The Kitten and Kittens have alighted to Florida for Spring Break, leaving me here to hold down the fort while they frolic. At some point, I may take their late planning year in and year out as some kind of conspiracy to exclude me. But I digress.
I have been master of my domain for three hours now and have made good use of the time, to include a thorough pruning of the refrigerator's dubious bounty. I have thus far been unsuccessful in locating my Director's Cut box set of the Lord of the Rings series (which I watch every time they leave me for an extended period)--so if I lent it to you, please remind me.
UVA plays UNC at 1830, which is always something to get my Irish up. The good news is the game is at home--where we seem to have some competence, Our road record this year is crappy.
There is a YUGE ribeye thawing in the kitchen, and I'll throw down some lovely eggplant on the side.
I don't want you to think that I enjoy being left alone for over a week, because well, after a few days of it, I begin to miss them.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Monday, February 22, 2016
Dispatch from the Road: Newark Airport
The United Club in Terminal C at Newark is one of the better offerings in the United system---well laid out, bright, a fine temperature...it is unfortunately, not well "wired" as we say, with electrical outlets. After searching about for a good spot, comfy chair, good light, with an outlet, I settled upon a cozy nook just above Gate C80, and just across a startlingly good looking woman wearing leather pants. While I would not normally shy from claiming to have chosen this seat due solely to her presence, I must confess it was the outlet, and thoughts of communicating with you via this blog that brought me to this place. That is my story and I am sticking to it.
I am here awaiting a flight to San Diego, after having alighted from BWI earlier today. With a three hour break here in Newark, I have already 1) eaten lunch 2) procured a new computer bag and 3) had a 20 minute chair massage (delightful). I'll need to split in about an hour, which should be plenty of time for me to bring you up to speed.
Usually, I fly directly from Dulles to San Diego--but for some reason, that flight wasn't available and so I grabbed a twoleg from BWI--less driving, but more traveling. On the way home, it is twoleg via San Francisco. The biggest problem though is that my scheduler (me) did not take into account that there would be a debate on Thursday night, so I believe my viewing will be spotty at best.
I'm headed to San Diego for my monthly trip to visit with a client and hopefully catch up with a ton of homies the Navy continues to stock for my entertainment while there. For those wondering, I am in standard travel rig--trainers, Adidas track pants, white T-shirt, UVA pullover, and blue blazer (to keep it from wrinkling). A woman at the shuttle bus at BWI this morning gave me the once over and said, "that's a great travel look---a little formal, a little relaxed." I thanked her for her good taste (take that, Tigerhawk!)
The day started with a trip to the gym, which gives me an additional 375 calories to consume...and since I skipped breakfast, I just had a nice lunch (yep--in the Newark Airport) of chicken wings and lamb meatballs. I'm hoping to catch a little shuteye on the plane, though heading west in the daytime is generally not conducive to cutting z's. I have the latest Foreign Affairs with me, and a 2002 biography of Ben Franklin that is moving along ploddingly. I am unsure of what the viewing fare is onboard,
Goodness--the woman just stood up to leave and demonstrated a full set of qualifications for the wearing of leather pants. Farewell, dear girl.
That's all for now--I hope to check in now and again.
I am here awaiting a flight to San Diego, after having alighted from BWI earlier today. With a three hour break here in Newark, I have already 1) eaten lunch 2) procured a new computer bag and 3) had a 20 minute chair massage (delightful). I'll need to split in about an hour, which should be plenty of time for me to bring you up to speed.
Usually, I fly directly from Dulles to San Diego--but for some reason, that flight wasn't available and so I grabbed a twoleg from BWI--less driving, but more traveling. On the way home, it is twoleg via San Francisco. The biggest problem though is that my scheduler (me) did not take into account that there would be a debate on Thursday night, so I believe my viewing will be spotty at best.
I'm headed to San Diego for my monthly trip to visit with a client and hopefully catch up with a ton of homies the Navy continues to stock for my entertainment while there. For those wondering, I am in standard travel rig--trainers, Adidas track pants, white T-shirt, UVA pullover, and blue blazer (to keep it from wrinkling). A woman at the shuttle bus at BWI this morning gave me the once over and said, "that's a great travel look---a little formal, a little relaxed." I thanked her for her good taste (take that, Tigerhawk!)
The day started with a trip to the gym, which gives me an additional 375 calories to consume...and since I skipped breakfast, I just had a nice lunch (yep--in the Newark Airport) of chicken wings and lamb meatballs. I'm hoping to catch a little shuteye on the plane, though heading west in the daytime is generally not conducive to cutting z's. I have the latest Foreign Affairs with me, and a 2002 biography of Ben Franklin that is moving along ploddingly. I am unsure of what the viewing fare is onboard,
Goodness--the woman just stood up to leave and demonstrated a full set of qualifications for the wearing of leather pants. Farewell, dear girl.
That's all for now--I hope to check in now and again.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
On Campaign Finance
I had a discussion the other day with a good friend of mine who is a heavy hitter in the "centrist" Democrat realm, an official at a moderate, left of center think tank. We had this chat over lunch, and at one point, we began talking about campaign finance, mostly on the Presidential level. I repeated my standard, "unlimited contributions from individuals, with 100% transparency." In what in retrospect, I now see as a potentially brilliant codicil to this approach, he said, "sure--but every penny raised in a State has to be spent in that State". I asked him to elaborate on this and here's what he said:
1. It reinforces federalism, something the framers drove into the Constitution but which has been chipped away at over the past two centuries. That this would come from a committed Democrat was mind-bending and reassuring.
2. He acknowledged the "free-speech" problems with this approach, but then offered that ALL campaign finance law abridges free speech in some ways, but this way does so less than others (at least in theory"
3. His answer to the "rich guys buying elections" charge boils down to this: take whatever party's big dollar donor evil doer that you want--they get to spend the hell out of themselves--on activities in ONE STATE. At most, they "buy" two Senators and one state for a President--if that's the way you want this to be viewed. This means the Koch Brothers essentially could buy....Kansas.
There is much to be considered here. What do you think about this? I am really intrigued by it.
1. It reinforces federalism, something the framers drove into the Constitution but which has been chipped away at over the past two centuries. That this would come from a committed Democrat was mind-bending and reassuring.
2. He acknowledged the "free-speech" problems with this approach, but then offered that ALL campaign finance law abridges free speech in some ways, but this way does so less than others (at least in theory"
3. His answer to the "rich guys buying elections" charge boils down to this: take whatever party's big dollar donor evil doer that you want--they get to spend the hell out of themselves--on activities in ONE STATE. At most, they "buy" two Senators and one state for a President--if that's the way you want this to be viewed. This means the Koch Brothers essentially could buy....Kansas.
There is much to be considered here. What do you think about this? I am really intrigued by it.
Sunday, February 14, 2016
Why the Senate Should Not Confirm A Scalia Replacement
Antonin Scalia's death yesterday has thrown kerosene onto an already raging political fire associated with the ongoing Presidential nomination processes. Justice Scalia had barely begun repose before opinions began to fly about his replacement and or whether the Republican Senate would advance an Obama nomination. I am of the opinion that both branches of government involved in this process should do their jobs. And by that, I mean the President should nominate a replacement when he has arrived at a suitable choice, and then the Senate should take up the nomination and consider it. That consideration certainly does not mean that Obama's choice should be confirmed. Nor does it mean that Obama's choice should even get a vote. It means that the Senate should do its job and consider the nomination.
There is all manner of discussion on the web about precedent for and against nominating and confirming. I urge you to read these discussions and reach your own decisions on whether they bear on the questions at hand. I personally give little weight to them, as I--like Scalia--am a bit of an originalist when it comes to the Constitution, and so it is here that I will look for my cues. So let us have a look at Article II, Section 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America:
"The President] shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
There are at least two important aspects to this clause. The first is that the clause specifically cites the process for replacing Supreme Court "judges"--in that the President "shall" nominate and "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" they will be placed in office. The second important aspect of this clause is that the framers clearly understood that there would be inferior "Officers" "as they think proper" that the President, the Courts of Law, or the Heads of Departments can appoint without Senate approval.
Why would they do this? They did this because they recognized that there was a matter of relative importance between and among the various officials that would be appointed by a President, and they placed Supreme Court vacancies in the category that created the highest burden, one of nomination AND confirmation. I cite this as a method of indicating my sense that the framers considered these nominations to be of utmost importance.
Additionally, keep in mind that the framers chose that the "advice and consent" duty be assigned to the Senate, not the House. They saw the Senate as a place of deliberation, where the passions of the people as expressed in their representatives in the House would be cooled. The relative size of the bodies is immaterial in this choice; what was important was their view that the Senate (which was then made up of people appointed by the legislatures of the several states) would act in a manner so as to tamp down political passion in the hopes that better governance would result.
And so we find ourselves today with yet another example of the genius of our Founding Fathers. We are in the midst of a particularly passionate Presidential election, in which both parties are split and insurgent forces within each are threatening to bring forward candidates who dramatically challenge the status quo. Into this volatile mix enters the death of the single most important conservative jurist in our nation's history, with the responsibility of his replacement's nomination belonging to a decidedly non-conservative President. Additionally, 18 months ago, the American people dealt that President's power and authority a stunning blow by turning over control of the Senate to the nation's conservative leaning party. The court that the replacement will join is one that has been involved in ever-increasing political turmoil in the recent past.
If ever there were a time for the cooling, deliberate, consideration of the Senate, this is it. Clearly the Framers believed Supreme Court Nominees to be important enough for Congressional review. Clearly the Framers believed that Congressional review would be best accomplished in its more deliberative body, the Senate. And clearly--and this must not be forgotten--the Framers did not understand that review to be a rubber stamp--especially where explosive political issues are at stake.
A liberal President nominating to fill the vacancy of a conservative justice in the midst of an increasingly harsh political dynamic associated with a Presidential election--wherein the balance of the court that has existed to this point would be dramatically upended AS A POLITICAL MATTER--rises to the occasion of the kind of situation that calls for the deliberate political branch to exert its power and authority. And by this, I mean that if it as a body, believes that it is better to give the President's nominee a hearing and confirm this person, it should do that. If it believes that it is better to give the President's nominee a hearing and decline it, it should do that. And if it believes that it is better not to give the President's nominee a hearing at all, it should do that.
My guess is that the governing party in the Senate will not give the President's nominee a hearing, and that is ok. Additionally, if the President wishes to make a "recess appointment" to the Supreme Court--a highly controversial measure in and of itself--I would have no issue with this. Such a nominee would serve for a year and then would be replaced by a nominee of the next President.
We can spend all our time relitigating the past where judicial nominees of both parties were held up for extended periods of time in the Senate. Or we can relitigate instances in our history where circumstances resembling what we have today arise. In neither case will one be satisfied, because there are sins enough on both sides for which to be accounted.
Or we can do as I suggest...let the process play out as our Framers intended. What they did not intend was rubber stamping in the name of political expedience.
There is all manner of discussion on the web about precedent for and against nominating and confirming. I urge you to read these discussions and reach your own decisions on whether they bear on the questions at hand. I personally give little weight to them, as I--like Scalia--am a bit of an originalist when it comes to the Constitution, and so it is here that I will look for my cues. So let us have a look at Article II, Section 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America:
"The President] shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
There are at least two important aspects to this clause. The first is that the clause specifically cites the process for replacing Supreme Court "judges"--in that the President "shall" nominate and "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" they will be placed in office. The second important aspect of this clause is that the framers clearly understood that there would be inferior "Officers" "as they think proper" that the President, the Courts of Law, or the Heads of Departments can appoint without Senate approval.
Why would they do this? They did this because they recognized that there was a matter of relative importance between and among the various officials that would be appointed by a President, and they placed Supreme Court vacancies in the category that created the highest burden, one of nomination AND confirmation. I cite this as a method of indicating my sense that the framers considered these nominations to be of utmost importance.
Additionally, keep in mind that the framers chose that the "advice and consent" duty be assigned to the Senate, not the House. They saw the Senate as a place of deliberation, where the passions of the people as expressed in their representatives in the House would be cooled. The relative size of the bodies is immaterial in this choice; what was important was their view that the Senate (which was then made up of people appointed by the legislatures of the several states) would act in a manner so as to tamp down political passion in the hopes that better governance would result.
And so we find ourselves today with yet another example of the genius of our Founding Fathers. We are in the midst of a particularly passionate Presidential election, in which both parties are split and insurgent forces within each are threatening to bring forward candidates who dramatically challenge the status quo. Into this volatile mix enters the death of the single most important conservative jurist in our nation's history, with the responsibility of his replacement's nomination belonging to a decidedly non-conservative President. Additionally, 18 months ago, the American people dealt that President's power and authority a stunning blow by turning over control of the Senate to the nation's conservative leaning party. The court that the replacement will join is one that has been involved in ever-increasing political turmoil in the recent past.
If ever there were a time for the cooling, deliberate, consideration of the Senate, this is it. Clearly the Framers believed Supreme Court Nominees to be important enough for Congressional review. Clearly the Framers believed that Congressional review would be best accomplished in its more deliberative body, the Senate. And clearly--and this must not be forgotten--the Framers did not understand that review to be a rubber stamp--especially where explosive political issues are at stake.
A liberal President nominating to fill the vacancy of a conservative justice in the midst of an increasingly harsh political dynamic associated with a Presidential election--wherein the balance of the court that has existed to this point would be dramatically upended AS A POLITICAL MATTER--rises to the occasion of the kind of situation that calls for the deliberate political branch to exert its power and authority. And by this, I mean that if it as a body, believes that it is better to give the President's nominee a hearing and confirm this person, it should do that. If it believes that it is better to give the President's nominee a hearing and decline it, it should do that. And if it believes that it is better not to give the President's nominee a hearing at all, it should do that.
My guess is that the governing party in the Senate will not give the President's nominee a hearing, and that is ok. Additionally, if the President wishes to make a "recess appointment" to the Supreme Court--a highly controversial measure in and of itself--I would have no issue with this. Such a nominee would serve for a year and then would be replaced by a nominee of the next President.
We can spend all our time relitigating the past where judicial nominees of both parties were held up for extended periods of time in the Senate. Or we can relitigate instances in our history where circumstances resembling what we have today arise. In neither case will one be satisfied, because there are sins enough on both sides for which to be accounted.
Or we can do as I suggest...let the process play out as our Framers intended. What they did not intend was rubber stamping in the name of political expedience.
Sunday, February 7, 2016
The Day After
When I went to sleep last night, I was in a foul temper, and I hoped that I would wake in the morning with less of it. This was a vain hope. I am sitting with Craig in his living room surveying the damage from Marco Rubio's performance last night, and it isn't pretty.
There were three really horrible things about his exchange with Christie. First, was the substance. What he said was absolutely correct. Barack Obama's actions as President are not born of his "inexperience"--they are born of his irresponsible desire to remake America. But the way he put it was too subtle, too nuanced, to unclear. The second thing wrong with it was the repetition, as if repeating the same damn thing multiple times was going to clear it up. Finally--the repetition completely and utterly confirmed the charge that was being made against him in the first place, that he repeated talking points.
Such a missed opportunity. Rubio could have made his point more clearly. Then, he could have said, "Chris, how many times are we going to hear about you being a prosecutor? How many times are we going to hear your 9-11 tale? How many times are we going to hear your theory of Governors vs. Senators? Your entire line of attack here is a repetition of what you've been saying all week on the campaign trail--surprise, surprise, politicians repeat important messages."
So, I'm calling an audible today. I'm going to spend the day reading reaction and watching how Marco Rubio handles all of this. It is indisputable that he got his act together on the stage last night--his performance in the final 2/3 of the debate was up to his usual standards. But today, I need to see him under pressure--how he reacts to a setback. This is his Romney tax return 2012 moment--his Obama 2008 guns and clingers moment--I need to see how his campaign find a way to communicate their reaction.
Here is what I want to hear: "It clearly wasn't my finest moment. Chris is a skilled prosecutor--and someone I'd love to see as Attorney General. I knew the attack was coming and I simply overthought it. But the essential truth of what I was trying to say remains the same---our country is in the shape it is not because Barack Obama was inexperienced, but because he was successful in getting terrible policies passed in Congress and when he couldn't, through his unconstitutional use of Presidential Power. I hope the good people of New Hampshire will look past a regrettably human moment."
We'll see how it goes.
There were three really horrible things about his exchange with Christie. First, was the substance. What he said was absolutely correct. Barack Obama's actions as President are not born of his "inexperience"--they are born of his irresponsible desire to remake America. But the way he put it was too subtle, too nuanced, to unclear. The second thing wrong with it was the repetition, as if repeating the same damn thing multiple times was going to clear it up. Finally--the repetition completely and utterly confirmed the charge that was being made against him in the first place, that he repeated talking points.
Such a missed opportunity. Rubio could have made his point more clearly. Then, he could have said, "Chris, how many times are we going to hear about you being a prosecutor? How many times are we going to hear your 9-11 tale? How many times are we going to hear your theory of Governors vs. Senators? Your entire line of attack here is a repetition of what you've been saying all week on the campaign trail--surprise, surprise, politicians repeat important messages."
So, I'm calling an audible today. I'm going to spend the day reading reaction and watching how Marco Rubio handles all of this. It is indisputable that he got his act together on the stage last night--his performance in the final 2/3 of the debate was up to his usual standards. But today, I need to see him under pressure--how he reacts to a setback. This is his Romney tax return 2012 moment--his Obama 2008 guns and clingers moment--I need to see how his campaign find a way to communicate their reaction.
Here is what I want to hear: "It clearly wasn't my finest moment. Chris is a skilled prosecutor--and someone I'd love to see as Attorney General. I knew the attack was coming and I simply overthought it. But the essential truth of what I was trying to say remains the same---our country is in the shape it is not because Barack Obama was inexperienced, but because he was successful in getting terrible policies passed in Congress and when he couldn't, through his unconstitutional use of Presidential Power. I hope the good people of New Hampshire will look past a regrettably human moment."
We'll see how it goes.
On Drafting Our Daughters
There is a good bit of chatter this morning about the question posed to Marco Rubio (and then several other candidates) as to whether registering for the draft should be something required of our 18 year old daughters as well as our sons. Apparently, much of conservative-world doesn't like the idea. My question however is, what would you have them say?
For much of the past ten years, most military occupations were open to women. In the Obama Administration, every single job has been opened. There are of course, official pronouncements of standards being protected, but just as predictable are the "studies" that attend this conversation with findings that the standards are somehow misaligned with the needs of the modern battlefield, etc. etc.
So...we have a military in which all jobs are open to both men and women. It is an all-volunteer force, but it is a gender neutral all volunteer force, primarily as a result of the pressure of interest groups to knock down barriers. Ok. They won. The barriers are gone.
So now what? We have a selective service system that enables a draft. It is not itself, a draft. It is a way of keeping track of those people eligible to serve in the military in time of great national emergency. As bad as things are, we are not now in a great national emergency. But if such a time comes--why wouldn't women be required to serve? Just because someone might not WANT to serve is insufficient reason to exclude them.
In order for a candidate to be consistent on the issue, he would have had to say "I think we have made a grave mistake in opening the combat arms to women. I think that the national security of the United States is diminished by this act. We should reverse it and return to the status quo ante, with women excluded from the combat arms." And while this may be an attractive proposition to some conservatives, it is electoral death. You simply cannot--as a political matter--put the toothpaste back in the tube without coming off as decidedly "anti-woman".
All of the candidates need to work on their answer to this question. They need to reassure Americans that the draft is a sign of intense trouble, and that we would all need to do our part--while simultaneously using the opportunity to reinforce the importance of the all volunteer force AND our great obligation to provide it with the best training and equipment in the world. Then, move on.
For much of the past ten years, most military occupations were open to women. In the Obama Administration, every single job has been opened. There are of course, official pronouncements of standards being protected, but just as predictable are the "studies" that attend this conversation with findings that the standards are somehow misaligned with the needs of the modern battlefield, etc. etc.
So...we have a military in which all jobs are open to both men and women. It is an all-volunteer force, but it is a gender neutral all volunteer force, primarily as a result of the pressure of interest groups to knock down barriers. Ok. They won. The barriers are gone.
So now what? We have a selective service system that enables a draft. It is not itself, a draft. It is a way of keeping track of those people eligible to serve in the military in time of great national emergency. As bad as things are, we are not now in a great national emergency. But if such a time comes--why wouldn't women be required to serve? Just because someone might not WANT to serve is insufficient reason to exclude them.
In order for a candidate to be consistent on the issue, he would have had to say "I think we have made a grave mistake in opening the combat arms to women. I think that the national security of the United States is diminished by this act. We should reverse it and return to the status quo ante, with women excluded from the combat arms." And while this may be an attractive proposition to some conservatives, it is electoral death. You simply cannot--as a political matter--put the toothpaste back in the tube without coming off as decidedly "anti-woman".
All of the candidates need to work on their answer to this question. They need to reassure Americans that the draft is a sign of intense trouble, and that we would all need to do our part--while simultaneously using the opportunity to reinforce the importance of the all volunteer force AND our great obligation to provide it with the best training and equipment in the world. Then, move on.
Friday, February 5, 2016
New Hampshire Bound!
I am sitting at the Southwest Terminal at BWI forty five minutes before boarding the plane to Manchester, NH. It looks like a relatively short flight, and the East Coast weather seems to be cooperating.
I arrive around 1145, will pick up my rental 4WD SUV, grab a bite of lunch and then head over to Rubio HQ to check in with the volunteer coordinators and get my assignment for the day.
I anticipate one of the following: call center duty, door to door canvassing, or general firefighting. I make this prediction based on zero real experience in this sort of thing. Four years ago, I helped out at Romney HQ in Des Moines, but he wasn't there, it wasn't a primary (the straw poll had just happened) and it wasn't all that interesting.
I figured that there would be some media folks and or other political types here in the the departure lounge, but I don't see anyone I recognize. There are a few hyped up college kids about, who I suspect are feeling the Bern.
This trip is a double pleasure, for in addition to the volunteering, I am bunking with my oldest Navy friend from actual active duty service. Craig was the First LT on my very first ship, and he had a year's experience on me--which at that point in a career, was the same as twenty. I knew nothing...he knew everything. His Boatswain's Mates idolized him, as did the other JO's. He opened up his home in Virginia Beach to me (he and his two roomies, who are to this day my second and third oldest friends in the Navy!
The schedule is very fluid--I'll slip out of HQ sometime later today to join Craig and his family for dinner, work all day Saturday and then do a National Review Party/Debate Watching event, and then work Sunday until the Super Bowl. Snow rolls in Monday and Tuesday, which is why I rented the beast of a vehicle that I did--perhaps I will be of more use once the weather comes.
Tuesday is game day, Tuesday night is the victory celebration, and then I fly home Wednesday afternoon. I will do my damnest to keep you--dear readers--well informed as to my thoughts and meandering travels.
I arrive around 1145, will pick up my rental 4WD SUV, grab a bite of lunch and then head over to Rubio HQ to check in with the volunteer coordinators and get my assignment for the day.
I anticipate one of the following: call center duty, door to door canvassing, or general firefighting. I make this prediction based on zero real experience in this sort of thing. Four years ago, I helped out at Romney HQ in Des Moines, but he wasn't there, it wasn't a primary (the straw poll had just happened) and it wasn't all that interesting.
I figured that there would be some media folks and or other political types here in the the departure lounge, but I don't see anyone I recognize. There are a few hyped up college kids about, who I suspect are feeling the Bern.
This trip is a double pleasure, for in addition to the volunteering, I am bunking with my oldest Navy friend from actual active duty service. Craig was the First LT on my very first ship, and he had a year's experience on me--which at that point in a career, was the same as twenty. I knew nothing...he knew everything. His Boatswain's Mates idolized him, as did the other JO's. He opened up his home in Virginia Beach to me (he and his two roomies, who are to this day my second and third oldest friends in the Navy!
The schedule is very fluid--I'll slip out of HQ sometime later today to join Craig and his family for dinner, work all day Saturday and then do a National Review Party/Debate Watching event, and then work Sunday until the Super Bowl. Snow rolls in Monday and Tuesday, which is why I rented the beast of a vehicle that I did--perhaps I will be of more use once the weather comes.
Tuesday is game day, Tuesday night is the victory celebration, and then I fly home Wednesday afternoon. I will do my damnest to keep you--dear readers--well informed as to my thoughts and meandering travels.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Marcomentum! Donate to the CW Rubio for President Campaign
Friends--as you can see from the returns in Iowa last night--Marco Rubio's message of American greatness, core conservative values, and economic growth is resonating! Things are going to get hot now as The Donald wakes to the Rubio challenge, while Jeb's superPac continues to pour good money after bad to try and take Marco down.
Please consider a donation to the Rubio for President Campaign! Double click the Marco Rubio flier on the right side of the blog page and it will take you directly to where you can make an online donation.
It's time, folks! Let's work hard to earn this nomination and then get onto the business of winning in November!
UPDATE: Well folks, we've raised $13,407 so far, way ahead of our Romney 2012 effort--and there's talk of a primary max donor out there ready to stroke a check. Remember, anything you can do helps!
Please consider a donation to the Rubio for President Campaign! Double click the Marco Rubio flier on the right side of the blog page and it will take you directly to where you can make an online donation.
It's time, folks! Let's work hard to earn this nomination and then get onto the business of winning in November!
UPDATE: Well folks, we've raised $13,407 so far, way ahead of our Romney 2012 effort--and there's talk of a primary max donor out there ready to stroke a check. Remember, anything you can do helps!
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Send in the Hammer
 |
| Not me but it's such a great photo I had to use it. |
My campaign efforts have amounted to setting up a Facebook page and Twitter account and writing letters to the local fish-wrap. But I seem to be ruffling a few feathers as I dig deeper into the local's bidnez. As most of us here I take an interest in politics that is top down orientated. Ask me an opinion on a national issue and I'll drone on for hours (especially if I'm drunk). State politics? What Ronnie Van Zant said about love applies to what I know about state government "I know a little... and baby I can guess the rest". MAYBE I would add.
But LOCAL politics? I know NUTHING! I am learning though. You actually wouldn't believe it, well you might. I always knew the locals were gaming the system. I knew it but I figured it's small potatoes compared to the majors. But if you multiply this times a thousand, or more like a hundred thousand and well, one comes to realize that the majors ain't the majors. These local grifters are doing as much or even more damage that the big boys in DC.
Just by way of example, the amount of money some of these farmers get for doing jack-shit is really incredible. Around here there are a handful of big landowners and if you look at the USDA database they get get 80-90% of the farm handouts from the feds. Look back over twenty years and all the names are much the same. Look at the names and then look at the local politicians and they're all the same families. It's like the European aristocracy of old: oldest son gets the estate, middle son joins the military or goes into politics, youngest son goes in the clergy. Talk about establishment? Their tentacles are everywhere. Peel back the layers and start putting the puzzle pieces together and it's a little disconcerting no matter how cynical you may be.
Also another huge avenue for corruption is "economic incentives". We just had a situation where a European drug company got $150-$200 million dollars in tax relief and cash, and the deal was negotiated by the local "economic development board" and get this, the State Economic Developers Association. Two North Carolina entities were cutting deals with each other for the benefit of a Danish multinational. As the end of the day all sides were grinning like a mule eating briars. Somebody, everybody got a nice payday courtesy of the local tax base. The losers in this rigged game? The taxpayers of the State of North Carolina and the citizens of the county who will have higher taxes to make up for it all.
As you might imagine, putting me together with entrenched, bucktoothed knots-heads intent on keeping the cash flowing has turned into a somewhat volatile situation. But I am quickly becoming an underground celebrity. Here's an email I received today from an anonymous source.
You do realize the piece in the paper today by XXXXXX is a reflection of who XXXXXXX really is. XXXXXXX is as big of yellow dog Democrat as there is in the county. XXXXXXX continually affiliated himself with them all the time because he was a big D until it was politically smart to be a Republican in the county. All the Democrat mayors are for him as well. Keep pounding as the Panthers say. XXXXXX is bad news and you nailed him with the truth. Good luck and I will be voting for you.
There is stuff like this, so I'm not giving up. Plus I live for all this. I love going toe to toe with an arrogant dickhead. I love being underestimated. I LOVE it when some jerk who thinks I'm a bug on the wall gets his ass handed to him by little ole me! I adore it! It's like Ali standing over Sonny Liston or Namath running off the field holding up #1. It's a bunch of kids beating the Red Army team in 1980. It's the thrill, the rush, it's what Patton talked about "loving so" (at least in the movie). I'm having a lot of fun regardless of what happens.
However, if I go missing or am killed by a robber in the parking lot of Wally World (or ABC Store) or struck by lightening, you'll know the reason why. For the record, CW I leave you my books and I leave your brother Jimbo my LP collection. Everybody needs a good copy of Second Helping.
Friday, January 29, 2016
Leaving New Orleans at a Bad Time
I am sitting in the New Orleans airport, only minutes after having my fourth "TSA Pre is closed" security check in the last eight flights. Just what it is I paid for to receive is increasingly up for conjecture. There does appear to be some correlation between standard human meal times and the likelihood of closure, which seems to me--given that people fly during these times--that the staffing plan should account for this. I of course fired off a tweet to @TSA, and I imagine I will shortly wind up on the no-fly list.
I have been in New Orleans for a couple of days. Originally, this was a trip with two purposes. The first (and surviving) was to spend half a day with the Midshipmen of the Tulane University NROTC Unit at the invitation of their CO--CAPT Patrick Huete--shipmate from days gone by. This half day of labor (yesterday morning) was pure wonderfulness, as I got to talk to the future of the Navy about the future of the Navy. They had a lot of good questions, and I am satisfied the country remains in good hands. Here's a shot of the Battalion just before I began to talk.
The second reason I was here was to look in on a little investment I have in New Orleans, but the gent who runs it had some emergent travel and we weren't able to meet. However, our past meetings here had led to my discovery of a little Cajun/Soul Food gem called Lil Dizzy's Cafe, where I met another friend (DC transplant) for a ridiculous lunch.
What I've come to discover since arriving here is that my timing--as New Orleans goes, is horrible. Apparently, Carnival swings into gear TODAY, and from the looks of the folks arriving at the airport, there is a festive mood awakening. I am not yet sold in New Orleans, though it is growing on me. I don't think I could ever get into Mardi Gras much, as I don't drink and this seems an essential part of the thrill. The other part though, is to actually belong to a "Krewe", which is from what I can tell, a rather exclusive club. Many Krewe's are ancient generational, and they march in particular parades on certain days. All of this I think, becomes far more important to one who grows up bathed in the pageantry. My boy Patrick has pushed New Orleans for as long as I've known him. Being here with him--the town he has come home to--was a great experience. We were talking in the car on the way to dinner Wednesday night (Crescent City Steaks) about how when you ask someone in New Orleans where they went to school, the answer is your high school. No one cares where you went to college--but your high school is destiny. As soon as we walked into the restaurant, standing there at the bar was a dude Patrick recognized from his high school, a year senior. A few members of the class were gathering for dinner to discuss the year end of their annual charity project, in which they provide hundreds of Turkeys to needy New Orleans families. A handful of dudes strolled in and Patrick knew them all.
I have no place like this. I think having one would be nice--but I don't think I require it. Perhaps I'm just not that social.
Your next trip, stay at Le Pavillon Hotel. It is haunted, and it serves a PB&J bar (I declined) at 2200 hrs. each night. It is a grand hotel, wonderfully appointed, unbelievably comfy beds, and reasonably priced.
I have been in New Orleans for a couple of days. Originally, this was a trip with two purposes. The first (and surviving) was to spend half a day with the Midshipmen of the Tulane University NROTC Unit at the invitation of their CO--CAPT Patrick Huete--shipmate from days gone by. This half day of labor (yesterday morning) was pure wonderfulness, as I got to talk to the future of the Navy about the future of the Navy. They had a lot of good questions, and I am satisfied the country remains in good hands. Here's a shot of the Battalion just before I began to talk.
The second reason I was here was to look in on a little investment I have in New Orleans, but the gent who runs it had some emergent travel and we weren't able to meet. However, our past meetings here had led to my discovery of a little Cajun/Soul Food gem called Lil Dizzy's Cafe, where I met another friend (DC transplant) for a ridiculous lunch.
What I've come to discover since arriving here is that my timing--as New Orleans goes, is horrible. Apparently, Carnival swings into gear TODAY, and from the looks of the folks arriving at the airport, there is a festive mood awakening. I am not yet sold in New Orleans, though it is growing on me. I don't think I could ever get into Mardi Gras much, as I don't drink and this seems an essential part of the thrill. The other part though, is to actually belong to a "Krewe", which is from what I can tell, a rather exclusive club. Many Krewe's are ancient generational, and they march in particular parades on certain days. All of this I think, becomes far more important to one who grows up bathed in the pageantry. My boy Patrick has pushed New Orleans for as long as I've known him. Being here with him--the town he has come home to--was a great experience. We were talking in the car on the way to dinner Wednesday night (Crescent City Steaks) about how when you ask someone in New Orleans where they went to school, the answer is your high school. No one cares where you went to college--but your high school is destiny. As soon as we walked into the restaurant, standing there at the bar was a dude Patrick recognized from his high school, a year senior. A few members of the class were gathering for dinner to discuss the year end of their annual charity project, in which they provide hundreds of Turkeys to needy New Orleans families. A handful of dudes strolled in and Patrick knew them all.
I have no place like this. I think having one would be nice--but I don't think I require it. Perhaps I'm just not that social.
Your next trip, stay at Le Pavillon Hotel. It is haunted, and it serves a PB&J bar (I declined) at 2200 hrs. each night. It is a grand hotel, wonderfully appointed, unbelievably comfy beds, and reasonably priced.
Saturday, January 23, 2016
On the Great Eastern Blizzard of 2016
In Dr. Stewart's "Physics of the Atmosphere" class in college (I think that is what it was called--he was an old bull in the physics department who had an interest in weather, and so he called what was essentially a meteorology class "physics") we were all charged with a fifteen page paper, and I chose to write on the subject of "Great Eastern American Snowstorms", one of which included Thomas Jefferson's wedding night blizzard in 1772 (I think was the year). Apparently, nearly three feet fell in that great storm. Of note, Kurt Schick (funniest dude at UVA at the time) wrote a paper called "A Case of the Winds", a title that still makes me giggle, my potty humor fancy tickled. I wonder whether this storm will come to be included in some future writer's rundown.
All four of us are here, hunkered down on the farm, as it is "post-exams winter break" at school for Kitten #2. We are well prepared for things, what with a full larder, warm clothes, and for the time being, the means to binge watch various things on TV. I cooked the hungry Kittens an 8 pound oven stuffer roaster last night, and that bird was indeed tasty. It's leavings-along with a sacrificial rotisserie bird from Giant--were turned into The Kitten's famous chicken stew last night whilst we watched a movie. Pretty homey little scene.
As I was saying, we are well prepared. For what, you may ask? To sit around in a warm house and not interact with the elements in any way, shape or form until they have begun to behave themselves. I truly have no real need to drive my car until Wednesday, at which point the higher temps would have served to melt much of the snow. But--no plan survives contact with the enemy.
You see, just across the farm is the home of The Kitten's mother--and she has three wild Labrabeasts that she pays some dude to watch for her while she is gone--and she is in South Carolina for an extended period. That dude and The Kitten spoke yesterday, and it seems the care and feeding of these animals passed unto her in preparation for the coming storm. I knew this, as she last night assigned each of the Kittens to be her companion on these outings in the AM and PM. And so, after awaking and a bit of coffee, The Kitten began the elaborate ritual of robing for the elements, to include several trips back and forth in front of me as I sat on the couch rattling away at my laptop in PJ's and warm slippers. You know. Executing the plan AS FRAGGED.
Just after they left, a debate began raging on Facebook after a friend asked the logical question of when to shovel--now or when it is all done. Of course I had already made that decision, but was unnerved when friends whose judgment I trust--one of whom used to be a CANADIAN for Chrissake--advocated the little bit at a time method. Added to this discontinuous signalling was of course, the growing sense of guilt that my woman was out braving the elements whilst I farted around on Facebook. And so, killing two birds with one stone, I took to the stoops with my trusty shovel and began to clear one-shovel wide paths. Truth be told, I felt exhilarated by the process--I was bundled up warm and the snow was an easy shovel. I believe the Kitten was so flabbergasted at seeing me so engaged, that she stopped at the end of the driveway to capture the moment on pixels.
I will venture out again before the sun sets to hit the stoops once more. But in the meantime, I shall sit here on the couch in my bedroom and enjoy the toasty warmth of the pound of flesh taken out of me in renovating this house five years ago. It really is a wonderful place to live--especially when the wind is howling and the snow falls east/west.
All four of us are here, hunkered down on the farm, as it is "post-exams winter break" at school for Kitten #2. We are well prepared for things, what with a full larder, warm clothes, and for the time being, the means to binge watch various things on TV. I cooked the hungry Kittens an 8 pound oven stuffer roaster last night, and that bird was indeed tasty. It's leavings-along with a sacrificial rotisserie bird from Giant--were turned into The Kitten's famous chicken stew last night whilst we watched a movie. Pretty homey little scene.
As I was saying, we are well prepared. For what, you may ask? To sit around in a warm house and not interact with the elements in any way, shape or form until they have begun to behave themselves. I truly have no real need to drive my car until Wednesday, at which point the higher temps would have served to melt much of the snow. But--no plan survives contact with the enemy.
You see, just across the farm is the home of The Kitten's mother--and she has three wild Labrabeasts that she pays some dude to watch for her while she is gone--and she is in South Carolina for an extended period. That dude and The Kitten spoke yesterday, and it seems the care and feeding of these animals passed unto her in preparation for the coming storm. I knew this, as she last night assigned each of the Kittens to be her companion on these outings in the AM and PM. And so, after awaking and a bit of coffee, The Kitten began the elaborate ritual of robing for the elements, to include several trips back and forth in front of me as I sat on the couch rattling away at my laptop in PJ's and warm slippers. You know. Executing the plan AS FRAGGED. Just after they left, a debate began raging on Facebook after a friend asked the logical question of when to shovel--now or when it is all done. Of course I had already made that decision, but was unnerved when friends whose judgment I trust--one of whom used to be a CANADIAN for Chrissake--advocated the little bit at a time method. Added to this discontinuous signalling was of course, the growing sense of guilt that my woman was out braving the elements whilst I farted around on Facebook. And so, killing two birds with one stone, I took to the stoops with my trusty shovel and began to clear one-shovel wide paths. Truth be told, I felt exhilarated by the process--I was bundled up warm and the snow was an easy shovel. I believe the Kitten was so flabbergasted at seeing me so engaged, that she stopped at the end of the driveway to capture the moment on pixels.
I will venture out again before the sun sets to hit the stoops once more. But in the meantime, I shall sit here on the couch in my bedroom and enjoy the toasty warmth of the pound of flesh taken out of me in renovating this house five years ago. It really is a wonderful place to live--especially when the wind is howling and the snow falls east/west.
Monday, January 18, 2016
Some Navy Religion for the People
Not all of you like when I post Navy stuff here, but some do--especially my Dad. So this is for him. It is a panel discussion I participated in that the Surface Navy Association Symposium last week.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
Thoughts On the Navy Crews Taken by the Iranians
I've been asked by a few of you to provide some thoughts on what happened in the Arabian Gulf the other day. I began to write something, and then saw this piece by my friend at Information Dissemination--and while I don't agree completely with all of it, I do agree with most of it. And so I have cut and pasted it below into this entry, with my own comments interspersed in bold italics.
------------------------------
Thoughts on the Farsi Island Incident January 12 by Galrahn
By now most of you have heard the news of the initial incident and have read several details of the incident that have been reported in the press. The bottom line, there are still a lot of unknowns even as the incident was resolved diplomatically within 24 hours. Below are a few thoughts.
1) Even 48 hours after the initial incident it doesn't even appear CENTCOM or the Pentagon has a full accounting of the details of exactly what happened. People who have been telling the narrative since the incident first occurred are sure to be proven wrong, since they have almost certainly been guessing as to causes and motives. In the end, it is starting to look to be exactly what it looks like... a bunch of young sailors lost because of reliance on technology and/or machinery that failed. There is also, potentially, a training issue here related to navigation and leadership.
Couldn't agree more. When the incident was first reported, I was asked by a number of different entities to comment. I hesitated to speculate beyond indicating what I knew from dated experience. We observe their territorial standoffs meticulously, and they enforce them meticulously. I could see no profit for the Iranians in seizing our boats/crews unless they had stumbled into Iranian waters. Note I'm not supporting what Iran did or saying that it was professional or legal. Simply that this was to me, the most likely scenario.
2) Those who are claiming the US Navy should have shot their way out of the standoff - when it appears the US Navy sailors actually involved appeared to have convinced themselves their ships were inside Iranian waters - make very interesting and yet terrible arguments for shooting at Iranians. Farsi Island may be a disputed Island in the Persian Gulf, but there is an IRGC naval base on that island and presence in the first rule of ownership. If the Iranian Navy, or Russian Navy, or any Navy drifted armed boats into US waters off Kings Bay, I suspect the US Coast Guard and/or US Navy would be very quick to point guns and be active in detaining the drifters.
Again, agreed. We are not at war with Iran, and it was plausible that those crews KNEW they had made this mistake. Additionally, as is stated above, there is an Iranian base at Farsi. My suspicion is that there was a firepower differential on the scene.
3) I am unable to see any strategic advantage the US would have gained by fighting Iran inside the 3 mile zone of Iranian territory, and I am unable to see any strategic consequence to the US by not fighting Iran inside the 3 mile zone of Iranian territory. However, had the US Navy tried to shoot their way out of that situation, the strategic consequences would have been significant, and not just how it relates to Iran. Such a violent action would have given China a valid example to act the same way in disputed places in the South China Sea. If the US Navy is going to lead the global commons based on our interpretation of the rules at sea, the LT who apologized (and everyone on the political right is flogging) just forwarded America strategically. I note it is primarily the parochial arguments from people whose expertise lies in other military services like the Army who have completely ignored the details like global rule sets at sea who have been the loudest to shout at the Navy in this incident. With all due respect, this is an incredibly parochial and shortsided overreaction of the incident, because the National Review can and should do better than finding an Army guy - Bing West (whom I know and respect but wtf...) when it comes to a complex naval incident. This isn't the Pueblo, nor is it the Korean War. There will be no museum in Iran, and both the boats and the crews were returned.
Here is where I disagree with my friend. While I certainly do not believe the Lieutenant should be "flogged" by people on the right or anywhere else for that matter, his onscreen apology was imprudent. Note again, I did not say a violation of the code of conduct--as the code of conduct applies to when we are held as prisoners of war--which he and they knew they were not. But--he should not have said what he did--no matter how true it was. The only acceptable (to me) explanation for his conduct would have been if he had received ORDERS from higher headquarters as this thing went down, to make an apology.
4) This is one of those difficult issues that, in my mind, separates serious people who care about serious strategic issues the US faces in the 21st century and demagogues who see conspiracy and opportunity in every political crisis. If you are a partisan who sees a conspiracy, go away. For the rest of us, there are serious naval issues here that need serious answers. These are a few of the initial questions that should be considered.
- Is the maintenance of the riverine command boats contracted to the point the onboard crew was unable to repair the problem? The crew of only 5 sailors per boat suggests to me that something might be off with the manpower and maintenance procedures surrounding these very capable chess pieces of naval equipment. The RCB is made to fight in the Persian Gulf, but a broken RCB isn't going to win.
- This is a teaching moment if there ever was one, and as an incident this appears to represent a textbook case study on the reasons why the Navy needs more, not fewer, Commands for junior officers. It may be the opinion of some hard core political demagogues who have over a decade of tactical success combined with over a decade of strategic failure that this incident is somehow a defeat for America, but each new fact that emerges from this incident suggests to me this may be a case of procedural failure far beyond the scope of a LT... but when shit happened, strategic acumen by the officer in charge (LT) is potentially emerging as a feature in handling a bad situation and not making it worse. The facts are still unknown, and we may not know for sure for awhile, but regardless of what the facts are in the end I see this as a very teachable moment that favors the argument for early Command as often as possible for junior officers.
- I have no problem with high profile diplomatic incidents like this between the US Navy and Iran, as long as for each incident the actions of the US Navy is aligned with the strategic aims of the United States. If the US Navy had attacked the IRGC inside the territorial waters of Farsi Island to defend their boats, this would be a major strategic setback for the US. Had the incident occurred outside the territorial waters of Iran and the US Navy not fought back; that would also be a strategic setback for the US. Right now it appears the US Navy sailors on the scene did everything right.
- The only way to produce a genuine strategic failure from this incident is to unfairly punish those involved, in other words... if the Navy wants better commanders, handle early career mistakes the right way. Tell me how any of those 10 sailors are somehow worse off for this incident. If legitimate mistakes were made, deal with it appropriately, but pinning blame for things out of their control would be a failure of leadership, and in my mind an unforgivable sin.
- At the end of the day, this was a real diplomatic test of the US and Iran who under the recent agreement are partners in Iran's nuclear energy ambitions. The outcome is very positive for the United States. I don't trust the government of Iran, but I am yet to see anything from this incident that suggests to me Iran has has been inappropriate. If you're the American Idiot who doesn't think it was appropriate for the US Navy sailors to have their hands on their heads at any point in the engagement near the IRGC base on Farsi Island, try drifting your private armed boat into the US Navy area of Kings Bay or Norfolk or New London and pretend like there is a snowballs chance in hell you will get out of there without your hands on your head. You will have your hands on your head, or if you point a gun back at the US Navy or US Coast Guard, you will be shot dead by very serious people who protect that location and will be pointing guns at you. You don't even have to be an Iranian for that outcome to occur, nor will you need an Iranian flag on your boat, a US flag will result in the same action. Wake up people, don't let the silly season control your ability to think with objectivity.
It is entirely plausible to me that the recent deal with the Iranians and the familiarity it bred among negotiators aided in the relatively quick release of our Sailors. One would be ignorant not to at least consider this. But--one should also consider the possibility that the negotiation bred a familiarity that we did not bargain for, that we had been measured and found wanting. That the Iranians believed that they could do this with little or no fallout, and that their position as a power in the Arabian Gulf would be improved by taking us on. It would be just as ignorant not to consider this possibility, and others for that matter.
As for the Sailors on their knees and the female in hijab, the bottom line for me is that when rough men with guns are pointing them at you, in virtually all cases you do what you are told.
I look forward to learning what really happened, because at the end of the day we have a well armed naval craft in the middle of the Persian Gulf with a serious mechanical problem that couldn't be quickly resolved apparently combined with some incredibly bad navigation from two crews who somehow found their way to the only piece of land between their departure location and destination that could create a diplomatic problem. When you swim past all the political bullshit, the serious naval specific issues on the table leave a lot of serious questions that deserve serious answers.
What my friend describes as "political bullshit" I am not as quick to dismiss. It is difficult for me to separate Iran's willingness to tweak us, their willingness to fire rockets in the vicinity of our aircraft carrier--with their sense that these actions would be impact free, born of a lack of regard for our power. There are serious "naval" issues here of course--but there are also serious political ones--and in the end, the two will almost certainly be related.
------------------------------
Thoughts on the Farsi Island Incident January 12 by Galrahn
By now most of you have heard the news of the initial incident and have read several details of the incident that have been reported in the press. The bottom line, there are still a lot of unknowns even as the incident was resolved diplomatically within 24 hours. Below are a few thoughts.
1) Even 48 hours after the initial incident it doesn't even appear CENTCOM or the Pentagon has a full accounting of the details of exactly what happened. People who have been telling the narrative since the incident first occurred are sure to be proven wrong, since they have almost certainly been guessing as to causes and motives. In the end, it is starting to look to be exactly what it looks like... a bunch of young sailors lost because of reliance on technology and/or machinery that failed. There is also, potentially, a training issue here related to navigation and leadership.
Couldn't agree more. When the incident was first reported, I was asked by a number of different entities to comment. I hesitated to speculate beyond indicating what I knew from dated experience. We observe their territorial standoffs meticulously, and they enforce them meticulously. I could see no profit for the Iranians in seizing our boats/crews unless they had stumbled into Iranian waters. Note I'm not supporting what Iran did or saying that it was professional or legal. Simply that this was to me, the most likely scenario.
2) Those who are claiming the US Navy should have shot their way out of the standoff - when it appears the US Navy sailors actually involved appeared to have convinced themselves their ships were inside Iranian waters - make very interesting and yet terrible arguments for shooting at Iranians. Farsi Island may be a disputed Island in the Persian Gulf, but there is an IRGC naval base on that island and presence in the first rule of ownership. If the Iranian Navy, or Russian Navy, or any Navy drifted armed boats into US waters off Kings Bay, I suspect the US Coast Guard and/or US Navy would be very quick to point guns and be active in detaining the drifters.
Again, agreed. We are not at war with Iran, and it was plausible that those crews KNEW they had made this mistake. Additionally, as is stated above, there is an Iranian base at Farsi. My suspicion is that there was a firepower differential on the scene.
3) I am unable to see any strategic advantage the US would have gained by fighting Iran inside the 3 mile zone of Iranian territory, and I am unable to see any strategic consequence to the US by not fighting Iran inside the 3 mile zone of Iranian territory. However, had the US Navy tried to shoot their way out of that situation, the strategic consequences would have been significant, and not just how it relates to Iran. Such a violent action would have given China a valid example to act the same way in disputed places in the South China Sea. If the US Navy is going to lead the global commons based on our interpretation of the rules at sea, the LT who apologized (and everyone on the political right is flogging) just forwarded America strategically. I note it is primarily the parochial arguments from people whose expertise lies in other military services like the Army who have completely ignored the details like global rule sets at sea who have been the loudest to shout at the Navy in this incident. With all due respect, this is an incredibly parochial and shortsided overreaction of the incident, because the National Review can and should do better than finding an Army guy - Bing West (whom I know and respect but wtf...) when it comes to a complex naval incident. This isn't the Pueblo, nor is it the Korean War. There will be no museum in Iran, and both the boats and the crews were returned.
Here is where I disagree with my friend. While I certainly do not believe the Lieutenant should be "flogged" by people on the right or anywhere else for that matter, his onscreen apology was imprudent. Note again, I did not say a violation of the code of conduct--as the code of conduct applies to when we are held as prisoners of war--which he and they knew they were not. But--he should not have said what he did--no matter how true it was. The only acceptable (to me) explanation for his conduct would have been if he had received ORDERS from higher headquarters as this thing went down, to make an apology.
4) This is one of those difficult issues that, in my mind, separates serious people who care about serious strategic issues the US faces in the 21st century and demagogues who see conspiracy and opportunity in every political crisis. If you are a partisan who sees a conspiracy, go away. For the rest of us, there are serious naval issues here that need serious answers. These are a few of the initial questions that should be considered.
- Is the maintenance of the riverine command boats contracted to the point the onboard crew was unable to repair the problem? The crew of only 5 sailors per boat suggests to me that something might be off with the manpower and maintenance procedures surrounding these very capable chess pieces of naval equipment. The RCB is made to fight in the Persian Gulf, but a broken RCB isn't going to win.
- This is a teaching moment if there ever was one, and as an incident this appears to represent a textbook case study on the reasons why the Navy needs more, not fewer, Commands for junior officers. It may be the opinion of some hard core political demagogues who have over a decade of tactical success combined with over a decade of strategic failure that this incident is somehow a defeat for America, but each new fact that emerges from this incident suggests to me this may be a case of procedural failure far beyond the scope of a LT... but when shit happened, strategic acumen by the officer in charge (LT) is potentially emerging as a feature in handling a bad situation and not making it worse. The facts are still unknown, and we may not know for sure for awhile, but regardless of what the facts are in the end I see this as a very teachable moment that favors the argument for early Command as often as possible for junior officers.
- I have no problem with high profile diplomatic incidents like this between the US Navy and Iran, as long as for each incident the actions of the US Navy is aligned with the strategic aims of the United States. If the US Navy had attacked the IRGC inside the territorial waters of Farsi Island to defend their boats, this would be a major strategic setback for the US. Had the incident occurred outside the territorial waters of Iran and the US Navy not fought back; that would also be a strategic setback for the US. Right now it appears the US Navy sailors on the scene did everything right.
- The only way to produce a genuine strategic failure from this incident is to unfairly punish those involved, in other words... if the Navy wants better commanders, handle early career mistakes the right way. Tell me how any of those 10 sailors are somehow worse off for this incident. If legitimate mistakes were made, deal with it appropriately, but pinning blame for things out of their control would be a failure of leadership, and in my mind an unforgivable sin.
- At the end of the day, this was a real diplomatic test of the US and Iran who under the recent agreement are partners in Iran's nuclear energy ambitions. The outcome is very positive for the United States. I don't trust the government of Iran, but I am yet to see anything from this incident that suggests to me Iran has has been inappropriate. If you're the American Idiot who doesn't think it was appropriate for the US Navy sailors to have their hands on their heads at any point in the engagement near the IRGC base on Farsi Island, try drifting your private armed boat into the US Navy area of Kings Bay or Norfolk or New London and pretend like there is a snowballs chance in hell you will get out of there without your hands on your head. You will have your hands on your head, or if you point a gun back at the US Navy or US Coast Guard, you will be shot dead by very serious people who protect that location and will be pointing guns at you. You don't even have to be an Iranian for that outcome to occur, nor will you need an Iranian flag on your boat, a US flag will result in the same action. Wake up people, don't let the silly season control your ability to think with objectivity.
It is entirely plausible to me that the recent deal with the Iranians and the familiarity it bred among negotiators aided in the relatively quick release of our Sailors. One would be ignorant not to at least consider this. But--one should also consider the possibility that the negotiation bred a familiarity that we did not bargain for, that we had been measured and found wanting. That the Iranians believed that they could do this with little or no fallout, and that their position as a power in the Arabian Gulf would be improved by taking us on. It would be just as ignorant not to consider this possibility, and others for that matter.
As for the Sailors on their knees and the female in hijab, the bottom line for me is that when rough men with guns are pointing them at you, in virtually all cases you do what you are told.
I look forward to learning what really happened, because at the end of the day we have a well armed naval craft in the middle of the Persian Gulf with a serious mechanical problem that couldn't be quickly resolved apparently combined with some incredibly bad navigation from two crews who somehow found their way to the only piece of land between their departure location and destination that could create a diplomatic problem. When you swim past all the political bullshit, the serious naval specific issues on the table leave a lot of serious questions that deserve serious answers.
What my friend describes as "political bullshit" I am not as quick to dismiss. It is difficult for me to separate Iran's willingness to tweak us, their willingness to fire rockets in the vicinity of our aircraft carrier--with their sense that these actions would be impact free, born of a lack of regard for our power. There are serious "naval" issues here of course--but there are also serious political ones--and in the end, the two will almost certainly be related.
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
So, Who's Next?
Yep, it looks like to me Hillary could lose Iowa and almost certainly WILL lose New Hampshire. She may could survive New Hampshire but if she loses both then BIG MO comes into play and all you'll hear is 08 this and 08 that. Who can we thank for Hillary's troubles? Who else, The Donald.
Say what you will (and you will) Trump is running circles around all these "PROS". He beats up on Jeb like it was fun (it may be) and he laid a trap for the World's Smartest Woman and she fell for it hook, line and schlong. He took down Bill Clinton like HE took down Juanita Broderick and didn't even have the damn common courtesy to say "put some ice on that". As a result Hillary's numbers among the all important white chick demo has collapsed. Oh my! I'm telling you, the Clintons ain't what they used to be. Bill looks like total shit and has the stage presence of a cadaver and Hillary is all doddery with a grandma vibe. I expect her to walk on stage one day farting with every step. Regardless of who wins on the Republican side, Hillary's ass is grass assuming she does indeed hold on.
A young, sharp politician like CW's pin-up boy Marco Rubio would destroy her just with the optics. Ted Cruz would cut her up. Trump would make a laughing stock of her and have her melting under the lights like a bowl of Ben & Jerry's Schweddy Balls. All thanks to THE DONALD!
But if Hill & Bill do crash and burn (through politics or indictment) who then will fill the void? Please don't say Bernie, even the Democrats ain't crazy enough to run a guy who doesn't even have the brains to hide the fact he's a damn commie. He's out for a hundred reasons. Biden? Possibly. I talked about just such a scenario a few months back on this very rag of a blog. I've heard Al Gore, which I find hilarious. Run Al run! And if Al indeed CAN run more than say...50 feet, we'll give it to you by default. Elizabeth Warren? Possibly. And now we come to a guy who is slick enough to win, Martin O'Malley. I know, unlikely in the extreme. I don't disagree. But I've told you before and I'll tell you again, he's the best politician in the bunch, maybe even on both sides.
Saturday, January 9, 2016
A Hostile Takeover!
I read with a combination of amusement and bemusement a NY Times piece this morning on the fix the Republican Party establishment finds themselves in. Unlike much of the Times political reporting this one rang true. The Old Grey Bitch is still worth reading, sometimes, I guess. But there are a few quotes I wanted to share and comment on.
The first from ex-George I Attorney General Dick Thornburgh “I know Republicans who will support Hillary if Trump or Cruz is the nominee, no question.” That's nice, an absolutely brilliant strategy and the picture of maturity. If I'm reading this right (help me out here CW) the plebeians who put Richard Nixon in office along with both Bushs and contributed/volunteered/voted for Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney are now looked upon as uppity house negros and therefore Hillary is more acceptable! So this is the 2016 Republican Party? Not the Party of RR but the Party of David Frum, Rick Wilson and David Brooks. The Party that excludes (unless you're Hispanic), has forgotten family values (for God's sake, don't talk about abortion!) and fiscal responsibility (we had no choice, the Omnibus was a done deal). No, can't make those mistakes again, that's in the past. Now we are the Party of hedge fund managers and K Street. The Party of the successful, i.e. those who work both sides of the aisle and (wait for it) hedge their bets. People who have a pay-for-play mentality with no morals, no ideology apart from expediency and narrow self-interest, people who will bolt in a heartbeat if they don't see a return on their "investment". The money-changers who care not one iota for America or Americans because hey, we've gone GLOBAL! They run the Party now?
“I haven’t seen this large of a division in my career,” said Senator John McCain. McCain goes on to say maybe Reagan/Ford in '76 was similar. To which I say, NO SHIT!? How about the exact same thing? But then again at least there was some attempt at reconciliation. Ford dumped Nelson "Hold on baby I'm getting chest pains" Rockefeller who was completely unacceptable to conservatives in favor of Bob Dole (Jeez, what's the diff?) and Reagan took the unprecedented step of naming his VP prior to the convention vote (in case you're wondering it was Senator Richard Schweiker from Pennsylvania, a real weenie). Now we get nothing. Apparently both sides want to kill each other. Which brings me to the last quote.
“The Republican Party has never done anything for the working man like me, even though we’ve voted Republican for years,” said Leo Martin, a 62-year-old machinist from Newport, N.H., who attended Mr. Trump’s Claremont rally. “This election is the first in my life where we can change what it means to be a Republican.” Hold the phone! Change what it means to be a Republican? Is that what this guy said? Establishment Republicans have no problem changing, let's say what it means to be an American. But to change what it means to be a Republican? You just better wait just a God-damn minute. The establishment types think they own the joint. THEY decide who is and who isn't a Republican, not a bunch of stump-jumpers out in fly-over country. This is unacceptable! Who will guarantee our trade deals? Who will look out for our stock portfolios? Who will bail out the bankers who bailed out the industries that bailed on America? My God this is like a hostile takeover and we can't have it. Best put our resources behind Hillary and we'll get 'em next time.
...and you guys wonder how all this could be happening.
The first from ex-George I Attorney General Dick Thornburgh “I know Republicans who will support Hillary if Trump or Cruz is the nominee, no question.” That's nice, an absolutely brilliant strategy and the picture of maturity. If I'm reading this right (help me out here CW) the plebeians who put Richard Nixon in office along with both Bushs and contributed/volunteered/voted for Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney are now looked upon as uppity house negros and therefore Hillary is more acceptable! So this is the 2016 Republican Party? Not the Party of RR but the Party of David Frum, Rick Wilson and David Brooks. The Party that excludes (unless you're Hispanic), has forgotten family values (for God's sake, don't talk about abortion!) and fiscal responsibility (we had no choice, the Omnibus was a done deal). No, can't make those mistakes again, that's in the past. Now we are the Party of hedge fund managers and K Street. The Party of the successful, i.e. those who work both sides of the aisle and (wait for it) hedge their bets. People who have a pay-for-play mentality with no morals, no ideology apart from expediency and narrow self-interest, people who will bolt in a heartbeat if they don't see a return on their "investment". The money-changers who care not one iota for America or Americans because hey, we've gone GLOBAL! They run the Party now?
“I haven’t seen this large of a division in my career,” said Senator John McCain. McCain goes on to say maybe Reagan/Ford in '76 was similar. To which I say, NO SHIT!? How about the exact same thing? But then again at least there was some attempt at reconciliation. Ford dumped Nelson "Hold on baby I'm getting chest pains" Rockefeller who was completely unacceptable to conservatives in favor of Bob Dole (Jeez, what's the diff?) and Reagan took the unprecedented step of naming his VP prior to the convention vote (in case you're wondering it was Senator Richard Schweiker from Pennsylvania, a real weenie). Now we get nothing. Apparently both sides want to kill each other. Which brings me to the last quote.
“The Republican Party has never done anything for the working man like me, even though we’ve voted Republican for years,” said Leo Martin, a 62-year-old machinist from Newport, N.H., who attended Mr. Trump’s Claremont rally. “This election is the first in my life where we can change what it means to be a Republican.” Hold the phone! Change what it means to be a Republican? Is that what this guy said? Establishment Republicans have no problem changing, let's say what it means to be an American. But to change what it means to be a Republican? You just better wait just a God-damn minute. The establishment types think they own the joint. THEY decide who is and who isn't a Republican, not a bunch of stump-jumpers out in fly-over country. This is unacceptable! Who will guarantee our trade deals? Who will look out for our stock portfolios? Who will bail out the bankers who bailed out the industries that bailed on America? My God this is like a hostile takeover and we can't have it. Best put our resources behind Hillary and we'll get 'em next time.
...and you guys wonder how all this could be happening.
Thursday, January 7, 2016
Tea Party Gets Victory It Sought, Moves Goalposts
Republicans in both the House and Senate have delivered unto the Tea Party a victory for which they have clamored, and that is legislation repealing Obamacare. One would think that they would be dancing in the streets, as for a long time, their response to the "but the Democrats hold the White House, numbers don't lie, the President will veto it and we'll be right back where we started" with the strategically inept "So what. We want to see that those RINOS are fighting for us. Make him veto a hundred bills." And so that's what they did, with Speaker Ryan delivering the House yesterday. Are they happy with getting exactly what they asked for.
No, of course.
What we NOW hear from the Tea Party (in the House--the "Freedom Caucus") and its adherents are cries akin to the Lost Cause rhetoric of the South--the "we shoulda" school of politics which states that this legislation is bogus, and that the GOP leadership should have taken the President to the brink on shutting down the government. This is silly, of course. While I believe the degree to which Republicans have suffered as a result of past shutdowns is way overblown (I'm not sure the 2014 shutdown hurt much at all), there is no question in my mind that shutting down the government HELPS the President. He tends to look concerned and in charge and responsible, while the Republicans look like reactionaries and swivel eyed loons. Don't get me wrong; there's a part of me that emotionally would have liked to see the government shut down for a couple of weeks in order to make a point. But anyone who believes that such a tactic would ultimately have led to victory on the issues is mistaken. What Ryan and McConnell have done here is a reasonable needle-threading, one that makes every member of both chambers render their support for or objection to Obamacare in an important vote as the 2016 elections approach. They did not burn their ships on the beach, but that's not what responsible Generals do.
No, of course.
What we NOW hear from the Tea Party (in the House--the "Freedom Caucus") and its adherents are cries akin to the Lost Cause rhetoric of the South--the "we shoulda" school of politics which states that this legislation is bogus, and that the GOP leadership should have taken the President to the brink on shutting down the government. This is silly, of course. While I believe the degree to which Republicans have suffered as a result of past shutdowns is way overblown (I'm not sure the 2014 shutdown hurt much at all), there is no question in my mind that shutting down the government HELPS the President. He tends to look concerned and in charge and responsible, while the Republicans look like reactionaries and swivel eyed loons. Don't get me wrong; there's a part of me that emotionally would have liked to see the government shut down for a couple of weeks in order to make a point. But anyone who believes that such a tactic would ultimately have led to victory on the issues is mistaken. What Ryan and McConnell have done here is a reasonable needle-threading, one that makes every member of both chambers render their support for or objection to Obamacare in an important vote as the 2016 elections approach. They did not burn their ships on the beach, but that's not what responsible Generals do.
Friday, January 1, 2016
The Official TigerHawk Predictions for 2016
We're not sure what the rules are, but predictions seem to be a "thing" around here. Well, here are a few, audacious and otherwise, verifiable, or not, wishful thinking, or not.
1. Marco Rubio will win the Republican nomination for president, and become the first actually young GOP nominee since Thomas E. Dewey in 1944 [Corrected per comments below], beyond the memory of virtually all living Americans. The era of pharty old dudes will come to an end, for better or for worse. Youth has the potential to matter a lot, because legal weed initiatives will drive the youth-social libertarian turnout in several key states. See #13 below.
2. The Iowa Hawkeyes will win the Rose Bowl this afternoon, but will not cover the spread (now standing at 6 points). Note that the shelf life of this prediction is about 9 hours.
3. UVA won't do any of that stuff CW predicts, even if it would make the TigerHawk nephews very happy.
4. Barack Obama will "use his pen" to issue an executive order on guns, and it will cost the Democrats at least one swing state: Colorado, Wisconsin, or Pennsylvania.
5. I will weigh not more than 205 pounds on December 31, 2016 (202 today).
6. Against expectations, Ted Cruz will campaign aggressively and positively for the GOP nominee (even if #1 is wrong), he will mend as many fences with Republican Senators as possible, and will be on the short list for Attorney General if the Republicans win in November. Once they wake up and realize Cruz's true talent, conservatives will want to put him in a position for eventual nomination to the SCOTUS when Antonin Scalia retires.
7. ISIS will be substantially weaker by the end of the year, and may even recede as a GOP talking point by Labor Day.
8. Barack Obama will not be invited to campaign for the Democratic nominee, who will probably be Hillary Clinton, with the possible exception of events devised to promote African-American turnout.
9. Nobody will "steal" the presidential election, just as nobody has done in the history of the United States (no, not in 1960 or 2000, either).
10. Immigration, legal and otherwise, will continue to be a huge issue in the general election, and the Democratic nominee will visibly tack to the center. Pundits will agree that Donald Trump gets the credit or the blame for this, but news of the migration crisis in Europe will make even American liberals pause.
11. Donald Trump will neither win the nomination nor run as an independent, but he will suck up a "huge" amount of air time at the Republican convention and have a "huge" impact on the platform, such as it is. He will not campaign for the GOP nominee, and will say things during the general election that the Republicans will have to delicately disavow.
12. The Dow Jones Industrial Average will crack 20,000 during the year, but close below. Oil prices will continue to languish.
13. The legal weed movement will hit a tipping point in 2016, with blue, purple and even red states in the mix. This will drive turnout among the young social libertarians, including in must-win Ohio and swinger Nevada. Not only will this force the GOP nominee to take a dovish position on weed, but it will drive social conservative issues (which are unpopular among millennials) in to the background no matter who the Republican candidate is.
14. The inequality issue will continue to loom large (as it should). Because the weed-driven youth turnout will be a huge wild card, the Republicans will emphasize "opportunity" rather than tax cutting in their rhetoric. This will be especially important and especially likely if Rubio is at the top of the ticket.
15. Hillary Clinton will not be indicted in 2016. CW is a year early on this one. However, if Ted Cruz realizes my aspirations for him and becomes Attorney General in 2017, look out!
Of course, your results may vary.
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Predictions: 2015 Results, 2016 List
Here are the predictions, with results. Pitiful.
1. Mitt Romney will be an active candidate for President on 31 December 2015. No
2. The Supreme Court will deal at least one generally considered large setback to Obamacare. No
3. The market will not break 19,000 in 2015. Yes
4. I will weigh not more than 182 lbs on December 31, 2015 (195.2 today) Yes (159)
5. UVA's President will resign in 2015. No
6. UVA Basketball will make it to the 2015 Final Four. No
7. The national average for unleaded regular gasoline will be above $3.00 ($2.29 today). No
8. Unemployment will be above 6.0% on 31 December 2015 (5.8 today). No
9. There will be a coup in Venezuela. No.
10. The Denver Broncos will win the Super Bowl, and Peyton Manning will retire immediately thereafter. No.
And here are the predictions for 2016:
1. Marco Rubio will be elected President.
2. The Virginia Men's Basketball Team will get to the Final Four
3. The Arizona Cardinals will win the Super Bowl.
4. Hillary Clinton will be indicted.
5. Tiger Woods will win a Major Championship.
6. Virginia Football team will win six games or more.
7. I will weigh equal to or less than 159 (what I weigh as I write this) on this date in 2016.
8. One Supreme Court Justice will either leave office or die in office. The vacancy will not be filled in 2016.
9. Chip Kelly will not coach a football team in 2016
10. Coach K will retire after this season.
Happy New Year!
1. Mitt Romney will be an active candidate for President on 31 December 2015. No
2. The Supreme Court will deal at least one generally considered large setback to Obamacare. No
3. The market will not break 19,000 in 2015. Yes
4. I will weigh not more than 182 lbs on December 31, 2015 (195.2 today) Yes (159)
5. UVA's President will resign in 2015. No
6. UVA Basketball will make it to the 2015 Final Four. No
7. The national average for unleaded regular gasoline will be above $3.00 ($2.29 today). No
8. Unemployment will be above 6.0% on 31 December 2015 (5.8 today). No
9. There will be a coup in Venezuela. No.
10. The Denver Broncos will win the Super Bowl, and Peyton Manning will retire immediately thereafter. No.
And here are the predictions for 2016:
1. Marco Rubio will be elected President.
2. The Virginia Men's Basketball Team will get to the Final Four
3. The Arizona Cardinals will win the Super Bowl.
4. Hillary Clinton will be indicted.
5. Tiger Woods will win a Major Championship.
6. Virginia Football team will win six games or more.
7. I will weigh equal to or less than 159 (what I weigh as I write this) on this date in 2016.
8. One Supreme Court Justice will either leave office or die in office. The vacancy will not be filled in 2016.
9. Chip Kelly will not coach a football team in 2016
10. Coach K will retire after this season.
Happy New Year!
Resolutions: 2015 Scorecard, 2016 List
Here are the 2015 resolutions, with result commentary:
1. I endeavor to be less sarcastic/caustic/ironic. FAILURE
2. I will re-institute E-Shabat. 6PM Friday to 6PM Saturday. Pretty good until June, spotty since
3. I will take more of an interest in the yard/gardens. FAILURE
4. I will finally get the gas fireplace installed in the bedroom. SUCCESS
5. I will eat more modestly. SUCCESS
6. I will exercise more frequently. SUCCESS
7. After my hip replacement, I will work to be more physically flexible. Modest Success
8. I will take at least one vacation of not less than two full weeks. FAILURE
9. I will read more. SUCCESS
10. I will play more golf. FAILURE
And here are the 2016 resolutions:
1. I will weigh what I weigh today (159) or less
2. I will continue to eat modestly
3. I will take at least three vacations of at least one week each.
4. I will have more bodily flexibility at this time next year.
5. I will argue with kindness, control, and love.
6. I will exercise at least four times each week
7. I will spend more time on the water around me.
8. I will make some significant upgrades to the ManCave.
9. I will make time for conversation with The Kitten before bed each night.
10. I will put at least 15% of my gross income into my 401K
1. I endeavor to be less sarcastic/caustic/ironic. FAILURE
2. I will re-institute E-Shabat. 6PM Friday to 6PM Saturday. Pretty good until June, spotty since
3. I will take more of an interest in the yard/gardens. FAILURE
4. I will finally get the gas fireplace installed in the bedroom. SUCCESS
5. I will eat more modestly. SUCCESS
6. I will exercise more frequently. SUCCESS
7. After my hip replacement, I will work to be more physically flexible. Modest Success
8. I will take at least one vacation of not less than two full weeks. FAILURE
9. I will read more. SUCCESS
10. I will play more golf. FAILURE
And here are the 2016 resolutions:
1. I will weigh what I weigh today (159) or less
2. I will continue to eat modestly
3. I will take at least three vacations of at least one week each.
4. I will have more bodily flexibility at this time next year.
5. I will argue with kindness, control, and love.
6. I will exercise at least four times each week
7. I will spend more time on the water around me.
8. I will make some significant upgrades to the ManCave.
9. I will make time for conversation with The Kitten before bed each night.
10. I will put at least 15% of my gross income into my 401K
Monday, December 28, 2015
The Hammer's 2016 Election Predictions
- Ted Cruz will win the Iowa caucuses on February 1st. No one will drop out.
- Eight days later Donald Trump will squeeze out a narrow victory in New Hampshire which will force most of the weaker candidates to quit. Cruz, Rubio, Christie and Bush stay in. Jeb will receive less than 4% of the vote and be under tremendous pressure to do well in South Carolina.
- Trump will win South Carolina by nearly 20 points resulting in Christie dropping out. Cruz will have a respectable outing but Bush and Rubio will be hanging by a thread hoping to do well on Super Tuesday.
- Trump runs the table on Super Tuesday apart from Colorado (Rubio), Virginia (Bush) and Alaska (Cruz).
- Everyone hangs around until March 15 when Trump wins North Carolina, Ohio, Missouri and most importantly Florida (by 20 points). Rubio and Bush drop out. It becomes a two man race with Trump in a commanding position.
- Cruz does respectably well but it's an uphill battle. Trump wins the nomination.
- Senator Ted Cruz makes the ticket.
- Hillary breezes to the nomination in spite of the relentless attacks from Team Trump. Bill Clinton proves to be a weak campaigner due to ill health and past indiscretions. Chasms emerge within the Democratic Party similar to what the Republicans have endured throughout the election cycle.
- Trump wages an anti-Wall Street, anti-open borders, anti-government campaign advocating a near isolationist foreign policy with an emphasis on re-industrialization and job growth. Trade protectionism will be a key theme. Big Business chooses Hillary, much of labor chooses Trump.
- Trump wins with a solid South and important rust-belt states such as Ohio and Michigan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
