P.M. Carpenter

On punditry, Biden (no not Biden), and Carly Fiorina

I was about to review the political astigmatism that Joe Biden somehow inflicts on the nation's pundits. Late last week, on "Hardball," host Matthews polled his panel of three on whether the vice president would enter the presidential race. All three were reluctant to commit, but gosh darnit, in the end … No, they just couldn't see Biden doing that. The first to respond seemed to set the opinionated momentum: one "No," and the other two toppled in line. Don't buck the espied herd. There is safety in the herd.

I sat and watched this conspiratorial groping in the wrong direction with no little astonishment. Biden's entry has appeared rather vivid for weeks. He's been hashing out his battered emotions publicly, which is a man's way of begging for help. In Joe's case, it means asking others to help him to tell himself to get back to work — the ultimate bandage for a lacerated soul.

Thus I was going to review recent goings on, regarding all things Biden. That, for instance, a "group of prominent Democratic Party fundraisers," reports HuffPost, has begun "circulating a letter to encourage a hesitant[?] Vice President Joe Biden to enter the 2016 race for U.S. president." The epistle appears to be a Biden-coordinated entreaty: "It calls the Obama-Biden administration a 'spectacular success.' It cites job creation, a lower unemployment rate, new health insurance policies for nearly nine million Americans and the end of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." These are successes, or so goes the letter, upon which only Obama's closest partner can build.

The letter also unabashedly signals a twofold offense against Hillary. "To finish the job, America needs a leader who is respected both home and abroad, and who understands the real challenges facing American families." Boom, and boom: There you have it, a certain somebody's untrustworthiness and somebody else's Everyman credentials.

I thought I might also note the Wall Street Journal's coverage, which again requires no interpretation. "Biden’s aides in recent days called Democratic donors and supporters to suggest he is more likely than not to enter the 2016 race." Hence the aforementioned letter.

In a Detroit speech on Thursday, the vice president "highlighted his partnership with the president repeatedly, beginning an anecdote with: 'As I said to Barack when he asked me to join the ticket.…' And he wrapped up his remarks with a simple argument that could be an anthem for his 2016 campaign: 'We’ve come a long way, but we’ve got a lot further to go.'"

All this comes in the wake of similar Camp Biden efforts. And yet the pundits are either stumped or leaning No. I was going to review such efforts and comment on them, but why bother? Are we not enlightened? — even if the pundits have roamed in self-reinforcing befuddlement?

So I decided not to comment on all this, not one bit. Instead, I merely wanted to note Timothy Egan's assessment this morning of Carly Fiorina's brilliance in foreign policy matters, which, as so many pundits have told us as well, was staggeringly impressive in Wednesday's "in-depth" portions of debate: "[S]he showed a basic mastery of detail," observes Egan, "that anyone who spends a day Googling world events could acquire."

Now that's punditry I can admire.

 

Trump vs. Fiorina, the Battle of Little Big Foghorn

Raise your hand if you believe that Donald Trump could have had a "business transaction" more "significant" than transacting politically with "thousands of GOP activists" at a Heritage event in South Carolina yesterday.

I think I see the same number of Democratic hands that went up Wednesday night at the Reagan Library. One?

For a strongman who tells it like it is, he sure is a cowardly liar. That I can tell you. Believe me. Trump sidestepped Greenville because he had been broadsided. Word has it that he'll try to right himself and his ship of Mortimer Snerd fools at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition Forum today, but I fear the damage done to his blockbulkheads is too great.

For all his viciousness, at least Trump was fun. He was fun to cover, infinitely entertaining and downright joyous to ponder as a prehensile threat to dreadfully monotonous establishment candidates who are nonetheless Trumpian in their fundamental views. Now we're stuck — perhaps — with Carly Fiorina, an outsider establishmentarian who is just vicious.

Which the swamplanders love. She "didn’t need to say a word to get her first standing ovation" in Greenville, reports Politico. "The former CEO of Hewlett-Packard arrived to an arena full of conservative activists and thunderous applause."

The once-struggling pol's putsch is on. "The phone’s ringing off the hook,” said Fiorina's South Carolina co-chair. "Everybody wants to talk with her, ask her a question, know where she is already, can she come here." Thus the old Donald phenomenon of shifting venues is Carly's newest concern. Bookings for Fiorina Bund rallies are being canceled in favor of larger Riefenstahl stadiums.

Otherwise, hers is the same ideology in a spiffier uniform. "She seems to have a lot of [Trump's] ideas," said one SC activist. "She just seems more informed than he does." When that's the intellectual bar one must hurdle to earn the rabble's salute, well …

Still, I'm not bailing on Trump. He's hurt, he's wounded, and he's going under. Will he kick his little legs at that critical, life-saving moment as did action-hero Jason Bourne? I, for one, find it too painful to imagine a Trumpless GOP primary season. So I shall keep the faith, however swamped by doubts it may be.

 

Let's not get carried away, Prof. Krugman

Krugman's first paragraph in his latest column is startling:

I’ve been going over what was said at Wednesday’s Republican debate, and I’m terrified. You should be, too. After all, given the vagaries of elections, there’s a pretty good chance that one of these people will end up in the White House.

True, the Republican debate was terrifying in its vacuity, its neocon swagger, its fiscal insanity, ad infinitum. Any thinking voter would agree: The GOP is a terrifying, intellectually corrupt, rotted-out shell of its principled genesis. It is Krugman's third sentence, then, that startles, for it is gratuitous terror in itself.

It should read: Given the vagaries of elections, there's always some chance that one of these clowns could end up in the White House. Excepting that the Republican Party has gone absolutely nuts, there are no absolutes — not in physics, not in politics, not in life. Only a chronically besotted handicapper would put all of his bets on Blue to win, and allow no odds whatsoever on Red. One never knows, not absolutely.

But — and this is one huge but — look at an electoral map. Look at demographics, and their curve. Look at them, the other guys, the (absolutely) terrifying clowns. Can you picture Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio whipping Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden? Can you imagine any Democrat succumbing to the likes of a Donald Trump?

Within absolute reason, of course not. Yet over the next 14 months the left will work itself up into an awesome frenzy — as it did in 2007/08 and 2011/12 — as it goes about convincing itself that there's a pretty good chance that we'll see a Bush III, or whomever. How did Krugman calculate these odds? He doesn't say. And for good reason.

 

Shouldn't that be Gozer? - the Destructor? - from Ghostbusters?

Paul Gosar, a Rep.(rehensible) nitwit from Arizona and recusant Catholic, crosses the line from pseudoconservative pratfalling to obscurantist parody. What he writes in a Townhall op-ed is brilliant stuff, if, that is, one reads it from a Rabelaisian point of view:

His Holiness … intends to focus the brunt of his speech [to Congress] on climate change--a climate that has been changing since first created in Genesis. More troubling is the fact that this climate change talk has adopted all of the socialist talking points, wrapped false science and ideology into "climate justice" and is being presented to guilt people into leftist policies…. [W]hen the Pope chooses to act and talk like a leftist politician, then he can expect to be treated like one….

If the Pope plans to spend the majority of his time advocating for flawed climate change policies, then I will not attend.

Would you mind making that pledge a permanent one, Mr. Gosar?

 

One disgrace plus another disgrace = some hope, but not much

Ryan Lizza is worth quoting at length. I fear "the curtain may come down" much sooner than I had hoped.

A political campaign that is organized around a drama has an immediate advantage over one that is not. [Playwright David] Mamet argues, and he’s right, that politics "sticks closer to traditional drama than does The Stage itself. A problem is stated, the play begins, the hero (candidate) offers herself as the protagonist who will find the solution, and the audience gives its attention."

Which of the candidates has done that this year? Trump—and, to some extent, Bernie Sanders—has provided a plot and fared well. Trump has identified a clear problem to which many Republican voters respond: America doesn’t "win anymore." And he has offered a simple solution that only he can provide: Trump "will make America great again"….

But Wednesday night’s debate suggested that he has no plan for a second act…. The struggle of the second act in a political campaign, as in any drama, is that the problem identified at the beginning—the one that seized our attention—must be translated into the more mundane tasks that propel the protagonist toward his or her goal… Obama’s historic 2008 campaign is a good point of comparison: the vague promise of "hope and change" was married to an enormously sophisticated national operation that tended to the mechanics of winning the delegates needed to capture his party’s nomination.

The only hope of prolonging Trump's presidential career — and thus knifing, once and for all, his party — is the same cynical, self-interested media that flung him into stardom. About an hour ago I turned on CNN and since then I've seen, on the muted screen, stories on the Pope, Bowe Bergdahl, a high-school beating, the Feds and interest rates and the equity markets, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Jeb Bush and George W. Bush — but not one storied minute of Trump's spectacular fireball of humiliation last night. It's as though CNN recognizes that its principal ratings-draw has suddenly been thrown into deep shit (which means CNN could soon be joining him), so why not pretend another trouble-free, soldiering-on day for Trump?

The media may be able to squeeze a bit more enthrallment from The Donald's drama. For once, I'm thankful for our pathetic, disgraceful, ratings-driven and profit-whoring broadcast news. Still, one can hear the clearing of throats and rustlings of unease from the audience. Trump's play may close before its ideal time.

***

[A partial apology. Just as soon as I posted this CNN led its top-of-the-hour news with a piece on Trump's "fumble" last night. On that, see previous post.] 

 

Donald Trump's crash and burn. This is bad. Very very bad.

The last 24 hours have been a nightmare. For one, I endured three hours of my abusive Kansas City Chiefs last night. I'm filing divorce papers. I've had it. I've finally had enough. They're never going to change. I'm also announcing, on this morning after, my unilateral engagement to the Green Bay Packers. If I were gay, I'd want to marry Aaron Rodgers. He has looks and brains, and he knows how to throw a fucking football. So that's that, my last attachment to my birth city (in a state that's gone nuts) has been broken. No condolences, please. I'll get over this.

My heartache is compounded, however, in reading this morning that "After a summer of spectacle and saturation coverage, signs are accumulating that, for the public and the media, the onset of Trump fatigue has begun." (Hey, try living with the Chiefs for a few years.) It seems that Trump chatter is down on social media, his mentions on network news have suffered, and the betting markets are disaffected.

That comes after watching The Donald fumble a question in New Hampshire last night, although he had a better excuse than the Chiefs.

Some idiot gets up in a town hall meeting and labels President Obama an unAmerican Muslim. I watched this live, as perhaps you did, and afterward I watched Chris Matthews & Panel ruthlessly misread Trump's reaction. What I witnessed was playfully chagrined sarcasm. CNN reports it as "seemingly bewildered," which is somewhat more accurate, but the "Hardball" crew ripped it with abhorred gusto — "seemingly" genuine.

"We need this question," replied Trump, looking more pained than he ever looked Wednesday night. "This is the first question," he added, as I do the emphasis. To me it was obvious: "I need this question," Trump was saying, "like Carpenter needs the Kansas City Chiefs." His Birtherism had gone fallow; it was always there — helpful but hidden. Now this, this on national TV. This is the first question I get.

Only then did Trump fumble. He should have been prepared for this, just as Bush should have been prepared weeks ago for the Iraq war question. He required no brotherly John Souljah, nee McCain, moment. All he had to say was Look, that's a question better left in a preceding era; Obama will be gone shortly, so let's look ahead.

Hell, most of his audience was (and remains) in on the joke. ("We need this question? This is the first question" I get? Network cameras are everywhere, live, and I get this?) That audience no more believes Obama is a Muslim foreigner than Trump does, which is why the candidate hasn't been peppered with questions about it before. It was better left fallow — a distinct fringe embarrassment that could haunt. Mum's the word. Until last night, and that idiot.

Trump's fumble recovery was left to others, and it too was badly handled:

Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager, later told CNN that the candidate did not hear the question about Obama being a Muslim. "All he heard was a question about training camps, which he said we have to look into," Lewandowski said. "The media want to make this an issue about Obama, but it's about him waging a war on Christianity."

We can ignore the latter contradiction. (Isn't an Obamian war on Christianity about Obama?) But the tape straightforwardly belies Lewandowski's initial claim. Trump's chagrin erupted instantly upon hearing the Birther question. Indeed it was that very question that Trump interrupted, grimacing his way through a response: You're killing me here.

This has been an egregious 24 hours. Marry me, Aaron. Send me flowers and chocolates, call me. Will he? Of course not. He doesn't even know I exist. And Donald, you're sinking. Your social media and network mentions were down, and now this: Birtherism is revived, so up will go your coverage — in the wrong vein. Oh, Donald. Dear Donald. This is not looking good.

 

The ultimate test of John Kasich

I was thinking yesterday afternoon that it may be time to predict Jeb's demise; that it is now conceivable that he and his $100 million are over — that they're the 1952 Bob Tafts of 2015. But it's a trifle too soon, I thought as well, what with this debate night upon us. And then debate night came, and …

If you were in Washington watching the Republican debate last night, you might have felt a small tilt in the floor, or heard the plates rattling gently in their cupboards.

That was the sound of the Republican establishment shifting its collective weight away from Jeb Bush — and inching a little bit closer to their best available alternative.

So observes political correspondent Matt Bai. I felt the tilt in the Midwest, and others probably heard the plates rattling in California. Bush submitted his usual C- paper last night. He turned nothing around, and the money has got to be worried sick. I don't blame Jeb entirely. His super PAC has been managed about as well as a riotous tea-party gathering. Still, however the blame might be spread, his campaign is what it is, and it ain't lookin' good.

Who is the "best available alternative"? You already know. By definition, there is only one "best." The legally scrutinized Christie is out; Walker is even more maladapted than Bush; and Rubio is still the kid who always tries too hard. Voila:

Washington Republicans remember Kasich well from his years in Congress. They remember him, in a lot of cases, as impetuous and immature. But now he’s the most successful sitting governor in the field, and he has already surged into double digits in New Hampshire. So far, at least, he has managed to project Midwestern sobriety and a comfort with himself.

What's peculiar about that passage is that Republican insiders remember Kasich as "impetuous and immature." The governor may have since introduced some sobriety, but has the money forgiven Kasich his sins? Bai suggests that it has; still, ill memories linger. To me, Kasich is as immature as ever, but so what. That's no liability in Republican politics, and perhaps Republican money has simply come to accept that. A man of Barack Obama's intellect and maturity couldn't be nominated as county clerk in a GOP primary.

What's frightening about Kasich is his studied folksiness; his aw-shucks, we're-all-in-this-together act; his Everyman charade of partisanship-is-terrible, just terrible — when at heart he's just a party pol of irremediable ambition. Whatever he's done as a centrist in Ohio, he has done for local political reasons, not for the love of Mother Teresa. I know that sounds harsh, and I further know that I can't read his soul or his mind. But Kasich frightens me, somewhere down deep, somewhere murky, and almost unexplainably.

On the other hand, there is one simple measure of a man: If he's so decent, why is he still a Republican?

 

How to rise in GOP polling: make stuff up.

Vox Policy's eminently capable Sarah Kliff, formerly of Wonkblog:

Fiorina is wrong: Nobody watching the Planned Parenthood tapes would see those things [she described last night]. I know, because I recently watched all 12 hours of footage....

Either Fiorina hasn't watched the Planned Parenthood videos or she is knowingly misrepresenting the footage.

Well now, that second one, that there is the key to GOP success. Just ask The Donald. 

 

Does CNN know the meaning of "depth"?

Moments ago, a CNN anchor observed that Donald Trump went mysteriously silent last night during the GOP debate's "in-depth" segments. Ponder that, though you need not ponder it deeply.

Was one of those segments when minuteman wunderklutz Marco Rubio misrepresented North Korea's intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities? Was one of them when Carly Fiorina again plumbed the depths of G-rated horror inherent in Hillary's use of personal email? — or that she won't talk to enemies?

Was another when Mike Huckabee (I think it was, although it makes no difference), shrieked that ISIS is an existential threat to the United States of America, the most powerful military monolith on earth? This, subsequent to the crumbling Soviet Union's existential threat, "Red" China's existential threat, Vietnamese peasants' existential threat, Saddam Hussein's existential threat, Iran's existential threat, and next up, if necessary, Belize.

In reaction, I too would have gone "silent," in a dumbstruck kind of way. But to call the others' blatherings "in-depth" discussions is the true mystery.

 

The Weekly Standard is now boning up, so to speak, on Carly Fiorina

The Weekly Standard, having soured on Trump by Kristolnacht decree, is now pumping some new Iron Lady, Carly Fiorina. The war-loving rag giddily exclaims that in last night's debate Fiorina delivered "a dynamite, substantive performance. Along the way, she was able to effectively shut up GOP frontrunner Donald Trump and come away the clear winner in the field of 11."

First, though, the publication tries to dispel notions of Fiorina's actual intentions. "Aren’t you just running for vice president?" people ask. Oh heaven forfend, Carly responds, as she does to the Weekly Standard: "People ask that because I’m a woman and I’m not a politician. I’m running to be president."

That she is a woman is rarely disputed. That she's "not a politician," though, is something of a joke. She is a pol — albeit a failed one, just as she is a failed corporate executive. Yet the deeper negation comes in her declaration of presidential intent. No, she's not running to be president. If she possesses any reality-based cognition at all, she is indeed running to be vice president.

And she's perfect for the job — of running, not winning. Vulnerabilities — immense ones, such as Carly's — that are headlines for a presidential candidate become journalistic footnotes for veep contenders. Voters don't vote for vice presidents; they vote for (or against) a ticket's top slot. Electoral analyses report there's maybe a 1 percent swing in voter behavior based on veep selections. The Republican deficit is much greater than that, so why not bring in a clown? Again. (See: Paul Ryan, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, even George H.W. Bush, who had hilariously savaged St. Ronald's "voodoo economics.")

In the modern era, vice presidential candidates are often chosen less for their (questionable) geopolitical pull than for their natural ability to attack the opposition; to gut the other ticket in ways that presidential dignity disallows. And that's what makes Carly Fiorina absolutely perfect for the veep nomination, no matter who's the boss. Carly can out-bile and out-vile even Donald Trump. A Jeb Bush would need her desperately.

And then, when it's all over, she'll become a permanent footnote — in history.

 

I'm increasingly worried about Donald Trump

I'm still worried about The Donald, and I'm worried more than ever. He was at his most calculating last night, which was a miscalculation.

There's still some merit in targeting Jeb (because of Jeb's money), but the former governor always does a splendid job of wounding himself — nominating, for instance, a woman British prime minister as the face of the 10-dollar American bill. Holy bumbling! Even Eleanor Roosevelt of the opposite party would have been a better selection for Jeb, whose choice of Margaret Thatcher shall be forever recorded in the annals of permanently temporary political insanity.

Yet single-digit Jeb remains The Donald's chief target, while the fiery Fiorina and comatose Carson persist in grabbing ever-greater chunks of Trump's "outsider" vote. The latter was disappointingly congenial toward both last night (with the exception of his assault on Carly's corporate-executive record), since he had calculated that his famously outrageous hostility would only cost him. Their outsider acts, while polar opposites in demeanor, are still fresh — and the hardcore base loves nothing more than a new routine.

Fiorina's is especially vicious, and that, the base especially loves. Carson's routine is contempt for politics and politicians — both the profession he's in, and a label he holds. But again, seething contempt, akin to viciousness, is catnip for the contemptuously inclined. Trump's routine, on the other hand, is becoming yesterday's. He needs a new offense. Complimenting Carly and being nice to Ben are unappealing maneuvers to a hyperemotional, reason-disdaining base that suckles on malice.

I still maintain that Trump erred badly a few days ago, when he affirmed, during the Kim Davis kerfuffle, that same-sex marriage is the law of the land, so that's that. I can't prove it, but Carson's subsequent rise in the polls could well be attributable to Trump's latitudinarianism, which the evangelical base interprets as satanism. Trump should have just changed the subject, which is his customary tactic when confronted by uncomfortable questions.

How to hammer Carson now? That's much trickier than pounding Fiorina, who is executively vulnerable. Perhaps replacing Bush with Carson — remorselessly — as the low-energy snooze of the year would be a good start.

Trump's cardinal predicament, however, shall remain. His rise to the GOP top was nurtured by hate — and now he and his base are hooked on it. Sudden withdrawal could be lethal. Yet to prosper beyond his base means augmented doses of calculation, bits of reasonableness, and moments of tempered personality. There, however, he stands to gain less among the establishment crowd than he stands to lose among the outsider vote.

Conclusion? He's got to gnaw away on Fiorina and Carson's support — not Jeb's. The Trump-Fiorina-Carson base appears to be the Republican primary majority; thus it is there, in that base, that Trump will triumph or perish.

 

The GOP debate: A platoon of middle-aged white guys, two tokens, and one rather subdued killer

I'll go out on a premature limb and say it was all over in the first half hour.

Christie — His cleverness began and ended in the first 30 seconds ("point the camera to the audience").

Fiorina — She wimped out against Trump in the first question (about Trump's "finger on the nuclear button").

Bush — Was he medicated?

Kasich — As folksy as ever.

Carson — Politicians are only interested in their political "goals." (Huh?)

Trump — On Bush: "More energy tonight. I like that." I loved that. Otherwise, Trump seems to have bummed some of Bush's meds.

Rubio — Still trying to sound profound.

Cruz — Still an overrehearsed talking point.

Walker — Overdone toast.

Paul — He sized up Trump, he aimed, he fired, and he missed.

Huckabee — Absent in every way.

***

What is following the first half hour is a mind-lacerating bore that will exhaust fact-checkers. North Korea has intercontinental missiles that can hit the U.S, says Rubio.; George W. Bush "kept us safe," says brother Jeb; they all agree that America, with its monstrous military, is virtually defenseless; flat taxes are "fair"; on and on. The dullness, the thoughtlessness, all the canned mental hash are so familiar — and otherworldly — one wants to pull up the covers and forget the whole boring, depressing scene.      

***

Rubio gave what is perhaps the most perfect Republican argument I've ever heard. Today is all that matters; tomorrow can go blow. The planet's ruination over the next couple decades is nothing compared to how the American economy might now suffer in addressing the crisis, so to hell with the planet. It's all about next-quarter profits: the ultimate paradigm of modern Republicanism.  

 

The Munchkin Debate

In the strictest terms of relativity theory, Pataki was the most coherent one tonight, even though, like Jeb Bush, he said he'd support the presidentially "unfit" Trump as the GOP's nominee. He absolutely destroyed Santorum — as did Graham — on the Kim Davis issue, which was pleasant compensation for his Trump confessional.

Pataki is struggling to come across as a kind of Eisenhower Republican, which is why he is at 0.0 percent among the GOP base. They detest glimmers of reason.    

Graham also gets credit for blowing away Santorum with his immigration pragmatism. He loses all credit, however, for wanting to blow up the world.

Jindal? No surprises. He's still the munchkinest of the Munchkins.

 

An Elegy for J. Alfred Trump & Co.

Listening to CNN's army of pundits dissect what can be done in — one minute! — reminded me of Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock":

Do I dare / Disturb the universe? / In a minute there is time / For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. 

And I foresee, after three hours of the decisive, revisionist crap to which we're about to be subjected, Prufrock's ending:

We have lingered in the chambers of the sea / By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown / Till human voices wake us, and we drown. 

I don't ever wish to be as morose and misanthropic as T.S. Eliot, but he does have a way of admirably describing the horrors of a televised Republican debate.

 

The NY Times' 11-person debate analysis, give or take 9 or 10

The Times' Jonathan Martin on what each candidate must do in tonight's "debate," a rather exotic label for a series of one-minute deliveries rehearsed for days:

Whether [Donald Trump] can transform himself from summer curiosity to enduring political phenomenon will be, in part, determined by how he holds up over what will become monthly debates.

Trump is already an enduring phenomenon. It's Jeb Bush who is the summer curiosity. Before long, his big money will start shriveling like a penis in a cold shower. 

About second-runner Ben Carson (and I can't believe I'm having to type that), Martin's advice is that he must offer "consistent and informed answers when policy questions come his way."

There, I stopped reading. Nine more "analyses" like that and I would have shriveled like …