"President Donald Trump has overturned an Obama-era requirement for
intelligence officials to publish an annual report on air strikes in
places like Yemen, Libya and Pakistan — a document that experts called
the main means for publishing official information about CIA drone
strikes."
This
sounds like Trump is making Obama’s drone program even worse. But
Obama’s policy was more dishonest. The Obama administration assumed that every adult male killed by drones was a “combatant,” not a civilian,
unless that was disproven by specific evidence. In effect, Barack Obama
profiled Central Asian or Middle Eastern men by presuming them guilty.
At least Donald Trump is going to openly not care about the civilians we
kill, which, while callous, is less misleading than Obama’s statistics on civilian deaths that were artificially lowered based on gender and
nationality bias.
The most recent high-profile mea culpa came Thursday when Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts apologized for her controversial decision to take a DNA test to prove her decades-old claim of Native American ancestry.
Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. recently lamented his role in crafting the tough-on-crime drug legislation of the 1980s and 1990s.
Senator Kamala Harris of California said she regretted some of the positions her office took while she was a state prosecutor.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York said her past hard-line stances on immigration “certainly weren’t empathetic and they were not kind.”
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont apologized after reports of gender discrimination and sexual harassment in his 2016 presidential campaign.
And the Times doesn't mention Tulsi Gabbard apologizing for her vile statements about "homosexual extremists."
But I don't understand what the New York Times reporters (Astead W. Herndon and Sydney Ember) are talking about in this sentence:
As recently as 2006, national Democrats including former President Barack Obama expressed wariness about immigrants’ ability to assimilate into American culture and did not openly embrace gay marriage — two talking points that would probably be deeply damaging for any 2020 candidate."
Why "[a]s recently as 2006"? That wasn't a presidential election year. And did Democrats stop doing those things before 2008? President Obama and Vice President Biden didn't "openly embrace gay marriage" until 2012.
Maybe the writers were thinking of what Obama wrote in his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope (pp. 263-64, 266, 268):
[T]here's no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border — a sense that what's happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before. Not all these fears are irrational. . . . If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole . . . it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and puts strains on an already overburdened safety net. . . .
For most Americans, though, concerns over illegal immigration go deeper than worries about economic displacement and are more subtle than simple racism. In the past, immigration occurred on America's terms; the welcome mat could be extended selectively, on the basis of the immigrant's skills. . . . The laborer, whether Chinese or Russian or Greek, found himself a stranger in a strange land, severed from his home country, subject to often harsh constrains, forced to adapt to rules not of his own making.
Today, it seems those terms no longer apply. Immigrants are entering as a result of a porous border rather than any systematic government policy. . . . Native-born Americans suspect that it is they, and not the immigrant, who are being forced to adapt. . . .
I'm not entirely immune to such nativist sentiments. When I see Mexican flags waved at proimmigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration. . . .
We have a right and duty to protect our borders. We can insist to those already here that with citizenship come obligations — to a common language, common loyalties, a common purpose, a common destiny.
On Wednesday, the day after Election Day, in New York City (where both candidates gave their post-election speeches), the sky was cloudy and dark. The next day, it was sunny and warm for a November day.
As I watched the results come in on Tuesday night and gradually realized that it was not just a close election that would take a while before we saw the seemingly inevitable win for Hillary Clinton, but that Donald Trump had won decisively, I felt physically ill. I couldn't process the news. Calling the election an "upset" seemed to have a cruel double meaning. How could my country have elected a leader so odious and unqualified?
Encountering people on the street on Wednesday felt awkward, all of us aware of our national embarrassment. We heard reports of hate crimes committed by Trump supporters (some of which turned out to be hoaxes) and fears that America would descend into an authoritarian dystopia where overt bigotry runs rampant. Democrats and Republicans who had opposed Trump started thinking of charities to donate to and volunteer work to do, as if to offset the election results.
On the same day, we heard Hillary Clinton and President Obama speak about the news in an optimistic, level-headed way. The next day, the current and future presidents met for the first time and started working on the transition to the Trump administration. This is the new normal.
Accepting this will not mean acquiescing to everything, or even most things, that President Trump says or does. We should subject him to merciless scrutiny and criticism, just as we should with any other president. In fact, that will be possible only if we accept that he is legitimately the 45th President of the United States, and the time for protesting Trump's holding this office has passed. If you drown out any discussion of the specifics of his presidency with the familiar refrains that he's abnormal, racist, sexist, etc., you'll remove yourself from the realm of productive debates about the president.
Amid all the national squabbling about Trump that's been going on since June 16, 2015, a few indisputable facts stand out:
Trump said he'd run for president, and it was widely derided as something that would never happen, or, once he officially announced, as a short-lived publicity stunt.
Trump was right.
Trump said he'd win the Republican nomination, and virtually everyone said that wouldn't happen: he had a "hard ceiling" of support far below 50%, and eventually the rest of the field would narrow down to one main challenger who'd emerge as a consensus nominee.
Trump was right.
Trump said he'd win the presidency, and virtually every pundit said this was highly unlikely for any number of reasons: Clinton was ahead in the polls; she was the only one with a serious ground game; Trump had generally bombed the debates; his unfavorable rating was the highest of any presidential candidate in American history and especially bad with women and Hispanics; and it simply seemed implausible that such a person could ever be elected president.
Trump was right.
And he didn't win the election by just one state, as the most recent Republican president did twice. Trump apparently won Michigan, which was considered a blue state, and he won Pennsylvania, which was considered technically a swing state but with the footnote that no Republican candidate had won it since the '80s.
Trump has been wrong about many things. But on his ability to achieve his presidential goals, he's been more right than just about anyone else.
Of course, you might not want him to achieve his goals for his presidency.
But look at his long list of plans for his first 100 days in office. Some I disagree with, like tax cuts. Some are reiterations of unrealistic campaign themes, like getting Mexico to pay for a wall. Some I can't judge yet, like a vague promise to reduce corruption in Washington.
But some . . . actually seem like they just might be good ideas, like more school choice and streamlining the FDA's approval of medications.
And none of them involve turning America into a fascist dictatorship, forcibly removing citizens from the country, systematically violating due process, instituting apartheid, or squelching free speech.
It would be naive to expect any president to succeed in implementing all the best-sounding parts of their agenda. But if Trump is claiming he'll accomplish a number of things that sound like decent ideas, he might turn out to be right.
Let's wait and see. Let's give him a chance. And let's react to the particular things he does or doesn't do when he's in office, instead of unproductively agonizing over the general notion of him as president . . . as strange and troubling as that might be.
I've never understood it. Her only strong competition was a cranky, ill-informed 75-year-old self-proclaimed socialist yelling about revolution. The problem wasn't a lack of available alternatives: liberals pleaded with Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden to run, but for some reason, they didn't, even knowing they're old enough that this decision might close the door on ever becoming president. And it's hard to believe that Clinton's running mate, Tim Kaine, hadn't considered running for the 2016 nomination after being vetted by Obama in 2008.
In the end, Hillary Clinton proved herself to be a painfully mediocre candidate. It's one thing to lose toss-up states like Florida and Ohio, but the fact that she lost Pennsylvania and Michigan speaks volumes. This happened even though her campaign was far better funded and she was believed to be the only candidate with a serious get-out-the-vote operation.
When you consider how she failed at mastering the delegate game in the 2008 primaries, then went on to win her party's nomination only with bizarrely weak competition (and more narrowly against Bernie Sanders than anyone had excepted), then lost the general election to a historically unqualified candidate, the conclusion is clear: Hillary Clinton is just not a skilled politician. As she openly admitted during the campaign, she lacks the political gifts of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. It's great that she's self-aware enough to realize that, but why didn't the Democratic Party as a whole realize it before it was too late?
I'm live-blogging tonight's main debate, which has all but a few of the Republican candidates. This is the first debate where Carly Fiorina is on the same stage as the other top candidates. A CNN announcer tells us that Fiorina is the only one who "graduated" from her last debate.
Keep reloading this post for live updates.
I'm going to write down quotes on the fly, so they might not be verbatim, but I'll try to make them reasonably accurate. (I might go back and correct some of them later.)
8:11 — They're debating in front of Ronald Reagan's presidential airplane.
8:14 — Marco Rubio uses his opening statement to make fun of himself: "I'm aware that California has a drought, which is why I brought my own water" — he holds up a water bottle.
8:16 — Donald Trump starts his opening statement by reminding us — but "not in a braggadocious way" — that he's made "billions and billions of dollars," and promising to bring the talents that let him earn all that money to the job of president.
8:20 — Carly Fiorina is asked whether Trump can be trusted with nuclear weapons. "All of us will be revealed over time and under pressure. I look forward to a long race."
8:21 — Trump: "Rand Paul shouldn't even be up here on this stage. He's got 1% in the polls." Trump wasn't asked about Paul, so that seems to be a brazen ploy to give more time to Paul — the moderator now has to let Paul speak since he was directly attacked.
8:22 — Paul calls out Trump for making fun of people's looks: "Short! Tall! Fat! Ugly!" Paul says Trump sounds like he's "in middle school." Trump responds: "I never attacked him on his look [sic], and believe me, there's plenty of subject matter there." [VIDEO.]
8:25 — Scott Walker pulls out a prepared zinger: "Mr. Trump, we don't need an apprentice in the White House — we have one right now."
8:26 — Trump attacks Walker's fiscal record as Governor of Wisconsin. "When people found that out, I went up in the polls; you went down the tubes."
8:28 — John Kasich says if he were watching the debate at home, which so far has been almost entirely about Trump and other candidates squabbling with each other, he'd "be inclined to turn it off."
8:29 — Chris Christie pithily deflects the charge of being a political insider: "I am a Republican in New Jersey — I wake up every morning as an outsider."
8:31 — Fiorina on "why people are supporting outsiders": "A fish swims in water — it doesn't know it's water. It's not that the politicians are bad people — it's that they've been in that system forever."
8:34 — Jeb Bush interrupts Trump, and Trump says: "More energy tonight — I like that!"
8:34 — Bush and Trump get into an extended, hostile dispute over Trump's supposed contribution to Bush in connection with Trump's casino project. Trump: "Don't make things up!" Bush: "Don't cut me off!"
8:36 — Trump is asked how he would get Russia out of Syria. His answer is that he would "get along with" Russian President Vladimir Putin, and President Obama doesn't.
8:37 — Marco Rubio has a sharper answer on Syria and Russia. Excerpt: "[Putin] is exploiting a vacuum that this administration has left in the Middle East."
8:38 — Fiorina tries to flaunt her foreign-policy fluency, reeling off several specific tactics she'd used against Russia.
8:42 — Ted Cruz promises to "tear up" our deal with Iran; Kasich says that "doing it on our own" would be the wrong policy.
8:43 — Paul suggests that Cruz's approach is "reckless." Paul would check to see if Iran is complying before he'd tear up the deal.
8:45 — Walker on Obama: "I'd love to play cards with this guy, because he folds on everything."
8:48 — Trump is asked if Obama should have bombed Syria after Syria crossed Obama's "red line." Trump says Obama had to do so after he made the "red line" statement, but Trump wouldn't have declared the red line in the first place.
8:49 — Paul: "ISIS would be in charge of Syria if we had bombed Assad."
8:53 — Huckabee predictably defends Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and attacks the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges as "legislating from the bench." Since "we made an accommodation for the Fort Hood shooter to let him grow a beard," Huckabee thinks we should let a government official deny couples their constitutional rights under Obergefell.
8:56 — Bush says someone else in Kim Davis's office should issue the same-sex marriage licenses instead.
8:59 — Cruz says we shouldn't be funding "a criminal enterprise," referring to Planned Parenthood.
9:00 — Christie: "I have vetoed Planned Parenthood funding 8 times in New Jersey." He says Hillary Clinton "supports systematic murder of children in the womb to preserve their body parts in a way that maximizes profit."
9:02 — Fiorina gets very passionate when challenging Obama or Clinton to watch a video in which Planned Parenthood employees talk while a live fetus is on the table. [Fact check.] She gets huge applause for this, although the audience has otherwise been pretty reserved. Alex Knepper says:
Fiorina is killing it, and may have sucked all the air Walker needed away from him.
9:05 — Trump attacks Bush for saying we shouldn't spent too much money on "women's health issues." Bush says he was only referring to Planned Parenthood, but Trump keeps asking why Bush made the comment.
9:07 — Fiorina is asked about Trump's infamous comment about her: "Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!" (Trump later said he was being "jocular" and was talking about her "persona.") Fiorina's response is perfect, and maybe the best line of the night: "Mr. Trump said that he heard Mr. Bush very clearly in what Mr. Bush said [about women's health]. I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said." Trump tries to salvage himself by saying: "I think she's got a beautiful face and she's a beautiful woman." [VIDEO.] My mom observes:
Carly utterly refrains from giving an appreciative smile. She's got her game face.
9:14 — Ben Carson talks about visiting the Mexican border and seeing "the kinds of fences that, when we were kids, would have barely slowed us down."
9:15 — Carson says it would be "worth discussing" deporting all illegal immigrants — if anyone had a practical way to do it.
9:16 — Bush: "My wife is a Mexican-American. She's an American by choice. She wants to embrace the values that make this country unique." Bush asks Trump to apologize for suggesting that his views on immigration are influenced by his wife's background.
9:18 — Bush says Trump's immigration plan would "destroy community life" and "tear America apart." Trump responds: "They'll come back legally!"
9:19 — Trump is asked about his comment that Bush should speak English. "I did it a little bit half-heartedly but I did mean it to a large extent. . . . This is a country where we speak English! Not Spanish."
9:26 — Trump is asked about birthright citizenship. Trump says that the Constitution doesn't provide for birthright citizenship and that an act of Congress could undo the policy. He says the 14th Amendment issue would probably need to be decided by the Supreme Court. Fiorina responds that getting rid of birthright citizenship would involve a very "arduous" process of amending the Constitution (which, she doesn't mention, the President has nothing to do with).
9:30 — Fiorina is asked why a voter who cares about private-sector experience should prefer her over Trump, since she was "viciously fired." Fiorina says her company, Hewlett-Packard, had to make "tough choices" (firing lots of people), but she lists the ways she improved the company. [Fact-check.] "Steve Jobs called me the day I was fired to say: hey, been there, done that." Trump disagrees: "The company is a disaster. They still haven't recovered." Then Trump has a devastating line: "She can't run any of my companies." Fiorina fires back hard: Trump ran his casinos by "running up debt with other people's money," so why should we expect him to be any more careful with the American people's money? Alex Knepper notes that the details of this Fiorina vs. Trump tiff probably matter less than the candidates' demeanor:
Voters might not necessarily understand the ins-and-outs of the details thrown around in the Fiorina-Trump dispute over their business histories, but they surely noticed that she was able to get him flustered while she kept her cool and defended herself confidently.
9:34 — Christie snaps at Fiorina and Trump: "We don't want to hear about your careers! You're both successful people — congratulations!" Christie says he's more interested in talking about the career of the "55-year-old construction worker" watching this debate. Fiorina points out that Christie has been talking about his career.
9:39 — Mike Huckabee tries to cut the Gordian knot of the candidates' claims about their experience: "We've all done great things, or we wouldn't be on this stage." Reagan "didn't get elected telling everyone how great he was. He got elected by talking about how great the American people were."
9:41 — Carson, a neurosurgeon, accidentally refers to Huckabee as "Dr. Huckabee." Huckabee wryly comes back: "You don't want me operating on you."
9:42 — Trump says hedge-fund managers "all know" him, but won't like him as much as president. "I know people making a tremendous amount of money and paying almost no tax, and I think it's unfair."
9:44 — Carson says "both sides" should "negotiate a reasonable minimum wage, and index that, so that we never have to have this conversation again in the history of America."
9:46 — Moderator Hugh Hewitt asks Kasich why he doesn't attack Clinton. This is a softball question because it's basically asking him to give a speech about what's so great about him (which, of course, is what he's more interested in talking about than Clinton). "Don't worry about me and Hillary. I'm from Ohio — she won't beat me there."
9:47 — Fiorina says Clinton has to "defend her track record" — "her track record of lying about Benghazi, lying about emails . . ."
9:49 — Christie says there should be a "former federal prosecutor," like him, on the debate stage in the general election. "I will prosecute her. She knows she's wrong and she cannot look in the mirror at herself, and she cannot tell the American people the truth."
9:51 — I just realized this debate isn't two hours, like the last one, but three hours! Alex Knepper says:
Time to pop out whatever Carly Fiorina is on so I can stay up.
9:53 — Moderator Jake Tapper brings up Rubio's attack on Trump for flunking a pop quiz in a radio interview by one of the other moderators, Hugh Hewitt. "We had a misunderstanding about his pronunciation of a word. Hugh was giving me name after name — Arab name, Arab name, Arab . . . And there are few people anywhere who would have known those names." [VIDEO.]
9:56 — Rubio bears down on Trump's lack of knowledge, and Trump comes back: "I am not sitting in the Senate with the worst voting record." Trump says he'll know more by the time he's president. Rubio shows that a politician can make an uplifting speech about anything by saying he missed so many Senate votes because "the political establishment is completely out of touch with the lives of the American people."
9:59 — Hugh Hewitt points out Bush's "last name," and asks if his foreign-policy advisors would include anyone who hasn't also advised his family members. Bush says he "has to look to 41 and 43 — my dad and my brother." It's not really true that he's limited to the last two Republican presidents — Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have both had Republicans as foreign-policy advisors.
10:02 — Trump tells Bush: "Your brother gave us Barack Obama, because it was such a disaster in those last three months, Abraham Lincoln couldn't have been elected." Bush defends George W. Bush: "There's one thing for sure: he kept us safe." (With one exception.)
10:05 — Trump repeats his line from the last debate that he's the only candidate who opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. Carson points out that he urged George W. Bush not to invade Iraq. Trump leans over to shake Carson's hand. [ADDED: Carson wasn't an advisor to George W. Bush; Carson just sent him a letter.]
10:08 — When the moderator asks about our invasion of Afghanistan, Christie tells a chilling story about how his wife went through the World Trade Center to go to work two blocks away on September 11, 2001, and he spent 5 hours wondering if he was going to be a single parent.
10:21 — Ted Cruz says he shouldn't have voted to confirm Chief Justice John Roberts, because he isn't conservative enough. Cruz touts his experience clerking for former Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
10:31 — Paul says he won't enforce federal marijuana laws against states that have repealed their marijuana laws. Paul says there's at least one candidate on the stage who's been hypocritical on this issue, since that "privileged" candidate has smoked pot, but "wants to put poor people in jail." A moderator asks if Paul will identify that candidate by name, but Bush does it for them: "40 years ago, I smoked marijuana. My mom isn't happy about me admitting that. . . ." Of course, Bush emphasizes that this was 40 years ago, so it's not a big deal. He's 62. Has he stopped to think about the 22-year-olds today, who are the same age he was 40 years ago, who could be thwarted by the government from having the opportunity to have anywhere near Bush's success?
10:32 — Christie supports mandatory drug treatment for first-time drug offenders. "I'm pro-life, but . . . it gets a lot tougher when they get out of the womb."
10:34 — Christie suggests that Paul is wrong to paint him as a hardliner on medical marijuana, since Christie has supported New Jersey's medical-marijuana laws. As Paul points out, that doesn't change Christie's stated position on what he would do as president, which would be to enforce federal law against the states regardless of state policy. So President Christie would presumably crack down on medical marijuana in New Jersey, which, of course, is illegal under federal law.
10:35 — Fiorina: "My husband Frank and I buried a child to drug addiction. . . . We are misleading [Americans] when we tell them that smoking marijuana is just like drinking beer. And the marijuana today is not the marijuana that Jeb Bush smoked 40 years ago."
10:40 — Trump, a multi-billionaire, generously offers to stop receiving Social Security.
10:43 — While Christie speaks in defense of Rubio on climate change, Rubio appears nervous, grimacing and rubbing his hair. I'm sure he doesn't realize CNN is keeping him on camera in a split screen.
10:46 — Jake Tapper asks Carson about Trump's comments linking vaccines to autism, "which the medical community adamantly disputes." Carson agrees that the studies don't support that connection. "I think [Trump] is an intelligent man who can make a decision after reading the facts." Trump says: "I am totally in favor of vaccines — but I want smaller doses over a longer period of time. . . . And I think you would see a big impact on autism." Carson agrees that there are too many vaccines given in too short a period of time. [VIDEO.]
10:49 — Paul calls vaccines "one of the greatest medical discoveries of all time." "I'm all for vaccines, but I'm also for freedom."
10:55 — The candidates are asked what woman they'd put on the $10 bill. Huckabee says he'd put his wife, and Trump says he'd put his daughter. (They'd need to be dead for two years first.) Fiorina says she wouldn't put a woman on the $10 or $20 bill, because "women aren't a special-interest group." Multiple candidates say Rosa Parks, and others say Susan B. Anthony, Clara Barton, and Abigail Adams. No one gives the right answer.
10:59 — The candidates are asked what their Secret Service code name should be. Bush: "Everready. It's very high energy, Donald!" Trump sticks out his palm, and Bush gives him a low five. Then Trump says he'd want his code name to be "Humble." [VIDEO.]
10:04 — Carson admits: "I was a radical Democrat before I started listening to Ronald Reagan. And he didn't sound like other Republicans — he sounded logical."
10:07 — Trump, asked to talk about what will happen if he's president, adopts a gentle tone: "The world will respect us, and it'll be, actually, a friendlier world."
10:09 — Fiorina sums up her candidacy with an extended metaphor about "Lady Liberty and Lady Justice." Lady Justice wears a blindfold because "it doesn't matter who you are; it doesn't matter what you look like. . . ." This seems to be not just an obvious reference to the potentially historic nature of her candidacy, but also a subtle reprise of her retort to Trump's comments about her face.
Without reading any mainstream punditry, I feel confident in saying that Carly Fiorina won the evening.
Losers: Scott Walker, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump
Wash: Everyone else
My mom's verdict:
Who most improved his case? I asked the question out loud and immediately thought: Rand Paul. Meade answered: Rand Paul. But he's got a long way to go. Did anyone hurt his case significantly? I don't think so. It's more: Who needed to make some real progress here and didn't? Maybe Walker.
I don't agree that Paul especially helped himself. He was good, but he was also good in the first debate, and that didn't improve his poll numbers. With such a crowded field, I don't expect Paul to get any bump from tonight.
I agree that Walker needed to make something happen tonight, and he didn't do much of anything.
Carly had a terrific night. . . . I’d be shocked if she doesn’t keep rising in the polls.
Rubio was excellent. Everything he said was well-received. He knows the issues and is a smooth, relatable communicator. Of course, he got good reviews last time, but didn’t get a bump in the polls, perhaps because he didn’t have one signature moment. He didn’t tonight, either. But it’s clear that he is going to excel in these forums.
Bush had a tough time grappling with Trump. Even when he had cutting points to make about Trump, even when he had cause to be righteously indignant over Trump’s attacks on his wife and brother, he couldn’t quite pull it off. He had nice moments–his reminder that W. kept us safe, his jokes about his mom probably being disappointed in his admission he smoked pot and about “everready” being his prospective Secret Service name because it’s high energy. But he didn’t show mastery. The contrast with how Mitt Romney manhandled Rick Perry in the debates and Bush’s inability to wrestle Trump to the ground is striking.
As for the others: Carson seemed much more like he was during most of the last debate, without the strong finish; Cruz was good, although a number of his answers got cut off at the end by Jake Tapper and I’m not sure he made a big impression; Christie was crisp and forceful; Kasich seems in a rush to occupy the Jon Huntsman space in the race; Walker was fine, but didn’t stand out; Huckabee was his fluid, folksy self, but there don’t seem to be anything transformative; Rand Paul isn’t much of a factor.
Finally, Trump. He wasn’t any better than last time, and he presumably won’t be able to spin a narrative of victimhood coming out of this debate. One hopes for his sake that there is someone around him who can approach him tomorrow and say, “Sir, I regret to inform you that you actually have to know something to run for president and that I have no choice [but] to recommend that you read a policy briefing or two.”
I’m pretty much on the same page as Rich. . . . I think Fiorina was the winner. Rubio was, again, surefooted and relatable (except for that awful water joke at the beginning). I actually think that, after Fiorina, Chris Christie may have helped himself the most. He doesn’t need a huge pop in the polls right now. He merely needs people to be open to giving him a second look, and I think he did that. Maybe he’ll gain a point or two in the rankings, but the real sign he helped himself will be whether he gets bigger crowds in New Hampshire and an uptick in donations.
I am very disappointed in both Ben Carson and Rand Paul for not being more forceful on the issue of vaccinations — one of the only topics Trump discussed with any specificity. Both of these guys claim to be unconventional politicians — Carson more plausibly than Paul — and legitimately tout their medical careers. But their response to Trump smacked of political pandering.
As for Trump, who knows? From my perspective he continued to confirm that he has no place on the stage. He was boorish, uninformed and often pretty tedious. But he was also at times entertaining, and his fans have a keen gift for editing out the parts of his act they don’t like. I don’t think he’ll go down in the polls because of anything that happened last night. But I suspect his ceiling of support got a little lower and a little thicker.
Carly Fiorina nailed it in the second Republican debate.
That's the assessment of GOP insiders in a special edition of the POLITICO Caucus, our weekly survey of the top operatives, activists and strategists in Iowa and New Hampshire. . . .
Sixty percent of Republican insiders called Fiorina the biggest winner of the evening — no one else was even close — pointing to everything from how she handled Donald Trump to her grasp of policy issues. . . .
Republicans were divided by geography over who was the biggest loser of the evening. Trump had the worst night, according to 40 percent of New Hampshire Republicans. Walker came in second with 20 percent. But in Iowa, Republicans thought Walker had the worst night — 42 percent said the Wisconsin governor flopped.
"Walker who? Was he even in the debate?" jabbed one Iowa Republican.
"It's hard to believe he was once the frontrunner in this race," agreed another.
We should not tolerate conditions in prison that have no place in any civilized country. We should not be tolerating overcrowding in prison. We should not be tolerating gang activity in prison. We should not be tolerating rape in prison, and we shouldn’t be making jokes about it in our popular culture. That is no joke. These things are unacceptable.
(Click through for video.)
I'm glad Obama is taking prison rape seriously, but the president shouldn't be telling comedians what kind of jokes they are and aren't allowed to tell. Would he tell comedians not to joke about murder? How about drone strikes that kill innocent people?
I wish he had just said: "We should not be tolerating rape in prison — that is no joke." In other words, his serious point isn't a joke, and too often people act like prison rape is purely a joke. That doesn't mean comedians aren't still allowed to joke about it — comedians are allowed to joke about all kinds of very serious topics. (The Onion has joked about the Holocaust, and I don't object to that!)
I already knew President Obama was a good singer from when he sang a line of Al Green's "Let's Stay Together" in 2012, but I was still impressed by his performance in a much lower register during his eulogy for Rev. Clementa Pinckney, who died in the mass shooting in Charleston, SC. While keeping his rendition of "Amazing Grace" simple, solemn, and weighty enough for the circumstances, he did more than singing the familiar melody — he added blue notes and other tasteful embellishments.
I can only read the first paragraph of this article since I don't subscribe to Harper's, but I'd just like to say that this sentence captures something I've often thought about Obama, which has seemed so glaringly obvious to me that I've wondered if I'm crazy or everyone else is missing this or not willing to say it:
He has spoken more words, perhaps, than any other president; but to an unusual extent, his words and actions float free of each other.
"It would be transformative if everybody voted," [Obama] told an audience in Cleveland. Yes, it would. It would mean a lot of people who aren’t interested in public policy and choose not to follow it would suddenly be deciding it.
The way it is now, if you aren’t interested—and you have the right not to be interested—you don’t have to vote. If you are interested, you pay attention, develop political views, and vote. Making those who don’t care about voting vote will only dilute the votes of those who are serious and have done their democratic homework.
Most of us are moved by the sight of citizens lined up at the polls on Election Day. We should urge everyone to care enough to stand in that line. But we should not harass or bother those who, with modesty and even generosity, say they are happy to leave the privilege of the ballot to those who are engaged.
Mandatory voting would also increase the sense that your vote doesn't make a difference, since your vote would become an even smaller proportion of the total. More people would vote, but most of them would be more lackluster about their votes — including those who would have voted voluntarily anyway.
The only way to continue to use the statistic that women are paid 77 or 78 cents on the dollar for the same work as men is if you believe all work should be paid exactly the same, no matter the skills or education required, the hours worked, the risk involved, the experience accumulated, or any of the other factors that go into wage determination. This so-called gap is calculated simply by comparing the average amount of money men make and comparing it to the average amount of money women make.
If that’s your standard — which is a joke of a standard, but let’s leave that aside — the White House suffers from a deeply alarming pay gap. And a pay gap that hasn’t gotten better since Obama took office.
We have two possible scenarios here. Either the White House — the headquarters of Mr. Equal Pay himself — suffers from a whopping pay gap of 13.3 percent, practicing unconscionable sexism by paying its female staffers an average of five figures ($10,100) less than the male staffers, or the White House is guilty of deception about pay gaps.
It’s actually the latter, but it’s not like our media will press them on the matter. Either way, it would be nice if political types stopped shaming those of us who think there is more to life than work for pay. Some of us have chosen different career paths because we value vocations that pay in ways that are not monetary. We’re kind of sick of being made to feel bad for wanting to be homemakers, spend more time with our children or simply have more flexible schedules than we would otherwise be able to in a different career.
Like Bush, President Obama has weighed in on matters that must ultimately be left up to Muslims. Take his remarks this Wednesday, when he said, quite rightly, that “we are not at war with Islam.” Not content to stop there, or to simply explain that we are at war with various apocalyptic death cults that have declared war on us, he added that “we are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”
In great detail, Obama explained that ISIS, also known as the Islamic State, and other extremist groups seek religious legitimacy in order to recruit young people to their cause, and that they “depend upon the misperception around the world that they speak in some fashion for people of the Muslim faith.” According to Obama, [terrorist] groups base their claims to legitimacy on falsehoods and selective readings of Islamic texts. Obama’s position seems to be that the leaders of these groups aren’t sincere in their beliefs. He suggests that what ISIS is really after is power, as if its obsessive focus on acting in accordance with practices that were widespread in the days of Muhammad is merely window-dressing for thuggery and theft. But why do the leaders of ISIS have to be insincere in their beliefs in order for us to reject their brutality? . . .
This week, Graeme Wood published an excellent cover story for the Atlantic on ISIS, which has deservedly drawn a great deal of attention. What he has found is that ISIS is attracting not just psychopaths motivated solely by bloodlust, but also sincere believers who embrace it for its rigorous, uncompromising adherence to the doctrines of early Islam. As Bernard Haykel, one of the experts Wood interviews, puts it, Islam is perhaps best understood as “what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts.” Other Muslims can certainly reject the interpretations of ISIS and its followers as perverse, as the vast majority of them do. But it’s not as though these Muslims, let alone two Christian presidents of the United States, have some unquestioned monopoly on the right to interpret Islam. You can declare that the leaders of ISIS are in fact apostates. You can also declare that Shiite Muslims or Ahmadiyyas are apostates, as Salafi Muslims do as a matter of course. To do so won’t settle anything, as no one owns Islam, just as no one owns Christianity.
[F]or many conservatives, to love America is to insist on the sanitisation of historical fact. We see this attitude at work in the Oklahoma state legislator's recent proposal to nix Advanced Placement American history courses on the grounds that such courses, by teaching some actual history, tend to cast the country's past in a rather unflattering light. But plenty of facts about America just aren't very flattering. A few miles from my house one can find battlefields where men killed and died for the right to keep other men as slaves, as well as the place where many thousands of dispossessed captive Cherokee were forced to begin a genocidal march to Oklahoma. And that's just Chattanooga!
Now, Mr Obama's political worldview is pretty much what one would expect from a moderately left-leaning African-American law professor. This means that the president is indeed keenly aware of, among other blots on the national record, America's exceptionally savage history of slavery and white supremacy, and its ongoing legacy. This sort of awareness inevitably—and justifiably—complicates a relationship to one's country. Many of us have been ill-treated or abused in one way or another by our parents. We love them anyway, because they are ours, but we don't forget the abuse, and it tempers the quality of our devotion. Love of country is not so different.
The ardent and unclouded quality of love that [Rudy] Giuliani and [Kevin] Williamson find missing in Mr Obama is largely the privilege of those oblivious of and immune to America's history of injustice and abuse. Those least aware of historical oppression, those furthest from its living reality, will find it easiest to express their love of country in a hearty and uncomplicated way. The demand that American presidents emanate this sort of blithe nationalism therefore does have a racist and probably sexist upshot, even if there is no bigotry behind it.
Mr Obama's politically compulsory declarations of America's exceptionalism have always struck me as rote, a little less than heartfelt, even a bit grudging. Mr Giuliani, I think, has come away with a similar impression, as have many millions of conservatives. The difference is that where Mr Giuliani sees a half-hearted allegiance to the fatherland, some of us see instead evidence of education, intelligence, emotional complexity and a basic moral decency—evidence of a man not actually in the grip of myths about his country. A politician capable of projecting an earnest, simple, unstinting love of a spotless and superior America is either a treacherous rabble-rouser or so out of touch that he is not qualified to govern. So Barack Obama doesn't love America like a conservative. So what? His realism and restraint are among his greatest strengths.
"We've got to acknowledge that [moderate Muslims'] job is made harder by a broader narrative that does exist in many Muslim communities around the world that suggests that the West is at odds with Islam in some fashion. . . . So just as leaders like myself reject the notion that terrorists like ISIL genuinely represent Islam, Muslim leaders need to do more to discredit the notion that our nations are determined to suppress Islam, that there is an inherent clash in civilizations. Everybody has to speak up very clearly, that no matter what the grievance, violence against innocents doesn't defend Islam or Muslims; it damages Islam and Muslims." — President Obama
He wants to triple the existing tax credit for child-care expenses, and create a new credit for second earners. Those proposals will help some parents and couples, but have nothing to offer families where one parent concentrates on home-based tasks. The second-earner credit is probably too small to affect couples’ decisions about work and child-care arrangements. So its main effect will be to lower the share of the tax burden paid by two-earner couples who were going to be working even without the credit.
Why do that?
There are two standard economic justifications for shifting the tax burden in this way, neither of them convincing.
One is that two-earner couples have higher costs than single-earner couples making the same income, so it's harder for them to pay the same taxes. But that seems like using the tax code to counteract the efficiency advantages of a particular way of dividing a family's labor, which doesn't make much sense. And it seems like an especially weak argument since, in the real world, single-earner couples have smaller incomes.
The second justification is that a progressive tax code, when applied to families rather than individuals, can penalize second earners. A second earner will often pay a higher tax rate than she would if she were single and making the same income, because she moves to a higher bracket when she marries a wage earner. The tax code thus discourages her from working. That's true, but it's just a special case of the way taxes discourage work, and not one that seems especially unjust or destructive. Marriage is (among other things) an economic partnership, and this feature of the tax code reflects that it involves pooling resources.
If the second-earner credit ignores that feature of marriage, Obama's other proposal ignores how little Americans like commercial child care. Surveys suggest that most parents prefer that small children be primarily cared for by a parent at home, and the Census Bureau reports that less than a quarter of them are in organized care facilities.
Given these preferences, it would make more sense to enlarge the child tax credit -- not the child-care credit -- and let parents use it as they see fit rather than requiring them to use the commercial day care most of them try to avoid. Some of them, it's true, might use the extra money to let one parent scale back from full-time to part-time work, or from part-time work to leaving the labor force.
I can't believe I missed the chance to see Obama repeat the same proposals I've been reading about for weeks but with soaring rhetoric, a very determined tone of voice, and the occasional humorous aside.
The Washington Post Editorial Board is unimpressed with Obama's plan to subsidize community-college tuition, which he's going to announce in tonight's State of the Union address. The plan would supposedly save an average of $3,800 per student for 9 million students a year, three-quarters of which would be paid for by the federal government, with the rest covered by state governments. Here's what WaPo has to say:
[U]nder Mr. Obama’s plan, taxpayers would pay even for those who could pay for themselves. If additional money can be found for education, why not direct it to those who face the highest barriers? Further increasing the size of Pell Grants, for example, would be a more progressive way to help very needy students. Larger Pell Grants would also be usable at four-year colleges and universities, which could give some poor students a better chance at success, and not just at community colleges. The government should at least make Pell Grants available year-round, so that students could study over the summer, rather than just during the school year. These are all higher priorities.
If the president wants to help those who earn just too much to qualify for Pell Grants, he could consider means testing community college tuition assistance some other way. The White House, however, hasn’t gamed out how means testing would affect the proposal, in part, apparently, for philosophical reasons. “The president believes that it is time to make college education the norm, and that about 100 years ago this country decided that high school would be the norm and that now is the time to make sure that all Americans, regardless of age, have access to higher education,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said Friday. That’s a fine goal. But in an era of constrained resources, there are better ways of improving access to higher education than establishing a new middle-class entitlement.
Actually, these are not necessarily "racist experiences." The reason a woman asked Michelle Obama to hand her something from a shelf in a store is that Michelle Obama was much taller than the woman. Michelle Obama is apparently 5'11" — an inch taller than me — and I often get asked by other customers in stores to get things from the high shelves. This is not because of prejudice against me; it's because I happen to be of average height for a man. Relatively tall people like us are advantaged by having an easier time reaching products in stores; how can we complain about occasionally being asked for help by someone who's too short to comfortably reach some of the products?
I've also been mistaken for a store clerk. I've also been closely followed by store clerks, and interrogated while trying to leave a store without buying anything. I've also been refused entry into my own workplace, when I was wearing a suit and tie and had been working there for a long time, because the security guard (a white man) didn't believe I worked there. (I should mention that this was not at my current job.) Yes these things are annoying, but they happen to people of all races.
Many of the Obamas' examples reflect a certain classism: Don't you know who I am?! How could you possibly mistake me for a lowly waiter?!
There's something unseemly about the most famous, powerful couple in America expressing dismay that a random citizen would ever fail to recognize how important they are.
UPDATE (December 21): I was looking around for help in a clothing store today, and it wasn't totally clear who was a customer and who was an employee. The employees had no obvious dress code or name tags, and some of them walked around nonchalantly in a way that blended in with the customers (which could be a good sales technique). It occurred to me that if I had taken seriously what Michelle Obama said about racist microaggression, I should have avoided asking any of the black or Hispanic employees for help, and sought out the white employees instead. But that would mostly help whites and hurt minorities! They're all working for commissions, and they can benefit from the sales experience of interacting with me even if they don't make a sale. That seems to be a worse "microaggression" than occasionally mixing up a customer with a store employee, which isn't going to prevent anyone from making money.
Perhaps the least controversial thing that President Obama ever said was that “in the coming decades, a high school diploma is not going to be enough. Folks need a college degree.” This vision is commonplace, but it implies a bleak future where everyone must work harder just to stay in place, and it’s just not true. Nothing forces us to funnel students into a tournament that bankrupts the losers and turns the winners into conformists. But that’s what will happen until we start questioning whether college is our only option. . . .
If a college degree always means higher wages, then everyone should get a college degree: That’s the conventional wisdom encapsulated by Obama. But how can everyone win a zero-sum tournament? No single path can work for everyone, and the promise of such an easy path is a sign of a bubble.
Of course, you can’t become successful just by dropping out of college. But you can’t become successful just by going to college, either, or by following any formula. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg aren’t famous because of the similar ways in which they left school. We know their names because of what each of them did differently from everybody else.
Learning from dropouts doesn’t require closing colleges but rather questioning them carefully. Higher education holds itself out as a kind of universal church, outside of which there is no salvation. Critics are cast as heretics or schismatics endangering the flock. But our greatest danger comes from the herd instinct that drives us to competition and crowds out difference.
A Reformation is coming, and its message will be the same as it was 500 years ago: Don’t outsource your future to a big institution. You need to figure it out for yourself.
Gruber, an MIT economics professor who's considered a key architect of Obamacare (and Romneycare), infamously said:
Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically call it the stupidity of the American voter, or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical in getting the thing to pass . . . . And I wish Mark was right, we could make it all transparent, but I'd rather have this law than not.
The problem is not that he said it. The problem is that he thinks it. The core problem with the damn law is it was put together by a bunch of elitists who don’t really, fundamentally understand the American people. That’s what the problem is.
(That's my own transcription of Dean; the quote at that link is incorrect.)
MIT prof Jonathan Gruber is sorry he was transparent about the lack of transparency in getting Obamacare passed. . . . He wants his old lack of transparency back. He revealed what he liked so much about it. Now, why can't he have it back? Well, Professor Gruber, it just doesn't work that way. Once you've let us see that you mean to deceive us, we won't get fooled again . . . unless you're right, and we really are stupid.
It’s a healthy world where academics can speak their minds at conferences and the like without their words becoming political weapons in a bigger fight. . . . I’m simply not very interested in his proclamations on tape, which as far as I can tell are mostly correct albeit overly cynical. (If anything he is overrating the American voter — most people weren’t even paying close enough attention to be tricked.) Criticisms of Gruber are not criticisms of a policy, and it is policy we should focus upon and indeed there is still a great deal of health care policy we need to figure out. It’s hardly news that intellectuals who hold political power, even as advisors, very often do not speak the truth. If anything, I feel sorry for Gruber that he has subsequently felt the need to so overcompensate by actively voicing such ex post cynicism, it is perhaps the sign of a soul not at rest.
In the meantime, I’d like to see more open discourse, not less. Perhaps we should subsidize people who end up looking foolish, rather than taxing them.
Tyler and I start at the same place yet end continents apart. We see the same facts: Lying politicians and the elite intellectuals who craftily decorate their masters' lies. But Tyler starts with a strong moral presumption that Whatever People in Our Society Routine[ly] Do is morally acceptable. Indeed, he bends over backwards to see the world from their point of view.
I, in contrast, start with a strong moral presumption in favor of scrupulous honesty. Unless you have strong reason to believe that lying will have awesome consequences, you shouldn't lie. Instead of bending over backwards to make excuses for liars, we should bend over backwards to tell the truth. The fact that most people fall short of this puritanical standard shows that most people ought to shape up and fly right.
And when people fleetingly realize that every society is ruled by liars, they are right to shudder.
