PowerLine – Trump too shall pass — the case against a third party candidate
- Anti-Semitism at Scripps College
- The lady’s memory vanishes
- Obama to Energy Producers: Drop Dead
- Trump too shall pass — the case against a third party candidate
- A word from Garry Kasparov
|Anti-Semitism at Scripps College
Posted: 15 Mar 2016 02:59 PM PDT
Thought experiment: suppose a nativist or race-hate group put up flyers on every other door of a college dormitory attacking Mexico for allowing so many of its citizens to cross our southern border and take away jobs from Americans. Think there might be the usual outcry about racism and bigotry? The only question would be how fast the administration would go to DefCon1 and cancel classes for a day of healing and safe spaceouts. I’ll bet the time could be measured in nanoseconds.
And would a college administration accept the excuse that “since we put the flyers up on every other door, we weren’t targeting any racial or ethnic group”? Of course they wouldn’t.
So behold nearby the flyer from the “Students for Justice in Palestine” (just imagine what Orwell would do with this name) that appeared on every other door of the dormitories at Scripps College in California last week, which was approved by the Scripps administration.* When called on whether SJP is targeting Jewish students, they repair behind the “every-other-door-so-it’s-random” rationale, which, as I say, would not be acceptable in the case of any other nation or ethnic group.
These flyers are not unique to Scripps, of course, and show the rot of higher education that bends to the will of leftist pressure groups. I’d like to see what happens if s “Students for Trump” group tries to put flyers on every other dorm door somewhere.
The photo nearby is a bit grainy, but you can make it out if you squint (or click to embiggen). I especially like the last complaint—that Palestinians haven’t been able to get building permits on the West Bank. Sounds just like California. How about justice for low income Hispanics in California who can’t get affordable housing because of the anti-growth extremism of the white liberal elite? Reminds me of the time I remarked at a “Smart Growth” conference a few years ago in California that the “Smart” in Smart Growth clearly stands for “Send Mexicans Across the River Tomorrow.” The outrage was predictable, yet somehow no one could dispute the distributional effects of California’s land use regulations. But in any case, here’s a victim class a lot closer to home, and more deserving, than the Palestinians. Instead, I’ll just call “Students for Justice in Palestine” what they are: anti-Semitic bigots and tools.
* You may remember Scripps as the college that invited—and then disinvited—George Will to speak after he had the temerity to question the premise of “rape culture” orthodoxy. Can’t have any dissenting opinion on that.
|The lady’s memory vanishes
Posted: 15 Mar 2016 12:26 PM PDT
I missed Chris Matthews’s town hall with Hillary Clinton on MSNBC last night. I imagine that I’m in good company in that oversight. Would Matthews have quizzed her about her voluminous email related lies? I also imagine that Chris Matthews is as sick of hearing about Hillary’s unsecured private email server as Bernie Sanders is.
The conversation did turn to foreign policy in general and Libya in particular (video below). Shoshanna Weissmann notes: “She said that Libya isn’t perfect, but is making progress.” Actually, it’s far more dangerous to the United States than before the intervention. Clinton added this: “Libya was a different kind of calculation, and we didn’t lose a single person.” Weissmann comments: “Clinton seems to have forgotten the September 11, 2012 Benghazi, Libya attacks that left four Americans dead.” As Lincoln put it in another context, the lady will little note nor long remember…
RELATED: Center for Security Policy, Benghazi: The Cover-up Timeline.
|Obama to Energy Producers: Drop Dead
Posted: 15 Mar 2016 09:44 AM PDT
Oh, well, if Hillary kills off what’s left of the coal industry, at least we still have a booming natural gas industry, creating lots of good-paying jobs and with a potential for significant exports to help with our miserable trade balance. Wait, what’s that?
U.S. regulators rejected Veresen Inc.’s multibillion-dollar proposal to build a terminal in Oregon that would export as many as two tankers of natural gas a week. They also denied its plan to build a pipeline with Williams Partners LP to supply gas to the terminal.
Williams and Veresen failed to demonstrate that the pipeline’s benefits would outweigh the “adverse effects on landowners,” the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said Friday in an order denying authorization. And without a pipeline supplying gas, the Jordan Cove export terminal “can provide no benefit to the public to counterbalance” the impacts associated with its construction, the agency said.
You know, I’m starting to think the Obama Administration really doesn’t like old-fashioned hydrocarbon energy. And since when has the Federal government worried about “adverse effects on landowners”??
Well, at least the Obama Administration is going to carry through on allowing new offshore oil drilling. What’s that?
The Obama administration will abandon its plan to allow new offshore oil drilling on the U.S. southeast coast, dealing a blow to petroleum companies that had hopes of tapping new reserves.
The Interior Department announced Tuesday that it will not auction off drilling rights for Atlantic Ocean waters off the coast of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.
You know, I’m starting to think the Obama Administration really doesn’t like . . . I think I’ll just let Autocorrect finish this thought.
|Trump too shall pass — the case against a third party candidate
Posted: 15 Mar 2016 08:45 AM PDT
In 1872, the Democrats were in such disarray (taking the wrong line on the Civil War will have that effect) that they backed a lifelong Republican, publishing tycoon Horace Greeley, for president. Greeley was trounced. Four years later, the Democrats reverted to traditional Democrat Samuel Tilden, who won the popular vote but lost the election.
In 1896 and 1900, the Democrats nominated prairie populist and easy-money man William Jennings Bryan. But in 1904, having lost back-to-back elections, they chose stolid New York judge Alton Parker, a sound money supporter.
In 1964, the Republicans bucked their long history of nominating moderate establishment figures and selected Barry Goldwater, who flaunted his “extremism” (in the defense of liberty) and was quoted as suggesting that we “lob one [a bomb] into the men’s room at the Kremlin.” The resulting Democratic landslide was so devastating that many questioned whether the GOP would survive it. Yet four years later, Republicans won White House through Richard Nixon, one of the prior moderate nominees.
What will happen if Donald Trump is the GOP nominee this year (likely) and loses by a clear-cut margin to Hillary Clinton in November (also likely)? No one can say for sure. But the most likely outcome is that Republican voters will learn from the defeat and nominate a true Republican candidate — someone on the spectrum that runs from Paul Ryan to Ted Cruz — in 2020.
Losing stinks, which is why political parties normally react decisively to the experience. Think not just of the examples cited above, but also of Jimmy Carter following George McGovern and Bill Clinton following Michael Dukakis. Think, for that matter, of Donald Trump following Mitt Romney.
But suppose conservatives run a third party candidate in this year’s election. The suggestion has gained currency. For example, Bill Kristol says that if the GOP nominates Trump, he will work actively to put forward an “independent Republican” ticket. Kristol calls this “a one-time, emergency adjustment to the unfortunate circumstance (if it happens) of a Trump nomination.”
Unfortunately, this one-time adjustment would likely have long-term consequences. Most notably, it would probably stymie the normal corrective process that occurs after a party’s nominee goes down in flames.
If Trump loses in a race involving an independent Republican, those who backed him will be able to shift the blame for the defeat to those who backed a third candidate. The “stab in the back” will challenge (and perhaps replace) the “foolish (to put it mildly) joy ride” as the prevailing narrative of the 2016 adventure.
Instead of backing away and hoping that folks forget their role in the Trump fiasco, his leading backers will re-fight the battle of 2016. Even if they don’t prevail in 2020, they might well seek vengeance by dragging down a mainstream Republican nominee.
A third party conservative candidate in 2016 might also have a devastating effect on Republican congressional candidates this year. These candidates will have to decide whether to back Trump or the third candidate. Whatever their decision, they will alienate a large portion of potential supporters. That’s a big price to exact just to make a gesture of disgust at Donald Trump.
But the larger point is the one David Frum makes: “When people bolt their party, the party changes behind them.” Frum backs up this assertion by discussing the third party candidacies of Theodore Roosevelt, George Wallace, and Ross Perot.
Bill Kristol is a brilliant analyst. But history suggests that it’s naive to view a third-party candidacy as “a one-time, emergency adjustment.”
If conservatives bolt in 2016, they will (in Frum’s words) “leave the instrumentalities of the GOP in the hands of people who were willing to work with Trump, and whose interest post-Trump-defeat will be in adapting his legacy to the future rather than jettisoning it.” If they don’t bolt, they will be well-placed to pick up the pieces in 2020.
This is not to say that anti-Trump conservatives should vote for Donald Trump. The presumption, I think, should be in favor of voting for the Republican nominee. However, the ultimate decision is one that conservatives must make for themselves as a matter of conscience. Some will vote for Trump; some will write in another name; some just won’t vote. (I can’t imagine a true conservative voting for Hillary Clinton.)
My argument is simply that the anti-Trump forces shouldn’t go the third-party route. Our politics may resemble “the end of days,” but the end is not at hand. If Trump’s hostile takeover occurs, our focus must be on reversing it in 2020. A third-party would be counterproductive to that end.
|A word from Garry Kasparov
Posted: 15 Mar 2016 05:42 AM PDT
Former citizen of the Soviet Union and world chess champion Garry Kasparov tries to remind the voting public of the reality of the “socialism” that Bernie Sanders seeks to make all the rage in “Hey, Bernie, Don’t Lecture Me About Socialism. I Lived Through It.” Acknowledging that Sanders “believes deeply in what he is saying, which is more than what can be said about nearly every other 2016 candidate, or about politicians in general,” Kasparov writes:
A society that relies too heavily on redistributing wealth eventually runs out of wealth to redistribute. The historical record is clear. It’s capitalism that brought billions of people out of poverty in the 20th century. It’s socialism that enslaved them and impoverished them. Of course Senator Sanders does not want to turn America into a totalitarian state like the one I grew up in. But it’s a valuable example of the inevitable failure of a state-run economy and distribution system. (Check in on Venezuela for a more recent example.) Once you give power to the government it is nearly impossible to get it back, and it will be used in ways you cannot expect.
While waiting for the primary results today, readers may want to take a moment to ponder Kasparov’s wisdom.