There's unlikely to be a TWiA installment this week, because we've just been too busy day and night to read, report, process, and write about America's policy/political scene.
We will however, share a thought or two about the incredibly long debate we just watched (albeit while doing other things, so we might have missed a bon mot here and there).
The most notable fact was how much the Republican candidates have to deny reality to make their pitches. To talk about immigration, they have to pretend that the Mexican border is wide open. We know that the border is more secure than it's ever been, that the current administration has been beefing up the Border Patrol, closing the fences, deporting millions, and that undocumented immigrants are crossing at a lower rate than they have in decades.
To talk about the economy, they have to pretend that the current administration has been an economic disaster. The economic disaster happened during the previous president's administration, in part because of the policies that president championed. This president took solid, significant action that prevented a second Great Depression, even though in some ways the 2007-08 recession was more dangerous and could have been far worse. The president acted, he brought Congress along, and the unemployment stats turned around, setting a record stretch of job growth, saving the auto industry, funding clean energy initiatives, and more. No, the economy isn't perfect yet, but it's close to statistical full employment, and getting closer all the time. The deficit is shrinking, the GDP is growing.
To talk about climate change, they have to either pretend it doesn't exist, that it's a left-wing fantasy, or that there's not a global effort underway to try to address it. We can't do anything by ourselves, they say. The fact is that we're not by ourselves; we're working with the rest of the world--but we have to do our part. We're the undisputed world's superpower, so the other countries look to us for an example. If we ignore the problem--and it is a real problem; ask California before it dries out and blows away, or burns to a crisp--how can we fault them for ignoring it, too.
To talk about Hillary Clinton, they have to pretend that she's been lying about Benghazi, lying about emails, and--well, that's pretty much all they've got at the moment. They've tried to make a scandal out of the deaths of Americans in Libya, and they keep claiming that the FBI has initiated a criminal investigation of her, which is completely untrue. This week, the Justice Department said there was nothing wrong with what she did.
To talk about the Iranian nuclear deal, they have to pretend that it helps Iran get nuclear weapons instead of preventing them from having them. They pretend that we can pull out of it and keep the existing sanctions on Iran, or impose new, harsher ones, which we can't.
To talk about ISIS, they have to pretend that it started after Obama brought the troops home from Iraq (on Bush's prearranged timetable), instead of acknowledging that it grew out of Al-Qaeda in Iraq during the vacuum that existed after we destroyed Iraq's existing institutions.
There will be fact-checks galore over the next few days. We can't resist fact-checking one comment that Jeb Bush made. Challenged about his brother's record, Jeb said, "As it relates to my brother, I know one thing for sure: he kept us safe."
We've heard others make similar comments, and it always boggles the mind. Does he think we've forgotten that 9/11--the most deadly single attack on American soil in our history--happened on his brother's watch? Does he think we don't know that Hurricane Katrina, which became the deadliest natural disaster in our history largely because of the administration's feeble response, happened on his brother's watch? Does he think we've forgotten that Bush gave up the search for Bin Laden, and diverted his attention and resources to Iraq? What is it, exactly, that George W. kept us safe from, Jeb? Bigfoot?
If we had to pick a "winner," we'd say there was only one candidate who came across as presidential. Ohio governor John Kasich spoke like a general election candidate, like he wants the votes of all Americans, like he wants to work with both sides, to bring Americans together to seek real answers to hard problems. Kasich is very conservative, but he has a knack for coming across as reasonable, as a man who lives according to his faith but doesn't use faith as a cudgel. The rest were after one another, playing to their various bases, but not speaking to the wider audience of viewers and voters.
If we had to pick a loser, it would be a tie between Trump and Carson, neither of whom know the first thing about policy, about the world situation, about much of anything that matters. Republican primary voters will disagree, no doubt. For us, we'd want to vote for someone who knows something. Anything.
Edited to add: Votes on who drops out next? (Not counting Jim Gilmore, who so far has had less impact on the race than Deez Nuts.) Paul? Pataki? Rubio? Graham? We think Christie helped himself tonight, as did Fiorina, so they probably stay in the running for a while, but somebody's going soon.
Edited once more to add: The lamest line of the night had to be Marco Rubio's excuse for not taking action on gun violence: Criminals by definition don't obey the law, so all the gun laws won't have any impact on gun violence.
That might be true if gun violence was all, or mostly, due to the actions of criminals. It's not. It's kids getting their hands on Daddy's pistol. It's suicide. It's domestic abusers. It's people with mental health issues but no criminal records. It's accidents. Sometimes it's criminals. And yes, passing laws that require, for instance, universal background checks rather than leaving gaping loopholes, would help keep criminals from getting guns. Fewer guns circulating in the population keeps criminals from getting guns. Rubio's argument is flat-out nonsense, and he should be ashamed for uttering it.
Comments