Saturday, February 27, 2016

Staring directly into a nightmare scenario

Remember last spring, how we all talked about what a deep bench full of principled conservatives we had, how the debates and primaries were going to be full of lively exchanges of ideas and policy proposals and thoughtful observations of where America is at this moment?

And then Squirrel-Hair happened.

And he keeps happening. Some brave folks are trying whatever measures are available to prevent what is increasingly looking inevitable.

Such as an independent candidate:

Conservative donors have engaged a major GOP consulting firm in Florida to research the feasibility of mounting a late, independent run for president amid growing fears that Donald Trump could win the Republican nomination.
A memo prepared for the group zeroes in on ballot access as a looming obstacle for any independent candidate, along with actually identifying a viable, widely known contender and coalescing financial support for that person. The two states with the earliest deadlines for independent candidates, Texas and North Carolina, also have some of the highest hurdles for independents to get on the ballot, according to the research.

“All this research has to happen before March 16, when inevitably Trump is the nominee, so that we have a plan in place," a source familiar with the discussions said. March 16 is the day after the GOP primary in Florida, a winner-take-all contest that Marco Rubio supporters have identified as a must-win to stop Trump's early momentum.
“It’s critical some serious attention is given to this,” the source said.
The document, stamped “confidential,” was authored by staff at Data Targeting, a Republican firm based in Gainesville, Fla. The memo notes that “it is possible to mount an independent candidacy but [it] will require immediate action on the part of this core of key funding and strategic players.”

Guy Benson at Townhall proposes a Rubio - Kasich ticket.  I don't much cotton to the idea. Kasich is ate up with Reasonable Gentleman Syndrome, as I discussed in a post yesterday. Actually, Benson has big problems with it, but puts it out there because it's  . . . well, very late in the day.

This may feel like a Hail Mary...because it is one. I take this position not out of strong conviction, but out of transparent desperation. But it's well-foundeddesperation, borne of a gnawing fear about what is about to befall the conservative movement at such a consequential juncture in our history. I urge you to read Douthat's piece on the Kasich-for-VP gambit, which is characteristically compelling. Do I have serious issues with Kasich, especially on Medicaid expansion? You bet. Do they pale in comparison to my concerns about Trump's healthcare vision (if you can even call it that)? They do. Kasich would bring several things to the table that would complement Rubio nicely, including significant executive experience, seasoning, and rust belt appeal. I don't care who you are, or how weak your opponent was: Winning re-election in America's preeminent swing state with a whopping 64 percent of the statewide vote is nothing to sneeze at.  Plus, there are worse ideas than a ticket featuring a Floridian and an Ohioan.  Just look at Kasich's eye-popping favorability numbers in the crucial battleground state he leads. Of course there are risks associated with naming a running mate at this early stage in the process (Kasich can be a loose cannon and has shown little inclination to play ball -- and could rebuff a Rubio trial balloon, or even use it to embarrass Rubio), but these uniquely desperate times call for an uncomfortably accelerated and precarious timeline. Then again, might these bizarre commentssignal that he's open to a running mate overture?  Is he angling for a spot on Trump's ticket?

Which brings us to the Cruz portion of this complicated equation.  Cruz's struggles in South Carolina and Nevada, especially among evangelicals, are blinking neon warning signs that his victory scenario isn't tracking towards success. Read this excellent and sobering piece by Dan McLaughlin spelling out in excruciating detail why, barring a miraculous, sweeping set of triumphs next Tuesday, the Cruz campaign will be over, for all intents and purposes.  That's particularly true if new polling and whispers about a virtual tie in the Lonestar State (whose Republican delegates are proportionally allocated) are confirmed. For the record, I believe Cruz will win his home state on Tuesday. Put bluntly, both Cruz and Rubio now have treacherously narrow paths to the nomination.  Rubio's is wider (but could also collapse on March 15), due almost entirely to the data breadcrumbs we've seen thus far, as well as the nature of the calendar ahead.  Indeed, several reports suggest that a number of Cruz loyalists are beginning to waver, and are at least encouraging the hard-charging Senator to lay off of Rubio.  Promisingly, thisa serious rhetorical adjustment.  A thaw, perhaps?

Enter the "Justice Cruz" option. In the event that Rubio is nominated and wins the general election -- likely meaning that Republicans would have retained their Senate majority -- he would nominate his erstwhile rival to replace the great Antonin Scalia on the High Court. This is not pure fantasy; Cruz is eminently qualified for such a position. He's a brilliant constitutional scholar who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he served as primary editor of the extremely prestigious Harvard Law Review. He clerked for Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, served as Texas' Solicitor General, and has argued nine cases before SCOTUS. Given his youth, a Justice Cruz would shape American jurisprudence for decades, penning opinions and dissents that would reverberate for generations. But would the Senate confirm him? A few points: (1) Congress' upper chamber has a long bipartisan history of confirming its own to executive appointments.  Fifteen US Senators have served on the Supreme Court, six of whom were sitting members when they were nominated.  (2) Senate Democrats have already blown up the judicial filibuster for lower court appointments, and are discussing doing the same for Supreme Court nominees if they regain a majority in 2017. Republicans would be well within their rights to trigger this option to confirm Cruz.  (3) As he'll eagerly tell you, Cruz is reviled in the Senate, including among many members of his own caucus. "Exiling" him from the political realm may be a dream come true for some of his Senate colleagues, with the added bonus of banishing him to a post where popularity doesn't matter at all, and where constitutional originalism is of the utmost importance. When I floated this idea on social media a few nights ago, some Cruz fans objected, arguing that Cruz is so hated by his colleagues that they'd reject him out of spite. I don't share that opinion, but let's grant it for the sake of argument. If that's the case, what does that say about his prospects to win the presidency, let alone govern?  In short, Court seems like the ideal spot for man of Cruz's background, intellect and passions. He would be far more valuable to the constitutionalist cause ensconced in the judicial branch.

So there you have it: A barely-plausible desperation heave toward the endzone with Team Trump playing prevent defense (which, for him, includes taking lots of potshots). President Rubio, Vice President Kasich, and Justice Cruz -- with a primetime convention speech from Dr. Ben Carson, detailing his remarkable life story and path to improbable achievement. That's not how many people would have drawn things up at the onset of this cycle, but here we are. 
I seriously never thought I'd live to see a scenario this ugly and insane.

It's the final product of the dumbing-down process, but a particularly sinister aspect of it all is how it's been aided and abetted by well-read, well-connected, erudite people who have stoked the populism-and-nationalism narrative for all its' worth. How do they sleep at night?

We'll be naming names here at LITD. And pointing out the basic truth tirelessly: Donald Trump is a bad person. Not just a faulty candidate. A bad person to his core.

1 comment:

  1. The Scenarios are all ugly, democracy is not pretty, and is less attractive now without those pesky campaign finance reforms. Not that the Russ- Feingold reforms would have made much difference. Those alone without media rules regarding political campaign coverage would be toothless.
    That would be one perspective, another would be let the buyer beware, there will be repercussions to unchecked socialism. Or Vise Vera there will be repercussions to unrestrained commercial influence on Society. Political frame works as we have known them have an increasingly residual effect upon events of the world. The actions which solely dictate a “Global Society’s” direction are now spontaneous. The individual Society’s contribution to the overall effectiveness of a “Global Society” is related to that Society’s ability to remain both intact and convincing all other Societies of its validity. We are not Alone.
    As throughout history Societies whom are unable to remain intact whether by religious, political or economic division are failed states. No Society can claim to be exclusive, without measure to other Society’s. That Society then loses its ability to adapt in a “Spontaneous “world.
    These rules apply to both micro and macro scales. From the “Family” to the “Globe”
    The Rules of a Democracy which though never fully realized are best suited to Our Global World.
    msm

    ReplyDelete