Large number of GOP senators skipping Donald Trump’s convention
Sen. Steve Daines of Montana will be fly-fishing with his wife. Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona said he has to mow his lawn (yes, he has one even in Arizona). Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska will be traveling her state by bush plane. And Sen. John McCain of Arizona will be visiting the Grand Canyon, and joked that his friend Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina would be coming along and might even fall in (just kidding, an aide later clarified). All are among the GOP senators who will be skipping next week’s convention in Cleveland where Donald Trump will claim the Republican Party presidential nomination. A majority of Republican senators do plan to attend, and it’s not unusual for lawmakers to skip their party’s convention, especially if they’re up for re-election and need to spend time campaigning. But the level of rank-and-file congressional defections from this year’s Republican convention is unusually high. Perhaps that’s unsurprising, given the GOP establishment’s well-documented discomfort with the man who stands on the cusp of becoming their presidential standard-bearer. But in the halls of the Capitol this week, some senators seemed to visibly squirm when asked about their convention plans. Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, a member of the party leadership, gave a lengthy series of responses to questions earlier this week that ultimately left his plans unclear. “I think it’s going to be a different and unique convention experience. You know I’ve been to a number of them in the past, and this year is different, and we’ll see how it goes,” Thune said. “For most people they go because it’s the Republican convention, and it’s our party’s effort in a presidential election year to talk about what we’re for and what we’re about. So that will go on.” The next day, Thune said he was still “firming up” his plans. Confronted for months with uncomfortable questions about Trump, some senators can still seem aggrieved to get asked about the presumptive nominee, and uncomfortable giving an answer. But at this late date, just days from when the convention will start on Monday, nearly all have at least decided whether or not they’re going to Cleveland. Nearly all, but not quite all. “I’m not sure yet,” Idaho Sen. Jim Risch said Wednesday, adding there are “other things going on and I’ve got to weigh where I can do the most good.” Of the Senate also-rans in the White House chase, only Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas will attend the convention and deliver a speech. Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Graham are skipping the event. For the nearly two dozen GOP senators up for re-election this year, the considerations are particularly sensitive, and that’s especially true for the handful of vulnerable Republican senators in swing states. They must weigh sharing a convention hall with a nominee whose comments have offended women, minorities and others who can decide general elections. There are also concerns that given the “Never Trump” sentiments still nursed by some delegates, the convention could go off the rails and turn into a chaotic spectacle. But few senators were interested in wading into such considerations on the record. “No,” Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri said tersely when asked if he was staying away from the convention out of a desire to distance himself from Trump. Murkowski said she had only a month to visit the remotest areas of Alaska by plane before her Aug. 16 primary. “For me, this was an easy choice” and “nothing to do” with Trump, Murkowski said. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, one of the most vulnerable members, said he could not go to Cleveland because “I’ve got to spend as much time in Wisconsin as possible.” As for his views on Trump, Johnson said: “I support all of the areas of agreement … I’m supporting him. Let’s put it this way, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.” Even Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, a vulnerable senator whose state is playing host to the convention, said he will only be dropping into the convention hall from time to time, but not delivering a speech or staying to watch speeches from others. Instead, he’ll be spending his time on his own campaign events in and around Cleveland, including building a Habitat for Humanity home and holding a kayaking charity fundraiser, “Paddling with Patriots on the Cuyahoga River.” “I’m not going to have much time to listen to ’em because I’ll be out and about,” Portman said of the convention speakers. ___ Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Hillary Clinton warns Donald Trump would plunge economy into recession
Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that Donald Trump would send the U.S. economy back into recession, warning his “reckless” approach would hurt workers still trying to recover from the 2008 economic turbulence. Clinton’s address in Ohio, one of the most important battleground states, sought to define Trump as little more than a con man, whose ignorance and ego would tank the global economy, bankrupt Americans and risk the country’s future. “Every day we see how reckless and careless Trump is. He’s proud of it,” the Democratic presidential candidate said. “Well, that’s his choice. Except when he’s asking to be our president. Then it’s our choice.” The speech was similar to one earlier this month in San Diego in which Clinton tried to undercut the Republican candidate’s foreign policy credentials. This time, at an alternative high school in Columbus, she questioned whether Trump has the temperament to guide the economy and repeatedly pointed to his business record as evidence of how he would treat small businesses and working families. “Just like he shouldn’t have his finger on the button, he shouldn’t have his hands on our economy,” Clinton said. Her speech included stinging one-liners, including a takedown of Trump’s best-selling books. “He’s written a lot of books about business. But they all seem to end at Chapter 11,” she said, in an allusion to the U.S. bankruptcy code. Trump responded on Twitter as Clinton delivered her address, writing in one tweet: “How can Hillary run the economy when she can’t even send emails without putting entire nation at risk?” He appeared to be referring to Clinton blending her personal and official emails on a homebrew server in her house, while she was secretary of state. The businessman later appeared to embrace one of Clinton’s attack lines, writing: ‘I am “the king of debt.’ That has been great for me as a businessman, but is bad for the country. I made a fortune off of debt, will fix U.S.” Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus said Clinton was “the last person qualified” to talk about improving the economy, pointing to “eight years of disastrous Obama policies.” Clinton used Trump’s own statements to undercut his economic credentials, citing remarks he made that that U.S. could sell off assets, default on its debt and that wages are too high. She also repeated a comment he made that pregnant employees are an “inconvenience.” Clinton said financial markets often “rise and fall” on comments by presidential candidates. Suggesting the United States could default on its debt could cause a “global panic,” she added. She also seized on a report Monday by Moody’s Analytics which found Trump’s plans would lead to a “lengthy recession,” costing nearly 3.5 million American jobs. The analysis by Moody’s Mark Zandi, a Clinton donor and former economic adviser to Republican Sen. John McCain‘s 2008 campaign, predicted Trump’s approach would swell the federal debt as the U.S. economy becomes more isolated by less trade and cross-border immigration. Trump has pointed to trade as a major difference with Clinton, saying last week that her support of past trade deals, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, has cost the country “millions of jobs.” He also has assailed her promotion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal as Obama’s secretary of state as a sell-out of U.S. workers. Clinton announced her opposition to the TPP last October, saying it failed to meet her test of providing good jobs, raising wages and protecting national security. Brushing it aside, Clinton said there was a difference between “getting tough on trade” and “recklessly starting trade wars.” She noted that many of Trump’s products are made in countries like China, Mexico, Turkey, India and Slovenia. Bolstered by more than $40 million in television advertising, Clinton and her Democratic allies are trying to use this period before next month’s Democratic National Convention to disqualify Trump among moderate voters on the economy and prevent him from successfully wooing working-class voters in battleground states like Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan. Fundraising reports filed Monday showed Clinton with a big advantage, starting the month with $42 million in the bank compared with Trump’s $1.3 million. Clinton was expected to talk about “ambitious new goals” for the economy Wednesday in Raleigh, North Carolina. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
In swing state suburbs, white women are skeptical of Donald Trump
For Donald Trump to win the White House in November, he’ll need the votes of women like Elizabeth Andrus. Yet Andrus, a registered Republican from Delaware, Ohio, sees “buffoonery” in the presumptive Republican nominee and says “I am not on the Trump train.” With all the trouble in the world, she went on, “you just don’t want Donald Trump as president.” Her negative impression of Trump was shared by most of the dozens of white, suburban women from politically important states who were interviewed by The Associated Press this spring. Their views are reflected in opinion polls, such as a recent AP-GfK survey that found 70 percent of women have unfavorable opinions of Trump. Democrat Hillary Clinton‘s campaign sees that staggering figure as a tantalizing general election opening. While white voters continue to abandon the Democratic Party, small gains with white women could help put likely nominee Clinton over the top if the November election is close. Democrats believe these women could open up opportunities for Clinton in North Carolina, where President Barack Obama struggled with white voters in his narrow loss in the state 2012, and even in Georgia, a Republican stronghold that Democrats hope to make competitive. Patty Funderburg of Charlotte, North Carolina, voted for Republican Mitt Romney in 2012, but says she’s already convinced that Trump won’t get her vote. “He’s not who I’d want to represent our country,” said Funderburg, a 54-year-old mother of three. Trump insists he’s “going to do great with women.” He’s also said he will link Clinton aggressively to past indiscretions with women by her husband, former President Bill Clinton. He made good on that pledge Monday, releasing an online video featuring a photo of the former president with a cigar in his mouth and statements that appear to come from women who have accused Clinton of sexual assault. Trump sent the video from his Twitter account with the message, “Is Hillary really protecting women?” The businessman also has previewed an argument focused on national security, with echoes of the pitch that President George W. Bush successfully made to white suburban women during his 2004 re-election. “Women want, above all else, they want security,” Trump told The Associated Press recently. “They want to have a strong military, they want to have strong borders. They don’t want crime.” He said “Hillary is viewed poorly on that.” Not so in the AP-GfK poll. About 40 percent of women surveyed said Clinton would be best at protecting the country and handling the threat posed by the Islamic State group, and about 30 percent said Trump. Throughout the primary, Clinton has talked about policies meant to appeal to women: equal pay, expanded child care, paid family and medical leave and more. And Trump has his own complicated past regarding women and has faced criticism for his actions both in his personal life and at his businesses toward them. He’s vigorously defended his treatment of women, as has his daughter Ivanka Trump, who said her father “has total respect for women.” A super political action committee backing Clinton has released its first television advertisements featuring Trump’s contentious statements about women. “Does Donald Trump really speak for you?” the super PAC ad asks. For many of the women interviewed, the answer appears to be no. Andrus, a Republican who nevertheless voted twice for Obama, praised Trump’s political skills and argued his business career indicates an intellect and ability that could benefit the nation. But his temperament, she said, is somewhere between “buffoonery” and “complete narcissism.” “It would be like having Putin for president,” she added, referring to Russia’s sometimes belligerent president, Vladimir Putin. Erin Freedman, a 38-year-old from Reston, Virginia, said Trump scares her. While she’s an enthusiastic backer of Clinton’s primary rival, Bernie Sanders, she said she’d have no problem backing the former secretary of state against Trump in a general election. Even some reluctant Trump supporters say they want him to dial back the braggadocio and caustic insults, and engage people more seriously. “He’s the nominee, so I’ll vote for him,” said Renee Herman, a 45-year-old from Sunbury, Ohio, who preferred retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and her home-state governor, John Kasich, in the GOP primary field. “But it’s time we get past all this showmanship and hear from him what he actually wants to do and his plans for how to do it.” Trump’s best opening is that Clinton, who is on the cusp of clinching her party’s nomination, would enter the November race with a majority of Americans taking a dim view of her candidacy. Fifty-five percent have a negative view of Clinton, including 53 percent of women, in the AP-GfK poll. “Anybody but Hillary,” said Carolyn Owen, a 64-year-old educator from Clayton, North Carolina, near Raleigh. She said Trump wasn’t her first choice, “but it’s better than the alternative.” While Obama won the support of women overall in his two White House campaigns, white women have increasingly been shifting toward the Republican Party in recent elections. Obama only won 42 percent of white women in 2012. Romney won 56 percent of white women, more than Bush and the party’s 2008 nominee, Sen. John McCain. Clinton’s hopes will largely hinge on replicating Obama’s coalition of blacks, Hispanics and young people. In both of his elections, Obama earned near-unanimous support from black women, while drawing the votes of roughly 7 in 10 Hispanic women. But she would have more room for error with those groups if she can increase Democrats’ share of white women. Another potentially favorable scenario for Clinton involves Republican and independent women who can’t stomach a vote for Trump but also don’t want to vote for a Democrat. Maybe they simply stay home, keeping the GOP nominee’s vote totals down. For Angee Stephens of Indianola, Iowa, that seems to be the only option at this point. She’s wary of Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, which is the subject of an FBI investigation, and her
Donald Trump’s questioning of the value of data worries Republicans
Donald Trump says he plans to win the White House largely on the strength of his personality, not by leaning heavily on complex voter data operations that have become a behind-the-scenes staple in modern presidential campaigns. Shortly after Trump explained his approach in an Associated Press interview — data is “overrated,” he said — one of the presumptive Republican nominee’s top advisers tried to clarify the remarks. Rick Wiley told AP the Trump campaign will indeed tap the Republican Party’s massive cache of voter information. The national Republican Party has spent massive sums of money to develop the database since President Barack Obama‘s election set a new standard for using data in national campaigns, from deciding where to send a candidate and how to spend advertising dollars to making sure supporters cast a ballot. The back-and-forth in the Trump camp leaves Republicans and Democrats alike wondering just how committed the candidate actually is to what has become accepted wisdom among political professionals. Some Republicans worry that Trump risks ceding potential advantages to likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton if he’s not willing to invest the money required to keep updating the data, and then use it effectively. “It’s a big risk,” said Chris Wilson, who ran an expansive data operation for Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, Trump’s stiffest competition in the Republican primaries. Jeremy Bird, who worked for President Barack Obama’s data-rich campaign, said: “Flying blind is nuts.” The use of data has evolved over the past several presidential campaigns into a shorthand for using information — starting with simple lists of potential voters, then mated with extensive details about their habits and beliefs — to guide a campaign toward its ultimate goal: the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House. In his AP interview, Trump discounted the value of data: The “candidate is by far the most important thing,” he said. He said he plans a “limited” use of data in his general election campaign and suggested Obama’s victories — universally viewed by political professionals as groundbreaking in the way data steered the campaign to voters — are misunderstood. “Obama got the votes much more so than his data processing machine, and I think the same is true with me,” Trump said, explaining that he will continue to focus on his signature rallies, free television exposure and his personal social media accounts to win voters over. Buzz Jacobs, who was on the losing end of Obama’s success in 2008 as an aide to GOP nominee John McCain, said Trump oversimplifies the president’s victories. “We lost in large part because Obama’s ability to use data was so much better than ours,” Jacobs said. According to South Carolina’s Republican chairman, Matt Moore: “Elections to a great degree are won on … that last 1 or 2 percent that shows up or stays home. That group on either edge turns out because of data and digital. That’s a known fact.” Republicans and Democrats with experience running campaigns question why Trump would give up a chance to reinforce with data his ubiquitous presence on television and inarguable success with large-scale rallies — a platform of personality that Clinton has yet to match. Bird, whose consulting firm now works for the Clinton campaign, said Trump is giving himself a false choice. “At a big picture level, sure, Barack Obama got the votes — his bio, his policies, his ability to communicate,” Bird said. “But we wanted to do everything we could to get him and get his message to the right people.” Jacobs, who worked this year for a former Trump rival, Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, said Trump is an outlier in being uninterested in data. The RNC and private groups, such as the billionaire conservative activist brothers Charles and David Koch, have spent hundreds of millions on their data programs since Obama’s election. “It would be silly to leave those on the sidelines,” Jacobs said. To be sure, Trump has not wholly abandoned data. His campaign spending disclosures show payments to multiple data firms, and the campaign maintains contact information collected when voters register for tickets to his rallies. Wiley, a recent addition to the Trump team who previously worked for the national party, said he is “working with the RNC, putting together a state-of-the-art program.” He predicted it would be able to match what “Obama was able to do in 2008.” But Trump’s in-house data shop is thin, and the candidate has said that he does not give priority to the ground game. Trump’s most significant loss of the primary season came in the leadoff Iowa caucuses, a victory for Cruz that was largely credited to the Texas senator’s sophisticated campaign effort to turn out voters. Wilson said he used the Cruz campaign’s data to run nightly “models” leading up to the caucuses, which predicted turnout and outcomes and allowed the campaign to adjust its approach every day. That means if Wiley and Trump’s other campaign staffers are able to persuade him to pay attention to the data, they’ll also need to persuade him to raise and spend the money to use it effectively in competitive states. “He has to be convinced,” South Carolina chairman Moore said. Then again, he said, “We’ve all been wrong about Trump for pretty much this entire campaign.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Darryl Paulson: Donald Trump the demagogue: Have you no sense of decency?
(First of three parts) With Donald Trump‘s victory in Indiana and the withdrawal of his last two opponents, he is assured a first ballot victory at the July convention in Cleveland. The good news is that there will be no riots as Trump threatened with a deadlocked convention. The bad news is that Donald Trump is the Republican presidential nominee. Lincoln must be spinning in his grave. On June 9, 1954, Joseph Welch was testifying before the Army/McCarthy Hearings in Washington. Welch was chief counsel for the U.S. Army while that branch of the service was under investigation for communist activities before Sen. Joe McCarthy‘s Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. During the hearings, McCarthy attacked Fred Fisher, an attorney in Welch’s law firm. While a student at Harvard, Fisher had joined the Lawyers Guild, identified by the FBI as a communist-front organization. Fisher had notified Welch of his “youthful indiscretion,” and did not participate in the hearings. Nevertheless, McCarthy persisted in his attacks. Welch asked McCarthy not to “assassinate this lad further, Senator.” McCarthy continued his assault on Fisher. Welch interrupted and berated McCarthy. “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” Welch’s confrontation with McCarthy attracted national attention. It was the beginning of the end for McCarthy and McCarthyism. Within three years, McCarthyism was dead and so was the senator. Has Trumpism now replaced McCarthyism? Right before the Indiana primary, Trump went on Fox and Friends and attacked Rafael Cruz, the father of Ted Cruz. Trump accused the elder Cruz of being involved with Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Trump told Fox viewers that “this was reported and nobody talks about it.” Who reported the story? The National Enquirer, long known for its exposés on Hollywood starlets and their Martian babies. David Peeker, the CEO of the Enquirer, is a Friend of Trump and has endorsed his candidacy. The Enquirer previously ran a story accusing Cruz of having affairs with five women. McCarthy and Trump both destroy lives based on little or no evidence and a lot of lies. As long as their goal is advanced, it matters not what happens to the wrongly accused. New York Times columnist David Brooks has called Trump the “most dishonest person to run for high office in our lifetime.” Trump is “oblivious to accuracy.” In a position that demands the highest level of maturity, we are left with a childish man lacking a moral compass. Here are a baker’s dozen of reasons why Trump is unqualified to be president: Trump has called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S.” Forget that means 1.2 billion individuals and that it violates both U.S. and international law. Trump accuses Mexican illegals as “bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” Trump wants to deport all 11 million illegals, but offers no plan on how to do it. Trump’s proposal to eliminate ISIS is very simple, and I mean that in the worse way possible. Trump says he would “bomb the shit out of them.” Now, that’s a plan. Carly Fiorina has an “ugly face! Would anyone vote for that?” Megyn Kelly asks a tough question of Trump and he accuses her of being unbalanced due to her period. Trump accuses Ben Carson of being “pathological” and, thus, unfit to be president. He stretches Carson’s youthful temper tantrums by comparing it to child molesters. Child molesters are “pathological” and “you don’t cure a child molester.” Trump attacks John McCain as not being a war hero because his plane was shot down over North Vietnam. “I like people who weren’t captured.” When asked to renounce the endorsement of longtime Klansman David Duke, Trump responded that he doesn’t know anything about Duke. Strange. In 2000, Trump wrote an opinion piece for The New York Times saying he was leaving the Republican Party because of its ties to Duke. Trump frequently asks participants at his rallies to raise their right arm and pledge allegiance to him. The salute reminded many of salutes to Adolf Hitler when he controlled Germany. Der Spiegel, a German magazine, called Trump “the world’s most dangerous man,” and the leader of a “hate-filled movement.” Trump encourages torture against terrorists and the killing of families of terrorists. Both would violate U.S. and international law. At his rallies, Trump spoke of wanting “to punch protesters in the face.” After a Black Lives Matter protester was assaulted, Trump said, “Maybe he should have been roughed up.” Trump’s language seeks to divide Americans rather than unite them. Trump talks about “you” and “we” needing to attack the dangerous “them.” His opponents are branded as “stupid,” “weak,” or “losers.” Trump often attacks people and then denies doing so. He said he would never “call Megyn Kelly a bimbo because that would be politically incorrect.” He called her a bimbo and then said he would never do it. Trump consistently distorts the truth, changes positions and lies. PolitiFact called Trump’s collection of misstatements the “lie of the year.” It found that 76 percent of the 77 Trump statements were False, Mostly False or Pants on Fire. Trump is the first and only presidential candidate to defend the size of his penis in a debate. I wish reason would be sufficient to sway individuals from supporting Trump, but I know that reason seldom succeeds. Like in most mass movements, Trump’s supporters will deny that Trump ever said or did the things he has done. They will rally to his defense. Trump is not fit to be president. The sooner Americans realize this, the sooner we can end this national nightmare that is Donald Trump. Part II on Monday: Democracy and Demagogues will examine why demagogues so frequently emerge in democracies. *** Darryl Paulson is Emeritus Professor of Government at USF St. Petersburg.
George W. Bush: From South Carolina cameo to starring role
George W. Bush won a bruising South Carolina presidential primary on his way to the Oval Office, as his father did before him. Now it’s his brother’s turn, and for Jeb Bush, the most consequential foreign policy decisions of his brother’s time in office are suddenly front-and-center of his bid to keep alive his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination — thanks to Donald Trump. The former president had already announced plans to campaign for his younger brother on Monday in South Carolina, marking his most direct entry into the 2016 race to date, when the GOP front-runner used the final debate before the state’s Feb. 20 primary as an opportunity to excoriate George W. Bush’s performance as commander-in-chief. The former president, Trump said, ignored “the advice of his CIA” and “destabilized the Middle East” by invading Iraq on dubious claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. “I want to tell you: they lied,” Trump said. “They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none.” Trump didn’t let up as Bush tried to defend his brother, dismissing his suggestion that George W. Bush built a “security apparatus to keep us safe” after the 9/11 attacks. “The World Trade Center came down during your brother’s reign, remember that,” Trump said, adding: “That’s not keeping us safe.” The onslaught — which Jeb Bush called Trump enjoying “blood sport” — was the latest example of the billionaire businessman’s penchant for mocking his rival as a weak, privileged tool of the Republican Party establishment, special interests and well-heeled donors. But the exchange also highlighted the former Florida governor’s embrace of his family name and history as he jockeys with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Ohio Gov. John Kasich to emerge from South Carolina as the clear challenger to Trump, who won the New Hampshire primary, and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the victor in Iowa’s caucuses. The approach tacks away from Bush’s months-long insistence that he’s running as “my own man,” but could be a perfect fit for South Carolina. Noted South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who ended his GOP presidential campaign in December and endorsed Jeb Bush in January, said: “The Bush name is golden in my state.” George W. Bush retains wide appeal among Republicans, from evangelicals to chamber of commerce business leaders and retired members of the military. All are prominent in South Carolina, with Bush campaign aide Brett Foster going so far as to say that George W. Bush is “the most popular Republican alive.” After the debate, some Republicans again suggested Trump had gone too far. Bush wasn’t alone on stage leaping to his brother’s defense, with Rubio coming back to the moment to say, “I thank God all the time it was George W. Bush in the White House on 9/11 and not Al Gore.” The attack on George W. Bush carries risk for Trump, given the Bush family’s long social and political ties in South Carolina and the state’s hawkish national security bent, bolstered by more than a half-dozen military installations and a sizable population of veterans who choose to retire in the state. Trump has repeatedly defied predictions that his comments might threaten his perch atop the field. And as he jousted Saturday with Trump, Jeb Bush said, “this is not about my family or his family.” But the Bush family does have a history in the state that’s hard to overlook. In 2000, George W. Bush beat John McCain in a nasty contest, marred by rumors that McCain had an illegitimate black child. McCain adopted a child from Bangladesh. Exit polls showed George W. Bush won nearly every demographic group. George H.W. Bush, the 41st president, won twice here, beating Bob Dole in 1988 and demolishing Pat Buchanan in 1992. One of the elder Bush’s top strategists, Lee Atwater, hailed from South Carolina and remains a legend in GOP campaign annals. Last week, Jeb Bush touted the endorsement of Iris Campbell, the widow of former South Carolina Gov. Carroll Campbell, a national co-chairman of previous Bush presidential campaigns. Yet even as he defended his brother’s presidency at Saturday’s debate, Jeb Bush found a way to distance himself from George W. Bush’s business affairs and to criticize Trump at the same time. The issue: eminent domain. Before entering politics, George W. Bush was part-owner of the Texas Rangers, and their home city of Arlington, Texas, used eminent domain to take private land and build a stadium for the team. Trump has defended such uses of eminent domain as a way to foster economic development. Retorted Bush, who argued eminent domain should be reserved for public infrastructure projects, “There is all sorts of intrigue about where I disagree with my brother. There would be one right there.” Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Jeb Bush upbraids Donald Trump at New Hampshire Republican forum
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush unleashed a fury of criticism against Donald Trump on Saturday before imploring New Hampshire voters to forgo the billionaire businessman in the state’s Feb. 9 primary. “You have a chance to reshape this whole primary,” Bush told hundreds of voters at a state Republican Party presidential candidate forum. Trump, who continues to dominate polling in the first primary state, did not attend the event. Nor did Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is neck-and-neck with Trump in first-to-nominate Iowa and rising in New Hampshire. A host of candidates fighting for survival in the 2016 race appeared alongside Bush. Among them: Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, former CEO Carly Fiorina and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. But only Bush delivered harsh words for Trump. “He’s a gifted entertainer, but he’s not a conservative,” Bush said, citing Trump’s past support for Democrats, including the Clintons, past stances on social issues and previous support for a single-payer health care system, noting “that’s Bernie Sanders’ position.” He slammed Trump for saying Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam prisoner of war and two-time New Hampshire presidential primary winner, is not a “war hero” because he was captured. Bush also reminded voters of Trump’s remarks about women and immigrants. “It is not strong to insult women; it is not a sign of strength when you insult Hispanics,” Bush said. “(Or) when you say that a prisoner of war is a loser because they got caught.” Rubio and Kasich, meanwhile, largely stayed away from attacking fellow Republicans. Rubio offered only veiled attacks against Cruz and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie over taxes. Instead, he stuck largely to his campaign speech and focused his criticism on President Barack Obama and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. “We are on the road to decline right now, and the reason is because in 2008 America elected a president who wasn’t interested in fixing the problems of America,” Rubio said. He criticized Obama for his stance on gun rights, immigration, education, military and foreign policy. “The result is the anger and frustration that people are feeling now,” the Florida senator said, echoing the feelings of Trump’s supporters and populist message. But, without naming rivals Trump and Cruz, the Rubio said voters cannot “just elect any Republican.” Kasich, by contrast, said it’s pointless to spend time focusing on Obama, who has only months left in office. Kasich in recent days has said he plans to keep his focus on what’s ahead. But, he noted he’s excited about the prospect of challenging Clinton in a general election. “She’s a fragile candidate,” he said. “In the general, I’m gonna have a ball.” Paul criticized rival Rubio and other Republican senators for pushing to raise military spending, which he said would add to the $19 trillion national debt. The Kentucky senator, whose campaign is struggling to gain traction, also said that Rubio, Bush and other Republicans are eroding Americans’ civil liberties in the fight against terror. They “want more surveillance of you,” he said. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Darryl Paulson: Why Donald Trump won’t win the GOP nomination
As we rapidly approach the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, speculation increases that Donald Trump will likely be the Republican presidential nominee. I believe Trump has no better than a 20 percent chance of winning the nomination. We all know the common criticisms of Trump. He has made outrageous statements about Mexicans as “rapists,” John McCain as not a military hero, and his rants against Carly Fiorina‘s ugly face and Megan Kelly bleeding from “wherever.” We know Trump has flip-flopped on almost every major issue including abortion, national health care and his attitude toward Hillary and Bill Clinton. We know that Trump has spent far more time as a Democrat or independent than as a Republican and he has given most of his $1.5 million in political donations to Democrats, including large contributions to Nancy Pelosi and the Clinton Foundation. We know that Trump has never been a conservative. Besides calling himself a liberal on health care, Trump quit the Republican Party in 1999 saying, “Republicans are just too crazy right.” We know that PolitiFact awarded Trump the “lie of the year” for his numerous misstatements during the campaign. Of the 77 statements PolitiFact investigated, they rated 76 percent of them Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire. Among the lies cited by PolitiFact was Trump’s comment that he watched “thousands of Muslims” cheering the fall of the World Trade Center on 9/11. You think at least one person would have a photo or video of that incident. None of it has damaged the Trump campaign yet. In fact, the more outrageous his statements, the more his numbers rise. So, why will Trump not win the Republican nomination? Because he will either suffer a Howard Dean-like fall, or because his support is concentrated among people who are not Republicans and people who are less likely to vote. Ross Douthat wrote in The New York Times that Trump’s support will vanish as Election Day approaches. As Joe Trippi, Howard Dean’s campaign manager wrote, “People get more pragmatic the closer they get to an actual vote.” According to Trippi, this is what happened to Dean. Why waste a vote on someone unlikely to win? Second, Trump will lose because much of his support comes from people who are not Republican and who don’t vote. Trump’s strongest support comes from what The New York Times called “a certain kind of Democrat.” It is hard for anyone to win the nomination of a political party when much of their support comes from people in the other party. As we get past the early caucuses and primaries, the candidates will face several closed primaries, where only members of a party can vote. If his support comes from Democrats, they will not be able to vote for him in states such as Florida and New York where Trump is doing well in the polls. A final problem for Trump is that much of his support comes from individuals who are least likely to vote, especially in caucuses and primaries. Civis Analytics, in a study of 11,000 Republican-leaning supporters, found that Trump would get 40 percent of the vote of those who have less than a 20 percent chance of voting. Unless Trump has a plan to compensate for these problems, he may quickly find himself, much like Dean, going from first place to out of the race in a period of weeks. If Trump loses the Iowa caucus, where Cruz is now leading, the bottom could fall out of his campaign very quickly. For a “winner” like Trump to lose the first major race of the campaign season would reduce the sense of inevitability that Trump will win the nomination. As other Republicans fall by the wayside, it is unlikely that Trump will win their support. Conservative and evangelical voters are unlikely to align with Trump, who is only a Republican of convenience. • • • Darryl Paulson is Professor Emeritus of Government at the University of South Florida St. Petersburg and resides in Palm Harbor, Florida. For more state and national commentary visit Context Florida.
Ted Cruz’s birth in Canada unlikely to cloud run for president
It seems like only yesterday that skeptics of Barack Obama‘s birth in Hawaii rushed to the Supreme Court to try to block the son of an American mother and Kenyan father from taking office as president. The justices turned away those challenges as fast as they arrived at the courthouse door, much as lower courts did. Seven years later, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is dealing with pointed remarks from rival Donald Trump that Cruz’s birth in Canada to an American mother and Cuban father raises doubt about his eligibility to be president and could dog his campaign for the White House. Trump had also famously questioned whether Obama was really born in Hawaii. Some answers to questions about the constitutional requirements to be president, and Cruz’s situation: Q: What does the Constitution say? A: Article II sets out just three qualifications: The president must be at least 35 years old, a resident of the United States for 14 years and “a natural born citizen.” This last phrase has periodically spawned questions about presidential candidates who were born, or rumored to have been born, outside the United States. Q: Where was Cruz born? A: He was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, in 1970, and has released his birth certificate to prove it. His parents were then working in the oil business. His mother, Eleanor, is from Delaware, while his father, Rafael, is a Cuban who became a U.S. citizen in 2005. Q: Does that make him a citizen? A: Yes, Cruz is a U.S. citizen. He also was a Canadian citizen until he renounced that in 2014. Q: Shouldn’t that be the end of the story? A: The Constitution’s phrase, “natural born citizen” isn’t used elsewhere in the document or otherwise explained. It suggests to some people that only people born in the United States qualify as natural born, though many scholars reject that reading. It was speculation that Obama was born outside the country, even though his mother was American, that fueled the so-called birther movement. Q: So what does “natural born citizen” mean? A: It’s hard to answer definitively because the issue has never been resolved by U.S. courts or by the political process. The most common explanation is that someone who is a U.S. citizen at birth — with no need to go through the process of becoming a naturalized citizen — is a natural born citizen. That’s the case made last year by a pair of former top Justice Department officials, Republican Paul Clement and Democrat Neal Katyal, in the online Harvard Law Review Forum. Under a law dating from the first Congress, which included men who drafted the Constitution, Cruz is a natural born citizen, regardless of where he was born, because his mother is an American, Clement and Katyal wrote. That understanding of the constitutional phrase is consistent with the framers’ intent “to prevent someone who did not have a lifetime attachment to the United States from becoming president,” said University of San Diego law professor Michael Ramsey. Q: Then why is there any uncertainty about the phrase’s meaning? A: On Wednesday, Trump called on Cruz to seek a “declaratory judgment” from a federal court to determine his eligibility once and for all. But because the Supreme Court has never weighed in on the question and is unlikely to, “it’s the kind of question that the courts are almost allergic to and will stay away from if they can,” said Temple University law professor Peter Spiro. He said the issue falls into the category of political questions that courts prefer to let Congress and the president answer. The consensus among legal elites makes court intervention even less likely, he said. One practical problem for challengers is the difficulty of showing they have been harmed, without which they have no right to be in court in the first place. Q: Have the political branches addressed this issue? A: When questions arose in 2008 about Republican nominee John McCain‘s eligibility to serve because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution stating that McCain was a natural born citizen. Among the resolution’s sponsors were then-Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Activists predict abortion will be a hot issue in campaigns
With a deeper-than-ever split between Republicans and Democrats over abortion, activists on both sides of the debate foresee a 2016 presidential campaign in which the nominees tackle the volatile topic more aggressively than in past elections. Friction over the issue also is likely to surface in key Senate races. And the opposing camps will be further energized by Republican-led congressional investigations of Planned Parenthood and by Supreme Court consideration of tough anti-abortion laws in Texas. “It’s an amazing convergence of events,” said Charmaine Yoest, CEO of the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life. “We haven’t seen a moment like this for 40 years.” In the presidential race, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton is a longtime defender of abortion rights and has voiced strong support for Planned Parenthood — a major provider of abortions, health screenings and contraceptives — as it is assailed by anti-abortion activists and Republican officeholders. In contrast, nearly all of the GOP candidates favor overturning the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide. Some of the top contenders — including Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio — disapprove of abortions even in cases of rape and incest. “We may very well have the most extreme Republican presidential nominee since Roe — a nominee who’s not in favor of abortion in any possible way,” said Stephanie Schriock, president of EMILY’s List. The organization, which supports female candidates who back abortion rights, says it is en route to breaking its fundraising records. A similar claim is made by some anti-abortion political action groups. What’s changed for this election? One factor is the increased polarization of the two major parties. Only a handful of anti-abortion Democrats and abortion-rights Republicans remain in Congress, and recent votes attempting to ban late-term abortions and halt federal funding to Planned Parenthood closely followed party lines. Another difference: Republicans in the presidential field and in Congress seem more willing than in past campaigns to take the offensive on abortion-related issues. Past nominees George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney opposed abortion but were not as outspoken as some of the current GOP candidates. “Abortion will bubble over into the general election,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which supports female candidates opposed to abortion. “If you don’t know how to handle this issue, you will be eviscerated.” As the campaign unfolds, other factors will help keep the abortion debate in the spotlight. The Supreme Court will be hearing arguments, probably in March, regarding a Texas law enacted in 2013 that would force numerous abortion clinics to close. One contested provision requires abortion facilities to be constructed like surgical centers; another says doctors performing abortions at clinics must have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The Texas dispute will have echoes in other states as social conservatives lobby for more laws restricting abortion. Americans United for Life plans a multistate push for a package of bills called the Infants’ Protection Project; one measure would ban abortions performed because of fetal abnormalities such as Down syndrome while another would ban abortions after five months of pregnancy. Also unfolding during the campaign will be a new investigation launched by House Republicans to examine the practices of Planned Parenthood and other major abortion providers. The panel’s chair, Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, says its work will likely continue past Election Day. The investigation — denounced by Democrats as a partisan witch hunt — is among several congressional and state probes resulting from the release of undercover videos made by anti-abortion activists. They claim the videos show Planned Parenthood officials negotiating the sale of fetal tissue in violation of federal law; Planned Parenthood denies any wrongdoing and says the programs in question at a handful of its clinics entailed legal donations of fetal tissue. Cruz is among many Republicans who have already passed judgment on Planned Parenthood, calling it “an ongoing criminal enterprise.” He welcomed the endorsement of anti-abortion activist Troy Newman, who helped orchestrate the undercover video operation. Donald Trump, who leads the GOP presidential polls, has been harder to pin down on the issue. He describes himself as “pro-life” and open to defunding Planned Parenthood, while acknowledging that he held different views in the past. Planned Parenthood’s leaders say a majority of U.S. voters oppose efforts to cut off its federal funding, most of which subsidizes non-abortion health services for patients on Medicaid. Planned Parenthood’s political action fund hopes to spend a record amount — more than $15 million — on election-related advocacy. The fund’s executive vice president, Dawn Laguens, contends that some GOP presidential hopefuls, including Cruz and Rubio, may have hurt their general election prospects by making strong bids for anti-abortion votes in the primaries. “They’ve gone so far out on the limb that they won’t be able to crawl back,” she said. National polls over the years show the American public deeply divided on abortion. An Associated Press-GfK poll released Dec. 22 found 58 percent of U.S. adults saying abortion should be legal in most or all cases, and 39 percent saying it should be illegal in most or all cases. Forty-five percent viewed Planned Parenthood favorably; 30 percent unfavorably. Abortion and Planned Parenthood are likely to surface as divisive issues in several of the races that will decide control of the Senate. New Hampshire features an intriguing race between two women. Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan, a supporter of abortion rights, hopes to unseat GOP incumbent Kelly Ayotte, who is endorsed by anti-abortion groups and favors halting Planned Parenthood’s federal funding. Other key Senate races likely to feature sharp divisions over abortion include those in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Wisconsin and the crucial presidential battleground of Ohio, where GOP incumbent Rob Portman is expected to be challenged by former Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Jonathan McConnell accuses Richard Shelby of endangering national security
News broke last month U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) was considering adding language to a must-pass spending bill to slow the Pentagon’s phase-out of Russian-made rocket engines used to launch military satellites into space. Shelby, a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, has since been able to add said language to the Omnibus — a catchall spending bill that would fund the federal government until after the presidential election next November — that was released Wednesday morning. In the midst of the 2,000-page bill, Shelby’s efforts have resulted in a lone paragraph that would allow United Launch Alliance (ULA) to continue buying RD-180 engines from Moscow until a domestic alternative is available, which Shelby has already worked to secure more than $300 million in funding for domestic development. However, his office tells Alabama Today it could be another four to five years at best before an American alternative is available. In Congress, Shelby’s most vocal opponent is former Republican presidential nominee U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) who argues on behalf of the phase-out, which could negatively impact more than 800 jobs at the ULA outfit in Decatur located near Marshall Space Flight Center and Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville. Outside of Washington, Shelby’s primary opponent former Marine Captain Jonathan McConnell is none too pleased with the Senator’s latest legislative accomplishment and is sounding the bullhorn against him accusing him of endangering national security in return for a few votes. “Richard Shelby’s willingness to give President Obama’s liberal agenda a blank check in return for a few votes reveals just how out of touch he has become with the values and priorities of Alabamians in his 37 years in Washington, D.C.,” said McConnell. “This Omnibus bill does nothing to defund Planned Parenthood or Obamacare, allows Obama’s executive amnesty to continue, and does nothing to ensure the refugees soon arriving from the Middle East are being sufficiently vetted.” He continued, “In the stroke of a pen today Shelby proved two things: He no longer has a grasp on the precarious nature of our foreign policy relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has shown a growing inclination to give aide to the terrorist state of Iran, and he is willing to rubber stamp over $1 trillion in federal spending, including all of President Obama’s liberal pet projects, over a few sentences he hopes will buy him some votes.” But Shelby, who plans to oppose the Omnibus as a whole, contends he is actually working to protect national security in supporting the RD-180. “I’m the first one to argue that we should not depend on any foreign power for access to space — especially in the national security arena,” Shelby explained. “However, I agree with our nation’s top military leaders who say that restricting the use of the RD-180 will undermine our national security for years to come.” Defense Secretary Ash Carter, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, among other officials and top military officers have also joined Shelby in expressing concern over the RD-180 ban. “Anyone who supports banning the RD-180 is arguing that it is acceptable for our troops under fire around the world to be left blind on the battlefield,” Shelby continued. “This is a reckless and irresponsible approach that needlessly endangers our national security.”
FDP calls “unconscionable” Marco Rubio’s vote against wider gun background checks
The FBI is now treating the San Bernardino shooting by a husband and wife that killed 14 and wounded 21 as an act of terrorism, a spokesman said on Friday. The announcement comes two days after the horrific attack, and a day after the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly voted down a gun control measure that would have extended FBI background checks on every firearms purchase. Four Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the measure but Marco Rubio was not one of them, a decision that the Florida Democratic Party is criticizing. “Yesterday, Floridians were profoundly disappointed to learn that their absentee senator finally showed up to work to vote to allow suspected terrorists to purchase firearms. It is simply unconscionable,” FDP Chairwoman Allison Tant said in a prepared statement. The FDP chairwoman used the opportunity to bash the Florida senator’s attendance record in the Senate of late, which has been an ongoing story for several months. He has missed more votes than any other current senator as he travels across the country campaigning and fundraising for president. She also said the vote was out of touch with the American people. “Currently, 91 percent of gun purchases by suspected terrorists are approved,” Tant said. “While we’re used to Republicans like Marco Rubio burying their heads in the sand when it comes to modest, common-sense reforms to our gun laws supported by more than 80 percent of gun owners, this dereliction of duty represents a terrible new low.” Appearing on “CBS This Morning” earlier on Friday, Rubio told host Charlie Rose that the San Bernardino attack would not have been prevented by expanded background checks. “The fact of the matter is these individuals would have passed expanded background check, these individuals in California,” he said. “This terrorist that was able to access these weapons is not someone that would have wound up in any database and this is one of the risks of homegrown violent extremism. These are not people that have done anything before who suddenly become radicalized and within months are taking action.” Rubio was asked by co-host Norah O’Donnell that since background checks are commonplace now, why wouldn’t he support them for online gun sales and gun shows? “Because you’re putting an incredible burden on people” he said. “The gun show thing, it’s not a gun show loophole. People keep saying that. It is an individual. I decide I want to sell my gun to a friend of mine, so now you have put an extraordinary burden on me to go out and conduct a background check and I’m liable if I get it wrong. As an individual, it’s very difficult to implement, almost impossible to enforce and it ignores the fact that despite the background checks that we are seeing now, people are still getting access to these weapons.” The FBI had resisted calling the San Bernardino massacre a terrorist act, but that shifted on Friday after it was learned that the woman who helped carry out the shootings, Tashfeen Malik, had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State in a Facebook posting. However, there is still no evidence that the Islamic state directed Malik or her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, to stage the attacks. But officials now say that the Facebook posting shows that the couple were “inspired” by the group. Farook was a U.S. citizen. His parents came from Pakistan. The New York Times reports that F.B.I. officials came up with no hits when they searched agency databases for his names. However, the paper reports that the agency has uncovered evidence that Farook had contact with five individuals on whom the F.B.I. had previously opened investigations for possible terrorist activities. Four Republicans in the Senate — Arizona’s John McCain, Maine’s Susan Collins, Illinois’ Mark Kirk and Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey — joined Democrats in supporting the gun control measure.
