February 19-23, 2016
Feb 19 00:19 Donald Trump: all talk, no action Feb 19 05:14 Democracy-hating Democrats Feb 19 10:28 Jeb! running of fumes Feb 21 09:45 Rubio's floor just got higher Feb 22 05:02 Let's kill populism, Trump candidacy Feb 22 16:02 Cruz's Super Tuesday strategy Feb 23 05:06 Pro-Bush fundraisers helping Rubio Feb 23 07:59 Levin vs. Rubio, Michael Reagan Feb 23 09:11 Trump, the bankruptcy specialist?
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Donald Trump: all talk, no action
During his stump speeches and during debates, Donald Trump frequently criticizes politicians who are "all talk and no action." The media, especially shills like Joe Scarborough, Sean Hannity, Andrea Tantaros and Eric Bolling, never question Trump on that statement. If there's anyone who is all talk and no action, it's Mr. Trump. What's worse is that he threatens lawsuits against newspapers, reporters and presidential candidates in his attempt to intimidate them into silence.
Wednesday, Mr. Trump made the mistake of threatening to sue the Cruz campaign. I wrote this post to highlight the incompetence of Mr. Trump's attorney and Sen. Cruz's willingness to stand up to Mr. Trump. Jeffrey Goldman, Trump's attorney, sent a cease and desist letter to Sen. Cruz's campaign. Not only didn't Sen. Cruz refuse to cease and desist, Sen. Cruz held a press conference to literally tell Mr. Trump to bring it on, calling Trump's lawsuit frivolous. In addition to that, Sen. Cruz's attorneys replied to Mr. Trump, saying "
As recently as Saturday, February 13, 2016 - four days ago at the Republican Debate sponsored by CBS - Mr. Trump said Planned Parenthood 'does do wonderful things.' Planned Parenthood is the leading abortion provider in the country. Being pro-life and supporting Planned Parenthood are incompatible. Moreover, Mr. Trump has recently donated political contributions to many pro-choice candidates and officeholders, including Chuck Schumer, Andrew Cuomo, Anthony Weiner, and Rahm Emanuel. Do you, on behalf of your client, deny that these contributions were used to help elect pro-choice candidates to office? Indeed, before the 2008 election cycle, Mr. Trump donated $303,600 to Democrats, many of whom are pro-abortion. Mr. Trump also donated to the New York State Democratic Party, whose platform is pro-choice, and he has donated to pro-choice candidates as recently as 2014. Suffice it to say, there is ample evidence casting grave doubt about the truthfulness of Mr. Trump's campaign claims that he is truly pro-life."
Since then, Sen. Cruz has taunted Mr. Trump, daring Mr. Trump to file his lawsuit. Mr. Trump is caught between a difficult position. If he files the lawsuit, Sen. Cruz has threatened to personally depose Mr. Trump. That opens all kinds of legal difficulties for Mr. Trump. It's one thing for Trump to lie about being pro-life on the campaign trail. It's another to say that during a deposition:
Trump isn't pro-life in any meaningful way. He's recently contributed tens of thousands of dollars to staunchly pro-abortion candidates like Chuck Schumer, Andrew Cuomo, Anthony Weiner and Rahm Emanuel. I've yet to find a pro-life activist who wouldn't instantly reject contributing to any of those politicians. It's impossible to find a pro-life activist who would contribute to all of these pro-abortion dirt bags.
Next, Trump's defense of Planned Parenthood is that Katrina Pierson, his dishonest spokesperson, said that "Mr. Trump has said that Planned Parenthood does do cervical cancer screenings, and that is a good thing when you are a poor, single mom in a neighborhood that doesn't have access to these other clinics." That doesn't even rise to the level of flimsy. There were 669 Planned Parenthood clinics across the nation in 2013. That number was shrinking. The number of cancer screenings provided by Planned Parenthood was dropping, too.
By comparison, there were 9,059 Federally Qualified Health Centers, aka FQHCs, in the United States. The number of FQHCs is increasing. I'd love hearing Ms. Pierson prove that there's a Planned Parenthood clinic that provides cancer screenings in a city where there isn't an FQHC that can do those same cancer screenings.
Simply put, Mr. Trump has shown tendencies that make First Amendment activists worry. He's shown a willingness to use intimidation tactics to silence his critics. Now that someone has called his bluff, it'll be interesting to see if Trump will do something or just talk big.
Here's my prediction: if Mr. Trump doesn't sue Sen. Cruz, we'll know that he's all talk and no action. We'll have proof that he's a whiny punk who doesn't like being held accountable. Mr. Trump is right. DC has too many politicians who are all talk and no action.
We don't need to nominate another all talk and no action politician to be the GOP presidential candidate.
Posted Friday, February 19, 2016 12:19 AM
No comments.
Democracy-hating Democrats
This article isn't surprising. What's unfortunate is that the Democratic Party insists that they're for campaign finance reform while taking tons of money from the special interests that they publicly criticize. This year, they aren't even letting the democratic process determine their party's presidential nominee.
Let's stipulate something at the outset. Both political parties use superdelegates to determine their party's presidential nominee. This article does a great job of explaining how superdelegates work in the Democratic and Republican parties. For instance, in "the Democratic Party, you're a superdelegate if you're a member of the official party apparatus. That includes all current Democratic governors and members of Congress as well as former presidents, former vice presidents, state party chairs, and that sort of thing. In the Democratic Party, superdelegates can vote for whichever candidate they wish regardless of how the state that they come from votes, and in total, superdelegates comprise about 15 percent of the total delegates that determine the nomination."
That explains how Hillary has a 350 delegate lead over Bernie Sanders even though they tied in Iowa and Sanders annihilated Hillary in New Hampshire. It's a different story for superdelegates in the GOP:
The more important distinction, though, is that Republican superdelegates do not have the freedom to vote for whichever candidate they please. The national Republican Party ruled in 2015 that their superdelegates must vote for the candidate that their state voted for , and that's the biggest difference between Republican and Democratic superdelegates.
Potentially, there are further complications for the DNC and their presidential nominee:
Like Ms. Clinton, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz also accepts money from super PACs and corporate interests. Given Ms. Wasserman Shultz's campaign financing strategies - in conjunction with the virtual bankruptcy the DNC is facing under her leadership - the rescinding of the ban on donations from federal lobbyists and super PACs should come as no surprise, but what it demonstrates is still sobering. Special interests have undermined the trust between the government and the American people to the extent that public outcry against corporate influences are resulting in regressing policies for campaign finance reform. As Mr. Sanders leads calls for politicians to ethically rid themselves of ties to wealthy individuals and corporations, the Democratic Establishment is doing everything possible to inoculate themselves from those calls to action.
Ms. Wasserman-Schultz isn't just corrupt. She's inept, too. It isn't just her fault, though. The Democratic Party is a dying party. That's why their presidential candidates are both fossils. Many of their younger politicians have gotten defeated in 2010 and 2014.
During those GOP landslides, Democrats lost tons of seats in Congress, the US Senate and in state legislatures. Their bench is thinner than thin. It's virtually nonexistent. The Democratic Party is heading for a massive shake-up after this election. If Hillary wins because the DNC rigged the rules, rest assured that the activists that fought for Bernie Sanders will lead a revolt against Ms. Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC.
Posted Friday, February 19, 2016 5:14 AM
No comments.
Jeb! running of fumes
According to multiple reports, including this article , this weekend is probably Jeb's last political fight. His wealthy fundraisers have stopped raising money for him. His crowds are shrinking. Marco Rubio is winning the key endorsement fights. Morale is low at Jeb! campaign HQ. Other than that, things couldn't be better.
Things are getting bleak when the article includes a sentence that said "3,000 people showed up to the North Charleston Convention Center, filling just half of the cavernous exhibition hall (by comparison, the day before in a rural town of just 20,000 people, Marco Rubio had drawn more than 2,000 on a Sunday afternoon)." The half-empty convention center was for a Jeb! event. The fact that Sen. Rubio's crowds in small towns are filled to overflowing has led some on Twitter to joke that Sen. Rubio's big crowds are turning fire chiefs who have to deal with overflow seating against Sen. Rubio.
Jeb! only wishes he had that problem. Seriously, Jeb! isn't the campaigner that George W. was. Jeb never was in step during this campaign. He didn't read his audience. Couple that with the pathetic ads his Right to Rise PAC put on the air and you've got a campaign going nowhere fast.
Haley's endorsement Wednesday stung even more because of an interview Bush had done on his campaign bus just a day earlier, when he told NBC's Peter Alexander that the Haley endorsement, "if she is to give an endorsement, it would be the most powerful, meaningful one in the state."
"When they rolled out that clip right after Haley endorsed [Rubio], it was just devastating," another Florida-based Bush supporter said. "You just shake your head watching that. He should have known better than to say that, unless somehow he had a sense she was going to endorse him. It just shows that he doesn't get the messaging piece of this, or that he's insulated from what's actually happening out there."
Jeb's ship is sinking. It isn't that I love seeing it happen. It's that that's just reality.
Posted Friday, February 19, 2016 10:28 AM
No comments.
Rubio's floor just got higher
After Jeb Bush suspended his campaign , Sen. Rubio praised him profusely. Almost instantly, the Bush money machine started supporting Sen. Rubio.
While that's the most noticeable benefit for Sen. Rubio, it isn't the only benefit Sen. Rubio will get from Jeb's decision. Other than in Nevada, where Gov. Bush was in the low single digits, Sen. Rubio will pick up most of Jeb's support, especially in the important state of Florida. Further, while Trump is gaining momentum by winning, he isn't expanding his support. Leon Wolf's post highlights something of a struggle for Mr. Trump when Wolf writes "John McCain's standing in the national polls went up 10% (per RCP average) between the day of the Iowa caucuses and the day of the South Carolina primary. Mitt Romney's went up 8.5%. Donald Trump's went down 1.5%. Donald Trump is not building momentum. He is bitterly opposed by a huge remaining contingent of Republicans."
South Carolina was a damaging blow to the Cruz campaign because the state should've been right in Sen. Cruz's wheelhouse. Instead, he finished third while losing support all week. As Charles Hurt said last night, if Sen. Cruz can't win in a state rich with evangelical Christian voters, where can he win? That's a legitimate question but I don't want to overreact just on the basis of a single primary.
What's likely to happen, as I wrote here , is that Sen. Rubio will start picking up endorsements from reform-minded governors like Scott Walker in Wisconsin and Mike Pence in Indiana. He's certain to gain Mitt Romney's endorsement soon, too. When/if Scott Walker endorses Sen. Rubio, Sen. Rubio will be able to say that he proudly stands with another great pro-reform governor whose state is working infinitely better than DC. If/when Gov. Pence endorses him, Sen. Rubio will be able to deliver the same message.
Most importantly, though, Gov. Bush's withdrawal from the race raises the floor of support for Sen. Rubio. If/when Sen. Cruz withdraws, Sen. Rubio will pick up a portion of Sen. Cruz's supporters. That's before factoring in the negative ads that will certainly pound Mr. Trump.
Jeb's attacks weren't sharp. They certainly didn't put Trump on the defensive. Imagine a Rubio ad showing Trump taking different positions on different days, then Trump denying that he's shifted in an interview with Sean Hannity. Then see a question pop up on the screen asking "Mr. Trump, were you lying the first time or were you lying the other time?" You could do that with Iraq, Obamacare and Planned Parenthood, just to name a few targets of opportunity.
Thus far, the punditocracy has said that the rules of politics don't apply to Mr. Trump. I question that because Mr. Trump hasn't been hit with barrage after barrage of negative advertising exposing him as a liberal. Mr. Trump's nutroots base won't abandon him because they're delusional. Will that apply to Mr. Trump's sane supporters? At this point, we don't know. It will be interesting to find out.
Posted Sunday, February 21, 2016 9:45 AM
Comment 1 by Patrick M at 21-Feb-16 11:43 AM
It won't be Rubio (remember the Gang of Eight?)
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Feb-16 02:29 PM
God help us if it isn't. Then it's Trump. I don't want to think about nominating that corrupt liberal. Trump is Hillary in an expensive suit.
Comment 2 by eric z at 22-Feb-16 10:35 AM
Strib is reporting, Monday morning, that Rubio will be in town; this week; etc. In truth, I think Ricky Rubio would make a better president than Marco, but Ricky has the same difficult situation as that natural born Canadian, Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz. What a Troika, Trump, Rubio and Cruz. Quality is in the eye of the beholder.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Feb-16 10:52 AM
Marco doesn't have an eligibility problem:
Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, the second son and third child of Mario Rubio Reina and Oriales (nee Garcia) Rubio. His parents were Cubans who immigrated to the United States in 1956, prior to the rise of Fidel Castro in January 1959. His mother made at least four trips back after Castro's victory, including for a month in 1961. Neither of his parents was a U.S. citizen at the time of Rubio's birth but his parents applied for U.S. citizenship and were naturalized in 1975.PS- Rubio was born in Miami in 1971.
Let's kill populism, Trump candidacy
According to this NY Times article , Laura Ingraham wants the GOP to head in a populist direction. That isn't leadership. That's capitulation. That's handing the nomination to Donald Trump. What's worst is that it means our courts will be packed with activists whether Trump wins or Hillary wins.
Ms. Ingraham is famous for lecturing the DC insiders for their failures. It's time to lecture her for her foolishness. Populism is what got this nation into this situation. Populism is liberalism with a different name. Populism isn't rooted in constitutional principles. Populism is prone to mob rule, which is just a step away from anarchy. Does Ms. Ingraham really want to deal with a system of government where the mob rules? Does Ms. Ingraham prefer government of and by judicial fiat? That's what populism will give us. In fact, populism will give us that sooner rather than later.
If she doesn't, then she'd better stop being Trump's apologist. It isn't just Ms. Ingraham that's making this tragic mistake, either. Andrea Tantaros, Eric Bolling and Sean Hannity are making the same mistake. That trio has bent over backwards rationalizing away Mr. Trump's contradictory statements. This weekend, Hannity went so far as to tell Steve Hayes that Trump didn't say that he's in favor of the Obamacare mandate even though there's video of Trump making that statement during Thursday night's town hall meeting on CNN:
"The establishment G.O.P. is lying to itself. This election at its core is a rejection of their globalist economic agenda and failed immigration policies - and of rule by the donor class," said Laura Ingraham, the conservative talk-radio host and political activist. "Millions want the party to go in a more populist direction."
Ms. Ingraham isn't really that stupid. You can't be that stupid and be a Supreme Court law clerk. It's possible, however, to misdiagnose the root cause of the problem. The economy isn't failing because of globalism. It's failing because our taxes are outrageous, the compliance costs of our regulations are crushing businesses and our regulations are designed to crush competition.
When Mr. Trump argues that companies are leaving the United States, he's right. It's just that his plan to fix that won't fix anything. The type of tariffs that Mr. Trump is advocating for kill jobs. President Reagan and President Clinton are the 2 greatest job creators of my lifetime. They both thought that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act caused the Great Depression. Most economists agree with that.
Trump's economic plans aren't rooted in capitalism. They're rooted in corporatism. Trump hasn't talked a single sentence during the debates about helping small businesses create jobs. Trump certainly hasn't said anything about regulatory reform.
William F. Buckley once famously said that "A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'" It's time this generation of conservatives stood athwart history yelling 'Stop'! It's imperative because American exceptionalism is what's on trial.
Posted Monday, February 22, 2016 5:02 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 22-Feb-16 10:40 AM
The Ingraham quote, "... rule by the donor class ...".
The Clintons?
No, wait. They are the acceptor class. Yeah, other side of the street from the donors. Yet, surprisingly like-minded with the donor class over what's good for you and me.
Cruz's Super Tuesday strategy
This Washington Post article essentially admits that Sen. Cruz isn't serious about defeating Donald Trump. It hasn't been a secret that Sen. Rubio has been the target of tens of millions of dollars of negative advertising from the pro-Cruz Keep the Promise PAC and Gov. Bush and his Right to Rise super PAC. Keep the Promise PAC has announced that they're planning on advertising "in Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia, with Alabama and Oklahoma also in the mix. The super PAC will air positive ads about Cruz, and its negative ads will focus more on Rubio than on Trump, Conway said."
There's no question about whether Sen. Cruz's GOTV operation is top notch. It's the best on either side of the aisle. There's a major question, though, about whether their communications team is ready for prime time. The fact that they just fired Rick Tyler indicates that it isn't ready for prime time.
More than a few questions are raised about whether the Cruz campaign should be targeting Rubio, especially on the non-issue of attending committee meetings. The fact that they're targeting Sen. Rubio with those type of ads as opposed to taking on Trump is a sign that Sen. Cruz is pulling his punches against Trump. Whether that's because he's intimidated by Trump or whether it's because he's admitting he can't win the nomination is anybody's guess.
Whatever it is, it isn't a sign of strength.
The fact that Sen. Cruz fired his chief communications officer opens Sen. Cruz up on charges about whether he's running a dirty campaign. Here's what Fox is reporting:
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz said Monday he's fired campaign communications director Rick Tyler, after his top spokesman promoted a video that wrongly depicted Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as trash-talking the Bible.
The Texas senator announced that he's asked for the resignation at a press conference Monday afternoon.
"We are not a campaign that is going to question the faith of another candidate. Even if it was true, our campaign should not have sent it. That's why I've asked for Rick Tyler's resignation," Cruz said. "The standards of conduct in this campaign have been made absolutely clear."
Sen. Cruz's campaign is suffering. He fired Rick Tyler for questioning Sen. Rubio's statements on faith but he hasn't done anything with regard to the staffers that spread the vicious rumor that Dr. Carson was getting out of the race after Iowa.
The point is that Sen. Cruz isn't taking on Mr. Trump. Earlier, Sen. Cruz could argue that he wasn't going after Trump because he was biding his time. That's a fair point. The question isn't at what point will Sen. Cruz unleash the heavy artillery on Trump. Rather, the question is whether he'll continue pulling his punches.
Posted Monday, February 22, 2016 4:02 PM
No comments.
Pro-Bush fundraisers helping Rubio
According to this article , Marco Rubio is already benefitting from Jeb Bush's dropping out of the race. He's benefitting because Bush's fundraising team has already started writing checks to Conservative Solutions PAC, the pro-Rubio PAC. In turn, Conservative Solutions PAC has already started running their first ad.
According to the article, a "pro-Rubio super PAC, Conservative Solutions PAC, released a new ad Monday, that cast Donald Trump as 'erratic' and Ted Cruz as 'underhanded.' Officials say it is part of a 'multimillion-dollar' campaign ahead of voting in the March 1 Super Tuesday states." The ad takes advantage of Trump's erratic facial contortions and his mocking of a handicapped reporter who told the truth about the protests Trump allegedly saw on 9/11.
Thus far, pundits have said that Trump is politically bullet-proof, that he can say whatever he wants without losing support. That's an untested theory thus far. Most of Jeb's advertising and Sen. Cruz's advertising were spent attacking Sen. Rubio. In the few times when people have attacked Trump or when Mr. Trump has spewed his conspiracy theories about 9/11 or praised Obamacare's individual mandate, Trump's numbers dropped precipitously.
This ad hits Trump where he's vulnerable. Further, it hits Sen. Cruz where he's most vulnerable:
The biggest takeaway from the ad is that the pro-Rubio PAC didn't hesitate in attacking Mr. Trump. That's a stark contrast with Sen. Cruz's habit of pulling his punches. For all of Sen. Cruz's talk about fighting the "Washington Cartel", he's been wimpy when it comes to attacking Trump. Apparently, the pro-Rubio PAC isn't wimpy.
Sen. Rubio is moving quickly to capitalize on his momentum coming out of South Carolina:
But on Sunday afternoon, Christie supporters heard from none other than Rubio. "The results we got last night in South Carolina were amazing. My opponents and the media had written us off, but we showed them." began an email from Marco Rubio for President. In the e-mail he claimed the Republican contest was now "a three man race" but acknowledged "we have a lot of work to do" and solicited donations.
With businessman Donald Trump rapidly tightening his grip with back-to-back primary wins, Rubio's shot at becoming the GOP nominee hinges on quickly accessing Republican "establishment" supporters, many of which were Christie's, who pulled the plug on his campaign after the New Hampshire primary.
It will be interesting to see if this momentum helps Sen. Rubio win some Super Tuesday primaries or if this puts a dent in Sen. Cruz's support. If it becomes clear that Sen. Cruz can't defeat Mr. Trump, things could change quickly. That doesn't mean Sen. Cruz would drop out of the race. It likely means that his support would drop.
Posted Tuesday, February 23, 2016 5:06 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Feb-16 07:53 AM
I'm no PAC, but if a PAC can characterize Trump as "erratic" and Cruz as "underhanded," I can characterize Rubio as not belonging in the deep end of the pool.
No matter how good his handlers are, his bundlers, his PACmen, still, bottom line, a lightweight. An establishment lightweight rattling his sabre. Bad news.
Rubio reminds me of Sarah Palin but with better diction and better prepped by his handlers. Yet a between the ears equivalent.
Words I'd use for Trump, "blunt," for Cruz "scary" or more gently, "dogmatic." Yet each has a better case than Rubio, who after all has said his parents fled Cuba because of Castro, but they seem to have left while Batista was in power. Come on, get serious.
What job has Rubio held besides career politician?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 23-Feb-16 08:17 AM
That's your right, Eric. You're terribly wrong but it's your right to insist that Rubio is a policy lightweight.
The truth is that he's the best-informed candidate when it comes to foreign policy/natsec.
Further, to say that Rubio is into saber-rattling is DFL spin. It doesn't have anything to do with the truth. Sen. Rubio gave a dazzling explanation of how to deal with ISIS. It included Special Forces operators, US air power & Sunni ground troops from Jordan, Iraq & Egypt.
BTW, the saber-rattling line is getting old really quick.
Comment 3 by JerryE9 at 23-Feb-16 09:52 AM
What's wrong with a little saber-rattling? Long overdue, I say, especially if you've got the cajones to swing the saber in the right direction. The current squish-in-chief can't even name the enemy.
I'm not a Rubio fan by any means, but he is a serious policy wonk and right about most of it. Cruz is a close second, and nobody knows what Trump would do, not even from what he says he would do.
Comment 4 by eric z at 24-Feb-16 08:17 AM
Gary, reflect back. How well did "Vietnamization" work?
And, if the Russians want to back Assad, what are the interests and stakes against letting them do the dirty work?
Where is there a need for US involvement? So the Saudis keep pricing oil in dollars? Is that it?
So others do dirty work Israel has no taste for since the last time Hezbollah handed a fight back to them after their last incursion into Lebanon? They have the IDF for their ambitions. Netanyahu is not appointed to set US military policy despite what Netanyahu may desire. What he and Rubio may desire.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Feb-16 12:58 AM
Eric asked "Where is there a need for US involvement?" in Syria. ISIS' HQ is in Aleppo. That's where much of their radicalization network is based. Russia doesn't care about ISIS because ISIS hasn't hit Russia. ISIS has hit us in San Bernardino. It's imperative that ISIS is stopped. The first function of government is to protect its people. That's why Syria is important.
Levin vs. Rubio, Michael Reagan
To say that Mark Levin has lost it with regards to Marco Rubio is understatement. His latest diatribe reads like the rantings of an unhinged lefty. One statement that questions Levin's state of mind starts with him saying "But Rubio has no significant accomplishments other than his election to various public offices. He has few if any accomplishments outside of politics and virtually no accomplishments in public office as a U.S. senator."
There's no question that Mr. Levin is a well-informed conservative. That doesn't mean he's always right. This time, he's terribly dishonest. Yuval Levin highlights Sen. Rubio's biggest accomplishment , saying "The answer, it seems to me, is that none of it would have happened if Rubio had not made the risk-corridor insurer bailout an issue, starting in 2013. Before that, a few health wonks on the right had raised red flags about the issue, but it wasn't until Rubio and his staff grasped its significance, insistently drew attention to it, and produced a bill to avert an insurer bailout that the issue became prominent among the priorities of Obamacare's opponents. Rubio was without question the first and most significant congressional voice on this subject, and if he hadn't done the work he did, the risk-corridor neutralization provision would not have been in last year's (or this year's) budget bill."
Unlike Sen. Cruz, who shut down the government trying to do the impossible, Sen. Rubio highlighted a provision that would have been used to bail out insurance companies, then wrote legislation that was eventually included in a major spending bill that prevents insurance company bailouts. Is Mr. Levin willing to insist that this isn't a significant accomplishment? If he's willing to deny the importance of Sen. Rubio's bailout prevention provision, then he isn't honest.
Rubio fancies himself the next Ronald Reagan. But such self-aggrandizement is unmerited.
With all due respect to Mr. Levin, who worked in the Reagan administration, I'll trust Michael Reagan's word over Levin's:
If @marcorubio beats Cruz tonight that's the win of the night....
Levin hasn't hidden the fact that he's supporting Sen. Cruz. He's certainly entitled to do that. What he isn't entitled to do, though, is use deceptive arguments to make Sen. Cruz's chief competitor look bad. I'd expect that from a Democrat. I won't tolerate that from a former member of the Reagan administration.
Posted Tuesday, February 23, 2016 7:59 AM
Comment 1 by Diane Johnson at 23-Feb-16 10:16 AM
I would think you are a Rubio supporter. I don't think President Reagan would shout liar, liar.
What postive accomplishments has Rubio made besides slandering Ted CRUZ's record and now you are doing the same to Mark Levin who is an ardent supporter of the Constitution.
As much as people want to dress Rubio up, his record doesn't match up!
Diane Johnson
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Feb-16 08:22 PM
Diane, I won't waste time on you. You either didn't read my post or you don't think that saving taxpayers literally billions of dollars each year to bail out insurance companies is an accomplishment. I suspect you're in the minority on that.
Comment 2 by eric z at 23-Feb-16 10:38 AM
Following the link, and its link re "Mark Levin," his next latest item at the site:
Mark Levin: The Rubio Campaign's Unseemly Alinsky Tactics Against Cruz
This suggests Levin has an ax to grind. Gary or readers, who is this Levin guy, and does he have a bias against Rubio? If so, why, beyond anything he chooses to write?
If he is a well known writer in "conservative" circles, I apologize for my ignorance of that. Not circles I follow; feeling the BERN and all.
And while it may be gauche to say, any websearch: "marco rubio ronald reagan" will bolster the suggestion that Rubio most surely is trying coat-tailing on the Gip. Not that Rubio'd coat-tail on John Kennedy or GHW Bush, both actual war heroes, not performers.
Comment 3 by eric z at 23-Feb-16 11:06 AM
Two quick further things. First, I read and cannot recall where, that Trump would prefer a Cruz drop-out and a final battle between him and Rubio. Is anything along those lines being published online in "conservative" media circles?
Second, WaPo published an op-ed item that might interest you, Gary, titled, "The moment of truth: We must stop Trump," by Danielle Allen, February 21. Now, Glen Taylor's Strib carries that item in EXPANDED version, headlined - subheadlined, "This is our moment of truth regarding Donald Trump - All that's required for him to win the presidency is for concerned citizens to stand aside," February 22.
Both items are online.
While much of the extended item Strib published seems condescending, simplistic, and elitist to me, this being authored by a Harvard person, it argues a coalescence upon Rubio is wisdom; to stop Trump; which appears to be your theme, Gary.
That's it. First the question, second, the info. Without links, but with the titles/sources given it should be easy to find the two op-ed items by websearch.
Trump, the bankruptcy specialist?
Donald Trump hasn't stopped telling us how great of a businessman he is. Included in Trump's schtick is his bragging about how he's making fantastic deals with the Chinese. Another part of Mr. Trump's schtick is talking about how "America doesn't win anymore" and how America will win again once he's elected president. Kevin Williamson's article is utterly devastating. Consider Williamson's article the official death of Trump's schtick.
Williamson starts by saying "Trump has a peculiar way of speaking about bankruptcy: He has a deep aversion to the word itself. He speaks of 'putting a company into a chapter' without ever answering the implicit question: 'Chapter of what? Moby-Dick?' The answer, of course, is the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, to which Trump has taken recourse at least four times over the course of his business career. The chapter in question is the famous Chapter 11, which applies to business bankruptcies. Trump proudly insists that he never has had recourse to Chapter 13, the personal bankruptcy code. This is his apparent justification for saying that he's never been bankrupt. But of course one of the purposes of Chapter 11 bankruptcy is to keep men such as Donald Trump out of Chapter 13 bankruptcy."
While that's a hard-hitting bit of truth, that isn't the information that will sting Trump the most. This is pretty damaging:
In 2004, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, a holding company for various Trump properties including the Taj Mahal and a riverboat-gambling company in Gary, Ind., went into bankruptcy, having acquired $1.8 billion in debt while raising only $130 million through an initial public stock offering. Same story: Trump had borrowed too much money, at a rate he could not afford (15 percent, in fact, which lets you know how credit-worthy the market deems Trump to be), and once again he was obliged to give up most of his ownership stake.
It's stunning to hear that Trump had to pay a 15% interest rate on anything in 2004. As Williamson said that "lets you know how credit-worthy the market deems Trump to be." (Not very!) Though that's devastating, Williamson isn't done. Here's more:
Trump's second bankruptcy came with his acquisition of New York City's Plaza Hotel. The great dealmaker did essentially the same thing with the Plaza that he had done with the Taj Mahal: He borrowed too much money at rates he could not afford.
Sensing a pattern? If not, you're a Trump supporter. It gets worse:
Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts was reorganized as Trump Entertainment Resorts . . . which promptly went bankrupt, filing for Chapter 11 protection in 2009. (That's right: Trump, who wants to be president of these United States, was in bankruptcy that recently.) Too much debt at an interest rate that he couldn't afford to pay? Check. Loss of ownership? Check. Trump and his daughter, Ivanka, both resigned from the board just before the bankruptcy filing.
The great businessman who insists he'll negotiate fantastic deals specializes in negotiating terrible deals that have led him into bankruptcy court 4 times. Each time, Mr. Trump did the same thing. He "borrowed too much money at rates he couldn't afford." Shouldn't he have figured out that he was repeating the same mistake after his second bankruptcy?
Trump, the great negotiator, didn't learn after his second bankruptcy. Trump didn't learn after his third bankruptcy. I don't know that he's learned after his fourth bankruptcy caused by "borrowing too much money at rates he couldn't afford." Rather than him campaigning on the slogan that he'll "Make America great again", shouldn't he pay attention to his businesses and keep them from going bankrupt?
Posted Tuesday, February 23, 2016 9:11 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Feb-16 10:28 AM
Gary. Thanks. That is a good link. I will follow the full item, and appreciate your excerpting.
Chapter 11 is the reorganization chapter. Chapter 7 is the liquidation chapter; where the vultures pick the bones of a completely failed venture.
A good part of a thorough history would be how/when the Chapter 11 proceedings terminated; and how/when the entity in each instance emerged from Chapter 11.
Did any shift from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7? Did debt get refinanced in instances, with healthy entities emerging? That outcome is not uncommon, although I expect that more often a Chapter 7 liquidation ensues.
Just saying: Half a loaf is better than no bread at all, if you are hungry for bread; half a story is not better than a complete one, if you hunger for facts.
Not that I have answers. But I do have questions.
Gary or readers, if you know of any online resource on the outcomes of Trump entity bankruptcies, please in a comment give a link. It would be good to know, As with a follow the money look at candidate Rubio.
Comment 2 by eric z at 24-Feb-16 08:26 AM
Gary, it's Wednesday and Trump is reported to have won in Nevada; but I have not seen turnout or percentages reported yet online. What do you and readers think of the thought that between Cruz and Rubio and their people, if Trump wins big on Super Tuesday that they form an early ticket with the one having then the higher delegate count behind Trump having first spot and the other taking second? Are the personalities fit for that kind of pragmatism? From the outside, it seems not so, but within the GOP there may be a better sense of what's attainable.
Comment 3 by eric z at 24-Feb-16 08:33 AM
The Hill reports percentages in Nevada, not turnout, with some interesting twists:
"With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Trump won with 45.91 percent of the vote, followed by Rubio with 23.85 percent and Ted Cruz with 21.38 percent.
"It was Trump's largest victory of the nominating cycle.
"Trump's win comes as he sweeps all ideological segments, according to MSNBC's exit polling. He edged out Cruz with the very conservative segment, 38 percent to Cruz's 34 percent. And he blew out the field with somewhat conservatives, of which he won 47 percent, and with moderates, of which he won 56 percent.
"He also topped Cruz among evangelical voters, winning 41 percent of that bloc.
"Trump won with Hispanic voters in Nevada, too, according to entrance polls. He won 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in MSNBC's entrance polls, compared to Rubio's 29 percent and Cruz's 18 percent.
" 'This is not a factional candidate. This is a candidate with broad appeal across the board in the Republican Party,' MSNBC analyst Steve Kornacki said as he went through the exit poll numbers."
It surely appears Super Tuesday will be the moment of reckoning for the money backing Cruz and backing Rubio. Spending to buy nothing is not an eternal commitment.
