and Lincoln Chafee. No one today is taking about their debate performances.

All eyes and ears turned to Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders. Of the two, Clinton emerged as the stronger candidate.

That means, Mr. Vice President, your hopes are likely dashed.

Forever, I’m saddened to say.

 

Husband ‘doesn’t read’; watches Fox News

WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 16:  Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich testifies before the Joint Economic Committee January 16, 2014 in Washington, DC. Reich joined a panel testifying on the topic of "Income Inequality in the United States.Ă“  (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

This item just showed up on my Facebook news feed.

It comes from former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich. I believe this actually happened. I wish it hadn’t. I’ll just share it here.

***

Just now in the St. Louis airport (where I’m heading to Cincinnati):

Lady: Are you Robert Reich?

Me: Yes.

Lady: So what do you think is going to happen?

Me: About what?

Lady: The election, the economy, everything.

Me: I don’t know.

Lady: I’m voting for Bernie (Sanders).

Me: Why?

Lady: He tells it straight. He’s not a politician. But my husband likes (Donald) Trump.

Me: Why?

Lady: Same reasons. My husband says Trump can’t be bought because he’s a billionaire.

Me: Trump just buys other politicians.

Lady: My husband says Trump will get things done.

Me: But will he get things done for billionaires like himself or for regular people?

Lady: I’ll ask my husband.

Me: You should give your husband my new book.

Lady: What book?

Me (pulling a copy out of my briefcase): “Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the few.” Here, you can have this copy. I have more.

Lady (taking book): Well, thank you. I’ll give it to him, (laughing) but he won’t read it.

Me: Why?

Lady: He doesn’t read. He watches Fox News.

Me: Put it on his pillow tonight with a Hershey kiss on top.

Biden may be channeling RFK

RFK

While continuing to ponder the idea that Vice President Joe Biden might jump into the 2016 presidential race, my mind keeps turning to another prominent Democrat from a distant era.

About two generations ago, U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy straddled the fence on whether he should seek the 1968 Democratic Party presidential nomination, just as the vice president is considering it today.

In 1968, an incumbent president, Lyndon Johnson, was going to seek re-election to a second full term. He already had a challenge from Sen. Eugene McCarthy.

RFK remained on the sidelines.

Today’s front runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton, also is facing a serious challenge, from Sen. Bernie Sanders. She also is facing a possible problem of her own making, those e-mails she sent out while serving as secretary of state.

LBJ had his own headache. It was the Vietnam War.

President Johnson then ran in the New Hampshire primary and finished first — but barely. McCarthy nearly beat him.

It was then that Sen. Kennedy joined the race. LBJ dropped out. Kennedy mounted a furious and frantic campaign against McCarthy and then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey.

He won the California primary on June 5, 1968, declared “on to Chicago and let’s win there.” Then he walked into the hotel kitchen, where the assassin was waiting.

It was over in burst of gunfire.

There’s a curious parallel between then and now.

I keep wondering if Biden is waiting for Clinton to make a politically critical misstep. What if something emerges from this e-mail probe that inflicts a mortal wound on the party’s front runner?

Would he then seek the party nomination to “rescue” it from someone who cannot win the election, just as RFK sought to rescue the party from McCarthy’s insurgency and HHH’s damage caused by his support for the Vietnam War?

The vice president seems be leaning toward running. If Hillary Clinton makes a mistake that dooms her candidacy, it had better occur quickly.

The difference between 1968 and 2016 shows itself in the preparation that’s now required to get one of these campaigns off the ground.

Open White House race = many candidates

alGore_1515233c

Here’s a fact of political life in America.

When there’s no incumbent involved in a campaign, you invite all comers to seek the office that’s being vacated. Everyone, or so it seems, becomes interested in the office at stake.

Such is the case with the White House. A two-term president, Barack Obama, is prohibited from running again. He’s bowing out in January 2017. The Republican field is as full as I’ve seen it in more than four decades watching this stuff; 16 men and one woman are running on the GOP side. It’s becoming quite an entertaining spectacle — to say the very least.

The Democrats? Well, until about two, maybe three weeks ago, it seemed that Hillary Clinton had that nomination in the bag. She still is the heavy favorite.

But she’s not going to anointed as the party nominee next summer, or so it appears. Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders has closed a once-huge gap. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is taking aim at Clinton, as is ex-Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee. We haven’t heard much yet from ex- Virginia U.S. Sen. Jim Webb.

But now we hear of a couple of big names — as in really big names — possibly entering the Democratic Party primary field.

One of them is Vice President Joe Biden.

The other? Get ready: It might former Vice President Albert Gore Jr.

Some media outlets are reporting that “insiders” are discussing the possibility of a Gore candidacy. My reaction? Holy crap!

He damn near was elected in 2000, winning more popular votes than George W. Bush, who was elected because he won a bare majority of electoral votes. What many folks have forgotten about that election is this: Had the vice president won his home state of Tennessee in 2000, there would have been no recount controversy in Florida, no “hanging chad” examination, no narrow Supreme Court ruling to determine who won that state’s critical electoral votes. Gore lost his home state to Bush. There you have it.

This election already is shaping as the most entertaining in at least a couple of generations. The thundering herd of Republicans is being overshadowed by a billionaire hotel mogul/entertainer/wheeler-dealer. The Democratic field is being dominated by a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” drawing huge crowds and a former secretary of state with growing problems stemming from her use of a personal email account to conduct State Department business.

Will two men who’ve served a “heartbeat away” from the presidency now join the field?

We know that Vice President Biden is considering it. As for Al Gore? Stay tuned and hang on … maybe.

 

Should all these governors quit?

Let’s count ’em up.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich just joined the Republican Party’s ever-expanding presidential primary field.

He joins Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker — am I missing anyone? — as the sitting governors seeking to become the 45th president of the United States.

Of the gaggle of current governors mentioned, only Christie appears to be the target of those who want him to resign while he runs for president. It seems that some in the Garden State don’t think he do both things — run for president and devote enough time to governing the state.

Of course that’s utter nonsense.

But hey, why stop there?

Several Republican U.S.senators are running as well. They include Ted Cruz of Texas, Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky. While I’m at it, let me mention that Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is running for the Democratic presidential nomination. Should they all quit their day jobs while they run for president?

I don’t think so.

I’ve long fired back at critics of presidents — past and present — who gripe about the frequency and length of presidential vacations. I’ve noted that presidents are never off the clock. I will say the same thing about governors and senators.

They’re hooked up continually to whomever and whatever they need in case of emergency.

So, welcome to the field, Gov. Kasich. Good luck trying to be heard over the ruckus created by a certain loudmouth real estate mogul.

Crowd size is overrated … trust me

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich is blown away by the size of the crowds greeting Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders as he campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Here’s what Reich posted on Facebook: “What amazes me, frankly, are the crowds. Not since Robert F. Kennedy sought the Democratic nomination in 1968 has a candidate for the nomination of either party generated such large numbers of people eager to see and listen to him. None in living memory has summoned such crowds this early, before the nominating season even begins. Even Sanders’ advisers are amazed (I spoke with one this morning who said they never expected this kind of response).

“What’s the explanation? It’s not his sense of humor. It’s not his youth. He isn’t a demagogue, bashing immigrants or pandering to hatred and bigotry. It’s that he’s telling Americans the unvarnished truth about what has happened to our economy and our democracy, and he is posing real solutions. And it seems that America is ready to listen.”

I guess I need to remind Reich — who I’m sure is aware of a lot more than I am — about a reality.

It is that big crowds don’t translate necessarily into votes.

The late U.S. Sen. George McGovern drew big crowds as well when he ran for president in 1972. I stood among a throng of thousands of people in a plaza in downtown Portland, Ore., as McGovern fired up the masses. That crowd was big, boisterous, enthusiastic — and it mirrored many of the political rally crowds McGovern was drawing all across the nation.

Sen. McGovern lost the election that year by 23 percentage points, as President Nixon rang up a 49-state landslide victory.

Yes, Sanders is telling voters his version of the “unvarnished truth.” Indeed, RFK did much the same thing in 1968 as he sought the Democratic presidential nomination. Kennedy’s message was different; it dealt more with issues of the heart, such as peace abroad and justice at home for all Americans.

Sanders’s crowds are impressive. Let’s remember, though, that he remains a still-distant second to the Democrats’ frontrunner, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who’s got another all-important edge over the rest of her party’s primary field: money.

We now live in an era where money matters far more than massive crowds.