Establishment Disloyalty Earned A Trump Candidacy

Many of my Republican friends are setting themselves on fire today. Donald Trump has now totally obliterated a field of experienced political insiders that stood opposed to him for the nomination. He did it with almost no party support and very little money or advertising. He had almost no staff and preferred large crowds and free media to attack ads and fund raisers. As he has correctly noted, his opponents spent $60M in negative advertising against him. Against all odds, he won and, he didn't just win, he crushed the field. 

The Erik Erickson wing of the Republican Party has made it clear that they will not support Donald Trump. They have rejected the judgment of the voters, their message to the Establishment, and their messenger. In other words, they will now be disloyal to the Republican Party and its nominee because, in their view, Donald Trump is not ideologically pure. What they continue to miss is the fact that it is exactly this kind of disloyalty to the electorate that gave rise to Trump in the first place.

Establishment disloyalty began in 2006 when George W. Bush took a sudden turn away from his otherwise very conservative presidency. He began legacy building with Ted Kennedy Democrats, passing massive new entitlements and educational reforms like "No Child Left Behind." Most conservative Republicans felt completely betrayed, and it only got worse. In 2008, the great Republican compromiser, John McCain, won the nomination. His campaign was obsessed with "Democrat light" arguments. He was the embodiment of the type of Republicanism that Ronald Reagan ridiculed as "pale pastels," rather than "bold colors." He refused to attack Obama, instead leaving it to the media to vet the inexperienced first term Senator; a job they did not do. 

President Obama was elected of course, and he went on to ram Obamacare through Congress. Two years later, a large group of usually silent voters began protesting. These protesters appeared at political town hall meetings and events to voice their deep concern over the sudden expansion of government. In 2010, these protesters (later called the "Tea Party") voted in huge numbers for Republicans, putting them back into power in the House. 

"Tea" stands for "taxed enough already." The principle ambition of this loose affiliation of voters was to reduce the size and scope of government. It was originally a grassroots movement made up of ordinary Americans fed up with big government. Democrats, sensing an impending disaster, began attacking the Tea Party movement as "radical." Exactly no one in the Establishment of the Republican Party came to their defense and, as a result, the Tea Party activists set their sights on Republican incumbents. As it turned out, most of the nation had grown tired of elite, establishment politics on both sides. Many incumbent Republicans lost their primaries and a small but vocal group of Tea Party Republicans made their way to Congress.

But the Empire struck back. Establishment Republicans, angry that their special little club was being invaded by ordinary Americans, began in earnest to destroy the Tea Party. They joined Democratic Party attacks on their own candidates and tarred and feathered political amateurs who made any statement perceived to be out of the mainstream. In short, the Establishment attacked its own grass root voters; voters who had loyally supported slack-jawed moderates and Republicrats for decades. It was no doubt a surprise to most of these Americans that their own party would be so disloyal to them, especially after they handed them control of the Congress. You never hear about the Tea Party anymore. The Establishment accomplished its goal. Or so they thought...

Over the course of the next four years, Republicans proceeded to do exactly nothing they had promised to do. In fact, the only thing the Republicans did was rubber stamp President Obama's huge, Omnibus Budget bills, doubling the deficit in the process. Adding insult to injury, the Republican Party shoved Mitt Romney down voters' throats in 2012. The same voices now attacking Donald Trump's conservative credentials said very little about Romney's record of liberalism, like Romneycare, gun bans, and tax increases. This time, the Tea Party stayed home on election day. Somewhere between 7 and 11 million Republican voters opted out of Establishment politics, leaving Romney to lose by 3 million votes to Obama. The Establishment should've taken the hint. They didn't. Instead of focusing on winning back the voters who stayed home, they instead began to "reach out" to every conceivable balkanized Democrat in a desperate attempt to sell ice to Eskimos. They continued to pass enormous, deficit busting budgets, and they continued to demonize ideological conservatives, libertarians, and Tea Party candidates.

It was the most pathetic misreading of the electorate since Howard Taft stole the Republican nomination from Teddy Roosevelt. In fact, the Party has been so wrong about the will of the electorate, that many Republican voters began to believe it was intentional; that, in reality, the Republicans only cared about staying in power and voters were nothing more than a fig leaf used for legitimacy.

It was always going to be the case that there was one remedy for this entrenched group of political elites who consistently ignore the will of the electorate - an outsider. And not just an anti-establishment politician, like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul. No, it had to be a true outsider, like Ben Carson or Donald Trump. Voters chose Trump.

I've had my fair share of jury trials. I've won some and lost some, but I've always accepted the judgment of the jury. One American alone may not be a genius, but if you put 12 of us together in a room, something miraculous happens. The collective intelligence of the jury, more often than not, gets it right. Any lawyer who doesn't respect that collective intelligence will fail as a trial lawyer. More importantly, however, is the fact that the jury will know if you think they're nothing more than a bunch of stupid commoners, and they will punish you for it.

Elections are really no different. The collective intelligence of the American people far exceeds that of any individual candidate or party. Accept their judgment or don't, that's your business. But remember this, America is the most powerful nation that has ever existed and it is the collective wisdom of the American people that has made it that way. The collective will of the Republican voters in this election was to disenfranchise the elites and influence peddlers. The money changers have now been thrown out of the temple, and "we the people" will start over, building a new Republican Party that listens to the electorate.

Win or lose in the general election, Trump or someone like Trump was inevitable. The Republican elites fawning over the idea of a third Bush presidency likely sealed the deal early in the process. Voters have had enough, and who can blame them? Trump now goes into the general election with a popular "America First" agenda. He will get votes from segments of the population that haven't ever voted or who have traditionally voted Democrat. Coal miners will support Trump. Manufacturing employees will support Trump. Service workers will support Trump. In fact, anyone who has been left out of the Bush/Obama/NAFTA/Wall Street/Finance/paper pusher economy is a potential Trump convert.

In the Trump election, Americans will be defined and divided on the basis of their own personal ambitions and desires, not on the basis of skin color, or ethnic group, or sexual preference. While Democrats will desperately attempt to use racial politics to divide Americans, Trump transcends group politics with a broad prosperity agenda. He will unite "Americans" by promoting an "America First" agenda. If you are an American, you will be targeted for prosperity at the expense of a Chinese in Hong Kong or an Eastern European or, yes, a Mexican working in Mexico. How will he help African Americans? He will get them jobs. Why is he good for women? Because he will get them, and their husbands, jobs. Why should hispanics vote for him? Because he will get them jobs. It is the simplest, most pure message in modern politics. We all put our pants on the same way in the morning. We all want jobs, and we all want to support our families. We all want to do just a little bit better than last year, and we all want the freedom to pursue happiness. We care about those things far more than we care about our own skin color or the skin color of our neighbors. Us married men want our wives to be happy, whether that's working or staying at home. Us fathers want our daughters to be happy, whether that's working or staying at home. We want our sons to have better opportunities than we had. Prosperity is not a theory in some old American History textbook. It is not some fantasy that is reserved for the super-rich or the elites and influence peddlers. It is real, people know it is real, and people are demanding it.

Trump is, like most messengers, imperfect. He has nevertheless dutifully carried the populist message through the primaries, earning more votes than any other Republican primary candidate in history. Unbelievably, he did it with 16 other highly qualified and popular candidates in the race. Voter turn out is 70% higher for Republicans this year than in the last cycle. Like him or hate him, his argument resonates with the jury and he should be respected for that. The worst thing that could happen to the Republican Establishment in this election has probably already happened, but it could still get worse. If they refuse to support him, or if they actively work against him and he still wins, then the Party's influence will be done for a generation. My guess is that the elites will find a way to compromise with him and his followers if for no other reason than to preserve what little influence they have left.

Fuzzy Math and Denial Shape Republican Fantasies about a Brokered Convention

There was no way he could win. He was just a clown to them, an entertainer. But, if he ran as a populist third party candidate, the Republican Party was certain he would take enough votes away from their nominee to ensure a Democratic victory. In order to avoid this catastrophe, Reince Priebus, chairman of the party, presented himself to Trump, in Trump Tower, on bended knee, seeking his signature on a "pledge." With his signature, Trump would pledge his support to the Republican Party and support "whoever" the nominee would be. Trump signed. 

Priebus was declared a genius by the Party. "What a coup," they gushed. With a signature, the Republican Party guaranteed the two party system and at the same time entitled itself to the massive energy Trump had already generated. "What a clown," they said in private, "he'll never get elected anyway."

Around the same time, Ted Cruz stood on the floor of the Senate and blasted Republican Senate leaders as "liars," "dishonest," and acting contrary to the will of the electorate. The massive Obama budget, including funding for Planned Parenthood, was being shoved through the Congress. There would be no amendments allowed. Cruz, who had just been elected by Tea Party conservatives, had seen enough. His intemperate tirade against the Establishment made him an absolute outcast within the Party. As Senator Lindsay Graham said, if Ted Cruz were "murdered" in the Senate and the trial were held there, there would be no conviction for his murderer. And Trump is the "violent" one...

Now, the clown and the outcast have more than 80% of the delegates between them. Neither is likely to have enough delegates to win the nomination outright before the convention, but should Cruz and Trump team up, they would easily crush any Establishment attempt to steal the nomination from the anti-establishment forces in the Party. Many Republican Elites are taking their medicine like champs and choosing their poison. Graham, not withstanding his desire to murder Ted Cruz, is now raising money for him and will undoubtedly vote for him over Trump. Other Elites, however, are refusing to  choose either. They are now engaged in a full throated campaign to convince voters that a "contested convention" is likely, and that it is perfectly acceptable for Trump and Cruz to lose in favor of "someone else," chosen by the delegates. It is pure fantasy and, even if it were not, the Republican Party would simply be signing its own death warrant.

The fantasy is this: Trump doesn't reach 1,237 delegates on the first ballot. Cruz doesn't reach 1,237 on the second ballot. Backroom deals are then made to float a "compromise ticket" with two Establishment Republicans. Presto! The Establishment retains its power and defeats the dark forces of the populist, Tea Party electorate.

It'll never happen. It'll never happen and dreaming about it has done nothing but destroy the eventual nominee's chances in the general election. The only "compromise ticket" we will see come out of the convention is a Trump-Cruz Anti-Establishment ticket. There is exactly zero chance that Trump or Cruz would allow the Party Elite to steal the nomination from both of them. One, maybe, but not both. 

Some self-proclaimed anti-establishment conservatives have been enlisted to promote this fantasy. Erik Erickson, who I no longer have any use for, has been all over the news promoting a brokered convention or a potential third party candidate. When asked on Fox News yesterday about Trump's claim that riots would break out if the election were stolen, he quipped something to the effect that there was a contested convention in 1860 which resulted in Abe Lincoln's nomination, "and there were no riots." Anyone with a third grade education and Google knows that Erickson is completely wrong. Abe Lincoln's nomination resulted in the succession of the Southern states and the Civl War followed shortly thereafter. 

Even if Erickson were not completely wrong about 1860, his general theory is completely contradicted by the historical record. In 1976, a weak, feckless, Establishment Republican eeked out a victory against the Goldwater conservatives. Gerald Ford won the nomination over Ronald Reagan by only a few delegates in a contested convention. And how did that work out? Ford went on to be annihilated by Jimmy Carter (the second worst President in history), and Reagan had to wait four more years. Reagan, of course, went on to be the most popular Republican President in history. Gerald Ford went on to be a punchline in Saturday Night Live skits and has the dubious distinction of being the only President who was never elected.

In 1912, the Republican Establishment nominated the failed, deeply unpopular incumbent President, Howard Taft, over populist, Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt had won 9 out of 10 primary states in landslides, including Taft's home state of Ohio. However, at the convention Party rules thwarted his campaign and Taft was renominated. Worse, many of Taft's delegates had questionable credentials and Roosevelt publicly challenged the results. His objections were ignored, and the Party Elites selected Taft. Taft only won two states in that election. Roosevelt formed the Bull-Moose Party, split the vote, and Woodrow Wilson won the election with less than 42% of the vote. 

There are other examples, but suffice it to say, that whenever the Republican Party has refused to listen to the voices of its voters, they have lost in epic fashion. In 2008, the Establishment promoted Mitt Romney as the savior of the Party and attempted to make his nomination into a coronation. Conservatives, who had not forgotten Romneycare, his support for gun control, and his tax increases in Massachusetts, gagged and began looking for "not Romney" candidates. Like the "anyone but Trump" crowd, the "anyone but Romney" wing of the party failed to coalesce around a single candidate and the Establishment spent enormous political capital painting Romney's opponents as unbalanced or unfit. Romney got the nomination and 7 million conservative white voters stayed home. Romney lost the election by 3 million votes.

I am not a Trump "fan." I did not vote for Trump (or Cruz) and I do not agree with those who believe that either man was the best candidate. However, I will enthusiastically support either man for the nomination if there is a brokered convention. That is particularly true of Trump. There is something extraordinarily offensive to me about a group of elites sitting around, mocking a candidate, gaining his loyalty under false pretenses, and then cheating him whenever their own promises become inconvenient. In fact, my feelings mimic the feelings that anti-establishment voters have for the Republican Elite. For years they have mocked their own voters and insulted their intelligence. They nevertheless gain our loyalty under false pretenses, making promises that they intend to abandon as soon as it is politically expedient to do so. Trump is simply the representative of the angry monster the Elites have created. And they will be consumed by that monster if they don't all stand on the Senate floor and slit their own throats first. Who would stop them? Certainly not Ted Cruz...

Venice, Trump, and Political Violence

Our view from the Hotel Danieli in Venice.

As many of you know, Liz and I just returned from eight days in Venice. The Venetians did not disappoint. Everyone was warm and welcoming. The views were epic and the food was truly special. However, even in Venice, while tucked away in Harry's bar enjoying a bellini, we could not escape Trump. Love him or hate him, Donald Trump has captivated global audiences with his presidential campaign. For some, it's like watching a slow motion train wreck - you know you don't want to see it, but you can't look away. For others, Trump is a serious response to decades of political elitism and unrestrained globalism. Regardless of your view of him, his political fate is now of global significance. 

As Liz and I sipped our cocktails, French President, Francois Hollande, and Italian Prime Minister, Matteo Renzi, were meeting in the Doge Palace, just 500 feet from Harry's. The streets were blocked off and there was only one way in and out of St. Mark's Square. Security was tight, but as one local told us, when President Obama traveled to Venice, the city was forced to shut down for 11 hours. Ambassador of good will, indeed. Venetians remember that day as a bad one, especially for business. In any event, part of the French delegation was dining at a table close to us. They were an eclectic group and we could tell that they were not all native French speakers. Our very excellent Italian hosts could not hide their disdain for the French delegates or the EU, Renzi, Italian taxes or the "stupid" Euro. They also exhibited genuine admiration for America and Americans. Many Venetians have lived in America and can speak from experience, especially about the difference between European micromanagement and American free enterprise. 

Enter Trump into the conversation. Everyone was curious what we Americans thought of him. He's obviously a celebrity and has 100% name recognition, even in Venice. However, unlike here at home, there wasn't a single foreigner who expressed any emotionally driven vitriol towards the man. Liz and I had at least half a dozen conversations with different people from different countries about Trump. We did not initiate these conversations, but as Americans, Europeans thought we were somehow responsible for explaining Trumpism. So, the explanation was (in as neutral a tone as possible) that Americans were fed up with "politicians" and political corruption. Americans are now looking for someone who at least sounds genuine, and has no previous tie to the Washington establishment. To a person, this explanation was an epiphany. It prompted responses like "Yes, we hate our government too," and "So Americans feel the same as us!" 

American politicians have joined the global elite over the last two decades as the line between power and wealth has completely disappeared. American politicians leave office and become extremely rich, peddling influence and political favors for money. They sit on boards of international companies with interests that are contrary to those of their own country. It's not that it hasn't always been this way, it's just that the cycle of corruption has reached a new zenith. Whether it's Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, Americans want to burn down the Washington playhouse, and it is a global sentiment.

Which brings me to the issue of political violence. To begin with, disrupting a semi-public political rally is not protected free speech. In fact, disrupting a political rally in which Secret Service protection is engaged, is a felony. The Supreme Court has long recognized time, manner and place restrictions on free speech. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, for example. When leftists like Bill Ayers use the First Amendment as an excuse to stifle others' political speech, they are doing so illegally. The Constitution recognizes both the right to speak for and the right to speak against a particular issue or candidate. No one group's right to free speech trumps another group's right to that same speech, even if their position is 100% correct or moral. When one group uses "protest" or "occupation" to stifle the free speech of another group, they have used force. Physically occupying rented space, shouting and refusing to leave is the use of physical force. When one group forcibly infringes on the Constitutional rights of another group, they should expect to be met with equal force. While violence should not be condoned or encouraged by either side, it is naive to not expect it when you trample on rights. 

For years now, we've seen violent protests erupt in urban centers over issues ranging from police brutality to economic conditions. Police have been shot, cars have been set on fire and private property has been destroyed. Part of the Trump phenomenon can be directly attributed to a large segment of the population being fed up with this kind of behavior. "Your rights are not more important that mine," has become the central theme for the silent majority, which is why Trump appears to be an irresistible force. That theme is both legally and morally correct; as correct as any theme on the left, be it racial inequality or social justice. This silent majority has managed to eviscerate 15 highly qualified, articulate, powerful Republican presidential candidates. Donald Trump is an imperfect messenger, but the message has been transmitted to the political elite in unmistakeable terms.  

This election has become one of the most interesting and important in history. Barring some kind of Establishment misconduct, a political outsider will be the Republican nominee. He will be running against Hillary Clinton, who is the embodiment of political elitism. Americans will have to choose between their rage towards the Washington Cabal or a more comfortable status quo. It's a terrible shame, frankly, that it has come to this, and I mostly blame the Republican party for ignoring the will of its voters for more than a decade. Democrats are at least partially transparent about their thirst for big government, taxes, social spending and political power. Republicans decry such things then get elected and conduct themselves in a substantially similar manner, hoping no one will notice. Hence the rise of Trump. Perhaps he's a fool and a liar. Perhaps he's not "really a true conservative." Perhaps he's going to change his positions when he's elected. But I ask you, how is that any different than what we have now?

Four Lessons Learned From Iowa

Finally, the voting has begun. The media's coronation of one candidate or another has finally given way to the Vox Populi. Voting has a remarkable impact on the outcome, doesn't it...

1.  Hillary Clinton is a Terrible Candidate.

For the second time in Hillary Clinton's political career, Iowa has humbled her. In 2008, her inevitability campaign was shattered by a little known first term Senator named Barack Hussein Obama. Senator Obama had no meaningful experience of any kind, very little money, and the unfortunate distinction of sharing his middle name with a Middle Eastern dictator we had just spent several trillion dollars deposing. 

Fast forward eight years, she is tied with a self-proclaimed socialist who wants to dismantle the signature legislation of the Obama administration. Senator Sanders favors a single-payer universal healthcare system, higher taxes, free college for all, and nearly 5 trillion dollars in new spending on social programs. He is polling somewhere around 37% nationally. Now, to be fair to Sanders, he has a double digit lead over Clinton in New Hampshire and actually beats Donald Trump in several national head to head polls. The difference between Clinton and Sanders, however, is that Clinton is a terrible candidate and Sanders is not. Democrats have to be worried about Clinton in a general election. She has an uncanny ability to take inevitability and squander it, and it's not like she's gaffe prone. She simply does not connect with voters. She actually loses votes when she campaigns which, when facing a popular Republican like Marco Rubio, would be devastating. 

2.  The Republican Establishment is Dead.

The key number from last night is not how close Trump, Cruz and Rubio were. It is how poorly the "mainstream" establishment candidates performed. Santorum, Christie, Huckabee, Kasich, and Bush earned a whopping 9.3% of the vote. Marco Rubio, who won his Senate seat by defying the Republican establishment, had the best night. He exceeded expectations in an election in which more votes were cast than in any other Republican caucus in history.

The worst night belonged to Jeb Bush. It is difficult to see a path to the nomination for him, even if Trump and Cruz were to collapse. He garnered 2.8% of the vote. To put that into perspective, Bush earned two thirds fewer votes than Ben Carson. Even if the other preferred establishment candidates dropped out, Bush would still struggle to stay in the race. He is running fourth in New Hampshire at just 10%, and it seems likely after last night that Marco Rubio will be taking votes away from him going forward. The establishment fantasy of a Bush III Presidency has now been crushed.

Voters have rejected establishment politics on both sides of the aisle. To the Republican establishment, the message is unequivocal: go away. 

3.  Organization Beats Enthusiasm and Celebrity.

One of the obvious themes of the night was that you can't win elections without getting out the vote, and getting out the vote requires a huge number of volunteers. To date, Donald Trump has been getting by on celebrity and free press. He's spent far less than every other candidate, but now it is starting to show. Were he anyone else, a second place finish with as little organization as he has would be considered an extraordinary victory. The problem for Trump is, he could have easily won had be been better organized. That gives primary voters something to think about. Will Trump lose a general election in the same fashion? Will he lose a close race to Clinton because he failed to understand the basics of political organization?

Ted Cruz won because he spent almost all of his time in Iowa, he is not competing in New Hampshire, and he had the best ground game. Marco Rubio came in a close third even though he campaigned far less. That is because, like Cruz, he has a sophisticated campaign. Trump, on the other hand, seriously hurt his own inevitability campaign by losing Iowa and nearly losing to Marco Rubio.

Trump is 20 points ahead of the field in New Hampshire and South Carolina, but those numbers will change. Now that the votes are being counted, organization is king, and Trump has no organization. As a result, he is no longer inevitable. 

4.  There is an Enthusiasm Gap Between Democrats and Republicans.

Republicans had a record night as far as participation was concerned. Democrats did not. Bernie Sanders, while interesting to Democrats, performed far below what Senator Obama did in 2008. The lack of enthusiasm stems from the perceived coronation of Hillary Clinton, who has so far failed to articulate any new vision for the country. This is a change election for both parties. Whereas the Republican voters have successfully passed the torch from the establishment, the Democrats are still arguing for the status quo. 

The Republican equivalent of this election would be if Jeb Bush was running a coronation campaign with someone like Rand Paul acting as his foil. There is no enthusiasm for another hereditary politician, on either side. That will also be the case in the general election, which seriously damages any Democratic nominee.

The Circus Leaves The Stage, Making Room For Policy Debate

Shortly after last night's Republican debate, moderator, Megyn Kelly, intimated to her audience on the Kelly File that she had two outlines for the debate - one for a debate with Trump and one without. She then went on to admit that "they were totally different," and that there could have been "two totally different debates" last night depending, of course, on Trump's presence. My question is, why? Why on Earth would Trump's mere presence change the entire nature of the debate? After all, we are electing a President. There are unresolved policy issues in this country, but they are fairly well defined. The next President will be dealing with taxes, the VA crisis, the deficit and debt, ISIS, Putin and a host of other well known issues. So why such a dramatic difference between a debate with Trump and a debate without Trump, Ms. Kelly?

Then it occurred to me. If the ring leader was willing to show up, they were ready to turn the debate into a circus, just like the last one. Rather than serious questions about foreign policy or immigration, the audience would have been titillated with questions about Trump's controversial statements about Muslims or women or Hispanics. Serious questions about policy would have been replaced with invitations to the other candidates to attack or humiliate Trump. Kelly was undoubtedly prepared to lob dozens of questions at Trump about his values, statements he's made about Kelly and others, and who knows what else. In other words, seriousness would have been replaced with the circus. 

No wonder Trump didn't show up. As an entertainer, he knows other entertainers when he sees them and, specifically, he knows it's time for Megyn Kelly to get off the stage. Two narcissists never get along, and Kelly's histrionics are damaging Fox News's reputation as a serious news organization.

Trump's absence was good for the process. Not only did it force Kelly and company to take the debate more seriously, but it also meant the end of personal attacks. Whether he is entirely to blame or not, when Trump is on the stage, a significant amount of time is spent engaged in hyperbole, insults and Trump's juvenile AMOGing. It significantly detracts from the discussion.

With Trump off the stage last night, the true depth of the Republican field became apparent. Jeb Bush had his best night. As an insider related to two Presidents, there is very little question about whether he understands the issues. The fear with Bush has always been that he will address those issues in some squishy, moderate, establishment way. There is no question, however, that he sounded supremely competent and ready to be President. 

Rubio had his best night. Despite Bush's command of the issues, Rubio's aspirational message and tone elevated him above the rest of the field. He appeared the most Presidential and addressed each issue with the language of success rather than demagoguery. Marco Rubio will be President one day.

Ted Cruz acquitted himself well in the center of the stage, but his smooth style lacks a smooth message. Cruz spends much more time reciting the facts surrounding problems than he does offering solutions. In a short answer format, like last night's debate, Cruz is cut off by the bell just as he is about to get to his point. It leaves him sounding like a complainer rather than a President with well-developed strategies for the country.

Chris Christie had his best debate. With The Donald elsewhere, Christie was able to resist his natural inclination to be overly-combative. When Christie is focused, it is easy to see why he is doing so well in the New Hampshire polls. He is an independent thinker and knows his own mind. Like most Americans, he has little patience for politicians who split hairs or use parliamentary tricks to take both sides of the same issue. His ability to call out Senators Cruz and Rubio for their lack of parliamentary transparency was very effective. 

Rand Paul also had a good night, but it is very clear by now that the libertarian wing of the Republican Party will remain nothing more than a wing. Paul is far more centrist than his father was and far more open to mainstream political solutions. Still, unfortunately, Americans are not ready to return to core Constitutional principles no matter how much they say they are. Paul is the right messenger. He has the right stage and this is the right time. The message simply is not being accepted by the voters.

Then there's Ben Carson. I think everyone appreciates having Carson in the race, but he just does not belong in the Oval Office. His answers on core policy issues are vague and seem forced or rehearsed. He is clearly not comfortable with the nuts and bolts of policy, preferring instead to stick to broad principles. Broad principles get you elected, but they will not substitute for a solid understanding of policy.

That leaves John Kasich. One day, someone somewhere will explain to me why Governor Kasich is criticized as a "moderate." I've been watching his career since he was first elected in the Republican Revolution of 1994. He has balanced nearly every budget he has ever touched. He was chairman of the budget committee in Congress and worked with Bill Clinton (yes, Bill Clinton) to balance the budget and create a surplus for the first time since before World War II. How that makes him a moderate, I'm not sure. His positions are more nuanced, but that's because he is a policy expert. He understands the details and knows exactly which buttons to press to get the desired result. Disliking John Kasich for being able to get into the weeds on these issues with Democrats is inappropriate. The Party needs men like John Kasich and I would strongly encourage people to take a closer look at his record of conservatism and success. 

What I fear most is that Republicans want nothing more than to elect a candidate who will humiliate Democrats and rub their noses in conservatism when elected. This is, of course, what Obama did to Republicans and conservatives. While turnabout is fair play, the country needs much more than it has gotten from its leaders over the past ten years. We need to raise the level of discourse in this country and at least try to reach a consensus on some of the more difficult issues we face. 

What we don't need, is a circus.

A Quick Correction

In my last post I stated that the San Bernardino attacker, Tashfeen Malik, was not interviewed before being allowed to enter the United States. A good friend of mine (who is in the know) pointed out that this was incorrect, so I did some additional research. Here is what I found.

1.  Malik was attempting to enter the United States on a K-1 "fiancé visa." She did not meet her husband in person before being allowed to enter. The initial reports were that Malik was not interviewed. This report stemmed from statements made to Congress by Leon Rodriguez, the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. According to Mr. Rodriguez: "We only interview people in the K-1 Visa program where there is some issue that needs to be explored." He also reported that Malik's application did not "raise any red flags," so he could not say whether she was interviewed.

2.  Malik was in fact interviewed. The agency official who interviewed Malik followed the standard protocol, including a mandatory interview. Malik was asked a series of questions designed to test whether she actually knew her future husband, or whether her application was a sham. She passed two additional mandatory background checks, as did her future husband.

3.  Malik was not asked about radical social media posts or her Jihadist leanings. There are two reasons for this. First, her application did not raise red flags, so no further inquiry was deemed necessary. Second, social media postings are either "off limits" or "rarely checked" for K-1 applicants, depending on which anonymous administration official is providing the story.

Final Thoughts

There is room for disagreement about whether our immigration system is robust or broken, efficient or inefficient. I am, however, less comforted after doing additional research. Rather than circumventing our immigration system as I originally stated, these terrorists actually followed the procedures to the letter (aside from lying about their intentions). That fact reminds us of the Bush era mantra: "We have to be right 100% of the time. They only have to get lucky once." There is little doubt in my mind that our brave men and women on the front lines, both here and abroad, are doing everything in their power to prevent another attack. There is little doubt in my mind that additional, likely worse attacks, have been thwarted. But, the terrorists got lucky and Americans were attacked. More Americans are likely to be attacked. If we can provide more resources and a better framework for those on the front lines, we will have a better outcome. The future of our nation depends on it.

Closed Schools are Just the Beginning

Merry Christmas. We can all rest easy now. The anonymous email, sent through secure servers in Germany, threatening to blow up schools and assault them with armed men, was a hoax. That silly school superintendent who shut down all the schools in Los Angeles overreacted. Let's move along, there is nothing to see here.

Or maybe is there...

Even a superficial analysis of last week's "hoax" should cause us to be deeply concerned. For starters, if it were not for the L.A. Superintendent closing the schools, we would never have known about the threat. Millions of parents would have sent their children to school unaware that someone was threatening to blow them to bits. Think about that for a second. When someone phones in a bomb threat to a courthouse, it is evacuated. When someone phones in a bomb threat to a school in the ordinary manner, it is evacuated. When someone says "I have a bomb" on an airplane, it is immediately diverted to the nearest airport. When someone says "bomb" in the security line at that same airport, they are tackled, arrested and detained indefinitely. Yet, when someone uses encrypted servers to threaten school children in metropolitan areas, the FBI, DHS and President keep it to themselves. Because, somehow, they were absolutely certain that it was a hoax. It's a good thing they were right. Otherwise, they would have been entirely responsible for the consequences of risking your child's life without your informed consent.

It is absurd. It is the obvious politicization of our safety and the safety of our families. Our government does not want to "cause panic" by keeping us informed. This is obviously because they think we are too childish to handle the truth about bombs, and threats, and encrypted servers and terrorists. Let us revisit the past few years.

Obama withdraws from Iraq and ISIS takes form. It rapidly spreads across the Middle East using organic messaging, social media and violence. At the same time, our borders are wide open as a mass migration from South and Central America overwhelms our border enforcement. We have no idea who came into this country or who continues to come into this country undetected. "Mass shootings," according to the left, have become commonplace. ISIS sleeper cells, communicating with the Islamic State, shoot up Charlie Hebdo in France and then, a year later, assault Paris, killing 150 people. Social media messages from the Islamic State warn that America is the real target and "blood will be spilled." Several weeks later, two Muslim terrorists who conspired to defeat our weak immigration laws, take to the streets with assault weapons, kill 14 people and wound 22. It would have been much worse but for the fact that a SWAT team just happened to be training for such an attack two miles away. We know these Jihadis were trained overseas and were waiting for the right time to strike. They sent 105 encrypted email messages to the Middle East the morning of the attack. In other words, it was planned. 

We are vulnerable and we have been for years. Only a complete idiot would choose to believe that terrorists are not, at this very moment, dreaming up new and horrifying ways to kill our children in schools, night clubs, movie theaters, shopping malls and churches. Only an idiot. The Los Angeles "hoax" has revealed to us exactly how vulnerable and unprepared we really are. The truth is, we have no idea when or where the next attack will come from. We cannot possibly say for sure whether something is a real threat or a hoax, or a serious attempt to probe our readiness. Our readiness is pretty much at level zero. 

More frighting, however, is lesson number two. Our government is still living in denial. It's one thing for our citizens to go about their daily lives with a false sense of security. It's something entirely different for our professionals and leaders to ignore the obvious and deceive our citizens into believing that we are, mostly, safe.

Let's be extra clear about this. We have been at war with Jihadism for the better part of thirty years. That conflict has certainly become more intense over the past few years, but it is not a new conflict and terrorist tactics have not changed. They will hit soft targets. They will target our loved ones because they cannot fight a traditional war. They will use dirty weapons and dirty tactics. They will personalize the fight and try to bring it right to our doorsteps. They have no moral limitations, and they can be fairly characterized as evil. It is also worth keeping in mind that they are extremely violent, having demonstrated a level of brutality not seen since the Middle Ages.

In my last post, I suggested that everyone should arm themselves and prepare for a fight. That's good advice in normal times. But, in these perilous times, where we know our government will conceal threats from us, where we have no idea where or when or what our fight will be, where the consequences of living in denial are so extreme, it is more than just a good idea. It is our patriotic duty.