Has Hillary Won The Nomination?

Reflecting upon Hillary Clinton’s debate performance, most new analysts have come down on the side that she either won or did substantially better than most had expected. Begrudgingly, most admit that Clinton came through the debate with very Presidential marks. Not wanting to kill the golden news goose, these same reporters and analysts quickly say that the race is not over and we must look to see how average voters react. Hmmm.

As Yogi Berra once said, “it ain’t over until it’s over”. The same is true for the Democrat Presidential primary. But think about what might be being said now had Hillary given a weak performance like President Obama did in his first debate with Mitt Romney. Questions would be flying asking whether is she too old or worn out from the Benghazi Committee investigation. But that will have to wait because Clinton did not wilt.

Strategically the biggest loser might have been Joe Biden. Had he announced his intention to run for President, he would have been on stage. And almost certainly, his entrance would have been the story and overshadowed Hillary. Instead, Biden has chosen to wait, maybe forever. In doing so he will have given Clinton a chance to shine and donors a chance to commit to her campaign leaving Biden with crumbs for donations.

Should for whatever reasons, Hillary Clinton stumble in the next few months, Biden could act as the experienced (and safe) candidate who could replace her. This situation could arise should Hillary develop a sudden health problem, for example.

Life is all about what might have been. I think for Joe Biden it is time to begin thinking about retirement and for Hillary time to think about a hate and slander filled run for President.

When Adults Gather

Last night in Las Vegas, Democrat candidates for their party’s Presidential nomination gathered for a TV “debate”. The group acted professionally and Presidential. Allowing for the fact that it was a “made for TV” event, the candidates spoke of real problems facing the US, and for the most part offered real solutions. OK, maybe not solutions, but at least policies which could ameliorate or lessen the social problems.

In stark contrast, the previous GOP debates displayed one candidate after another speaking to non-issues (or at least issues way down the list in importance) and pandering to subjects dear to extreme elements on the conservative right. Much of the media has pointed to Donald Trump as the instigator of most of the Republican inflammatory rhetoric but under inspection, none of the GOP candidates seems to have a handle on the big issues facing the Country and proposing policies which have a chance of being implemented.  To be fair, the GOP candidates all endorsed a wall with Mexico but differed on how high and how long it might be.  Hmmm.

Not waiting for the next GOP debate, Jeb Bush shared his healthcare plan yesterday. Not surprisingly the plan solves problems that do not exist, leaves deficiencies unaddressed, and opens more questions on how Bush’s proposals would be financed.  in practical terms, unanswered financing questions is a place holder for subsequent service cuts that “we can not afford”.

Bush’s professorial speech was pretty much what one would expect for a plan which begins with “repeal Obamacare and start over”. Healthcare is complicated stuff and unless one is clear about key assumptions, (which were absent in Bush’s speech) the policy house of cards built upon these assumptions will possess glaring holes.

Bush’s plan, while dressed up to appear new, is a rehash of previous GOP “repeal and replace” proposals.

• Medicaid would be capped and replaced with block grants to States who intern would cater to as many of the poor as that State felt appropriate. Read this proposal as “under Bush, the US will reduce coverage to those who can’t afford healthcare insurance and reduce the number covered.
• For those purchasing insurance or receiving it from employers, Bush would eliminate any requirements for “basic” coverage which would allow individuals to buy bargain priced policies with poor coverage limits and employers the opportunity to offer as little coverage as they can get away with.
• Bush would also eliminate individual and employer mandates. This would allow both individuals and employers to game the system by not participating in insurance pools until an individual needs coverage (like becoming ill or injured). Bush claims his plan would reduce healthcare costs but neither cites how much would be saved or how key elements of his plan would be paid for.

Jeb Bush also avoided mentioning key assumptions and obvious contradictions.

• Why for example should one person receive better healthcare coverage than someone else? The age old GOP answer is because they can afford better coverage. Hmmm.
• Bush was silent on why it is ethical for a poor person in New York to receive different healthcare (either more or less) than a similarly poor person living in Iowa or Texas.
• Bush also did not address what safety net would exist for individuals who did not receive healthcare from employment and could not afford “basic” coverage policies.   With Bush’s proposed tax credits, in theory, individuals could obtain stripped down coverage.

Obamacare, which is simply a tweak of what came before it, is based upon the two assumptions. (1) Healthcare is not free and must be paid for.  And, (2) basic healthcare is a right for everyone.  Never the less Obamacare still many weaknesses.

Overall cost is probably the most obvious one. Individuals and employers feel the brunt of the highest healthcare costs in the world (two times other modern countries). This straps the average consumer with a hit to their disposable income, and walks employers with higher costs of doing business.

Universal healthcare plans similar to those in Japan, Canada, and Europe could reduce the cost of equivalent or better healthcare by one half (50%). There are no free lunches so this cost reduction must come from less money flowing to hospitals (and their staffs), doctors, and drug/medical device companies. Improved efficiencies could mitigate some of the impact upon compensation for these healthcare providers (providing more service for the same amount).  Unfortunately, mathematically there would still need to be significant compensation reductions in order to achieve world class standards.

Jeb Bush tried to claim cost savings but his only savings were tied to reduced healthcare availability. Shameful.

Capturing world class healthcare cost savings opportunities will need a comprehensive plan and be phased in over time (to avoid open revolt with healthcare providers). Dancing around the edges, as Jeb Bush has done, will become very transparent if he should try to build his campaign around this issue.

Maybe for now, it is simply to gain GOP primary voters’ attention (at any cost).

Do Political Parties Make Sense?

Are political parties a necessary fact of life? People do like to band together and as a group, champion some position. In the US, the two major parties are the Democrats and the Republicans. One just as easily might see them as the blue party and the red party, or the chestnut party and the acorn party, or the triangle party and the pentagon party. There is nothing in the names or current performance of  “Democrat” and “Republican” that indicate what these parties stand for.

You might be quick to say, “why Democrats are for the average person and have been since Franklin Roosevelt championed the new deal”. Or if you are new to national politics, you might say, “what the Republicans are the party against taxes, Obamacare, and undocumented workers”. Hmmm.

For the past 6 years or so, Democrats have been given a free ride. They could plead on behalf of the average person, the undocumented resident, and those in need of entitlements. There was little chance that much if any of their agenda could be implemented given that Congress was controlled by their opponents. In short, Democrats could speak firmly about their ideas and know there would no proof at the next election that the most extreme Democrat ideas would have worked as advertised.

The Republicans, on the other hand, have amassed an unbelievable record of saying “no” to everything, predicting the worst of outcomes, and blocking Congressional action even to the point of shutting down the Government. And for what purpose? Each Republican prediction has been shown to be wrong and the dire circumstances Republican leaders assured Americans were around the corner, simply have not been found. Hmmm.

The Congressional farce currently underway featuring a dysfunctional Republican Party trying to elect a new Speaker of the House sums up the broken nature of the Republican Party. When Paul Ryan is considered “too liberal” by the most conservative House members, one needs to pay attention.  Ryan has championed a Federal Budget which strikes at entitlements, provides tax relief to the wealthy, and sets in motion a repeal of Obamacare. Does that sound “too liberal” to you?

The underlying causes for Congress’ poor performance can be attributed to two factors, (1) a slowing growth rate, and (2) a dysfunctional political system.

The famous American dream seems every day drifting further and further from the average person’s grasp.  What is lost on most Americans is that the American economy is still the best in the world and that a return to high growth last experienced following the second world war, is simply not going to be in the cards.  Get used to it.

The Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision is often named as the culprit for Congressional dysfunction.  (it may be fairer to say, Citizens United accelerated the decline of Congress).  Following Citizens United, campaign spending limits became a thing of the past. Free speech was immediately redefined to be the commodity of the wealthy, the more money one spends, the more free speech one has. Laying this campaign financing need on top of a sophisticated and equally well healed lobbying activity, individual Congress members have lost their moral compass and their sense of true north. Without a compass, the current Republican foolishness can be quickly understood.

If political parties wished to remain relevant, they would be wise to address the dysfunctions on display daily in Congress. Congress members are tasked to raise money for their national parties and run the risk of obscure committee assignments if they do not produce enough donations.

Why it is not common sense that there should be a limit to individual campaign donations is a mystery to me. And the notion that corporations are people, and should therefore be held to same no limit campaign spending, is naive and dangerous.

Regrettably there is little or no incentive for the media to champion these fundamental changes. Special interests and unlimited campaign spending has been a financial boom to newspapers, TV stations, and political strategists and pundits. Who would want to bit that hand that feeds it?

America is a big country and it is full of many people who march to different drummers. Out there, in media land, there are competent and wise people who can see the depths of the current Congressional dysfunction. (Can you imagine the current Congress supporting intelligently a national emergency such as World War II?)  These hidden Americans need to spread the true story behind Congressional dysfunction.

Life is never all this or all that. Accordingly one can not expect campaign spending reforms to suddenly reverse the uncontrolled nature of today’s system. We cannot also expect to throttle the wasteful and ethically challenged free money from lobbyists. But in both cases we could set in motion meaningful corrective measures that could lead to our elected representatives thinking about their Congressional duties first and their personal wealth accumulation second.

Real Politics and Real Life

President Obama captivated much of the American electorate in 2008. His speeches meshed with the disillusionment many Americans felt over the Bush Presidency and frankly the direction America seemed headed. The reality of Obama’s Presidency, however, has turned out quite differently than his ardent supports had imagined.

President Obama has turned out to be a rather indecisive and ineffective chief executive and a dismal partner for Congress (even when Democratically controlled). President Obama, on the other hand, (IMO) will be seen historically as a bright light bulb compared to his predecessor and Congress. President Obama’s policies on overseas engagement, health care, infrastructure investment, immigration reform, and the emergence of Asia as the most important region for US foreign affairs attention will clearly mark him for greatness.

What about 2016?

The GOP field admittedly continues to be hamstrung with the need to select its candidate through a bazaar primary process which drives all the candidates far to the right in order to win the nomination. Once nominated the GOP standard bearer must navigate back to the middle if they are to have a chance of winning in the general election. A lot of opportunity for promising things which will come back to haunt.

With due respect to the GOP process, the field has yet to reveal anyone with “big” ideas. Republicans might argue that killing Obamacare, shrinking government spending, and awarding huge tax cuts to the wealthy are big ideas.   To be sure this political candy would have profound impact since the GOP has proposed nothing to replace or remedy hardships that their big ideas would entail. In short, the GOP seems focus on finding a “leader” who can take charge, not someone who has a sense of “true north”.

Democrats got a refresher view of what a Hillary Clinton Presidency will be like this week. Hillary announced she was opposed to the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement because it did not protect American jobs enough. Hmmm.

President Bill Clinton was a master at making big decisions once he was sure, from poll numbers, where public opinion lay. Hillary made a very similar decision, albeit her focus was more on her two main nomination rivals, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden.

Hillary’s position has been characterized as a bow to organized labor and bares no connection with the merits of the agreement. My guess is that should Congress approve the agreement anyways, a President Clinton would in future years boast how well her Administration had managed the deal and what an important policy for creating new American jobs.

Hillary Clinton supporters must begin to recognize that there will be a cost with her election. She will most likely not possess the will to make principled choices like President Obama. What a President Hillary Clinton might experience in her terms is only speculative at this point. A President Clinton should be expected to maintain most entitlements and Social Security, and push for immigration reform, protect women rights, and nominate centrist to left of center Supreme Court nominees. She would waiver on all sorts of other issue taking a course of least resistance.

So it may come down to picking a GOP tough talking, shallow thinking candidate, or a Democrat candidate (most likely Hillary) who has their heart in the right place but will wiggle to the left or the right, to this private interest group or that one.  Hmmm, I guess that is Real Life.

The Voice Of The American People

In an interview today, Representative Jason Cheffetz said he was running for Speaker of the House because the American people want a leader that will hear their voices and lead the Congress in that direction. Hmmm. I wonder what part of the “American people” Cheffetz was thinking of?

To be fair, Cheffetz made a very competent appearance and seemed far more prepared to be Speaker than either retiring John Boehner or the favored successor, Mike McCarthy. As Cheffetz said the Speaker’s job is just that, to speak for the majority and clearly put forth what the American people want. Hmmm.

I wonder who makes up “the American people” that Cheffetz speaks about. Which ones think the debt is important enough to shut down the Government instead of raising the limit and paying the bills for Government spending already spent? I wonder which Americans he has in mind who want to race into another Middle East conflict sending their sons and daughters? I wonder which Americans he is thinking about who would restrict women’s rights or turn their backs on immigration reform?

It is clearly true that Cheffetz could speak for “SOME” Americans. And it is also true that some Americans do favor shutting down the Government over the debt issue. And some Americans do think their religious preferences around women’s health issues should apply to everyone (religious freedom, I guess). And there is no doubt that some Americans would gladly send other peoples children to Iraq again or any place in the Middle East. So it is clear Cheffetz does speak for at least some Americans.

We should note, however, that the debt issue is a sad surrogate for a Congressional inability. Congress can neither reform entitlements or constrain other government spending, and is totally unwilling to raise the necessary taxes resulting from their unbalanced budget. The Debt is a red herring. The issue is a balanced budget.

Interestingly when the discussion moves to the budget, Cheffetz speaks for even a smaller segment of Americans. Some Americans do not see the value of Social Security, but many more do. Some Americans want to reign in Medicare and Medicaid, but many more recognize the social implications and might support some reform but in no way would they support wholesale gutting of these programs.

Democrats are somewhat shocked to be seeing the majority GOP melting down and showing clearly that as a party they are currently unfit to govern.

Americans’ voice needs to rise up and say, “ENOUGH”. America is a pluralistic country and there are many voices within its boarders. The next Speaker needs to recognize this fact, drop the partisan shenanigans, and conduct votes where all voices are heard.

Who that could be I have not a clue.

Saying What You Mean

There is a familiar expression which goes, “Say what you mean, mean what you say”. Recent Washington events can put some dimensions around this saying. The events were the Pope’s visit, Representative Mike McCarthy’s comments on Benghazi, and the GOP’s perspective on the Russian entry into Syria.

1. The Pope’s visit was a smashing success for Washington, New York, and Philadelphia. The Pope’s use of symbolism to emphasize the importance of humility, tending to the poor, and acceptance of all people was moving. In carefully crafted language the Pope verbally communicated what he tried to symbolize, and, also carefully alluded to catholic dogma which most Americans find less acceptable.

Namely, the Pope gave no room for a greater role for women in the Catholic Church, nor did the Pope offer hope for a more sensible approach to family planning, and the Pope omitted any direct reference for an equal place in life for the GLBT community. The Pope said this by not saying anything to the contrary.

But wait, we now have heard that the Pope met privately with Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for contempt for denying marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. In an eerily similar move to transferring a priest accused of child abuse or paying hush money to victims on the basis of them dropping criminal charges, the church once again tried to have it both ways.  The Pope kept speaking about the sanctity of all persons while his conservative handlers orchestrated a private meeting endorsing Davis’ actions.

Clearly child abuse is a human problem and not restricted to the celebrant church officials. Being opposed to birth control or abortion are matters of conscience and these beliefs can be widely held. The Catholic Church stepped out of bounds when it supported the suppression of information on criminal activity (presumably to not tarnish the church’s reputation) and now when it supports illegal actions (Davis refusal to issue licenses) to advance the church’s faith based beliefs.

Meeting openly with Kim Davis is one issue, not meeting with women’s groups or members of GLBT groups sends an equally clear message about the still broken planks in the church’s efforts to represent itself as a modern church.

2. Representative Mike McCarthy has declared his intentions to seek the position of Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Speakers job goes to someone who is a GOP leader and well informed on GOP strategy.  In comments to Fox News, McCarthy committed an unforced error by speaking the truth. When asked to name some accomplishments of the GOP controlled House, McCarthy cited the Benghazi select committee. McCarthy attributed the drop in Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers as a direct consequent of the GOP lead investigation and proof of its accomplishment.

For anyone with a heart beat, the investigation’s purpose has been clear for a long time. For McCarthy to utter this confirmation is amazing (for telling the truth) and completely a political mistake for admitting what was patently obvious. It should be no wonder why public opinion polls of Congress register so low.

3. In the murky Syrian situation, so many Republican politicians and GOP Presidential hopefuls are weighing in on “President Obama’s failed policies”. Each one of these critics decry the President’s policies of limited involvement but also cling to the notion that troops on the ground are not necessary. “The US is not acting, Russia is”, they spout. “Our allies will begin to forsake the US and turn to Russia”, the political rhetoric goes. Hmmm.

There is no question that Syria has become a humanitarian tragedy. But if Iraq has taught anything, it is that American idealism is sorely misplaced as the foundation of a Middle East strategy. There is no Russian idealism and doing what is necessary to keep Assad in power is all that is necessary.  (Like with Afghanistan when Russia invaded and was eventually defeated, Syria is equally a bed Russia will not like to sleep in.)

If the GOP really is interested in ending the Syrian turmoil and defeating ISIS, there must be honesty about what it would take. Nothing less than another Iraq type invasion and occupation with most likely a subsequent redefinition of regional boundaries would be necessary. All of this would need to be supported by a US draft and imposition of war taxes. (I wonder whether Mike McCarthy would admit that too?)

What Should GOP Hopefuls Talk About Next?

With the GOP Presidential nomination marathon heading into October, still over a year away from the general election, the quandary of what candidates are to talk about is becoming evident. Donald Trump has gotten the pole position by slamming his opponents. Who could be next? Ben Carson has risen to number 2 by speaking sanely (until his remarks on a Muslim President). Sanity, however, seems it can only get one so far.   Carli Florina has jumped into the top group by saying the obvious about Trump.  More of that is old news.   And, Marco Rubio has kept his head above water by appealing to like minded voters with his fresh face and charm.  At some point, Rubio needs to appeal to a broader group.

Jeb Bush appears a bit like a “birthday balloon” slowly loosing its air. He seems to lack spirit (energy) and totally has not found any reason to put forward why he should be nominated. Huckabee is purely an opportunist and after his Kim Davis gambit, he is eyeing a block of Southern States which would make him a contender at the convention. The rest of the crowd at this point are going nowhere even though John Kasick continues to speak like a real Presidential candidate.

So what’s next for these candidates?

Over the weekend, the contenders weighed in on Syria and the recent Russian activity. Each of their speeches took a similar form. “President Obama failed to do this or that, and what he tried to do failed”. As political speech, why not?

John Boehner has the answer. Boehner was speaking about the GOP Tea Party-ers who thwarted almost everything Boehner tried to get done, said “beware of false prophets, they promise more than they can deliver”.

President Obama’s Syrian policies have been handicapped by a nation tired of war and a Congress unwilling to increase tax to pay for a war. The President’s Middle East strategies have been prescient in view of the changing global political realities but ran will into the demagoguery over Isreal. Committing military resources to the Middle East will do nothing to deal with China, Russia, or rogues like North Korea.

The prospects of arming “good” Syrian insurgents and guiding them to eliminate ISIS and ultimate overthrow Basher al Assad is simply delusional and mostly a fools errand. But it does make good political talk.

The country as a whole needs a reminder about false prophets more than once. Some people actual believe that Social Security and Medicare will be changed with a GOP President or accept lock, line, and sinker that Obamacare will be repealed (and replaced). False prophets will promise these actions but will never be able to deliver.

On the other hand, there is a need for a Middle East policy which combats ISIS (or whatever group comes after it). There is a need for ensuring Social Security becomes financially secure. And healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare) are woefully deficient compared to other global healthcare models.

In other words there is plenty of room to propose specific measures on the Middle East, entitlements, and healthcare but these policies must be set within a greater context of Domestic and Foreign affairs and most importantly, how the country will fund them.

Unforced Errors

This morning, following a weekend of political gaffs by several GOP hopefuls, Republican pundits and apologist are lamenting the withdrawal of Governor Scott Walker. Walker withdrew after his poll numbers dropped below 1% reaching almost the same level as his funding accounts. Walker had been conducting a national campaign while he frittered away a substantial Iowa lead. There in lies an important message for other candidates. If your campaign is suppose to go through Iowa, make sure it does a respectable job even if you are not destine to win.

Instead Walker focused on building a national staff and breezed around acting as if he was above the fray of every day retail politics. He also built his campaign around the narrow plank of Union busting as opposed to something positive. Frankly the world has not lost much in his campaign suspension. Remember Scott Walker would not confirm that the thought the earth was more than 5,000 years old.

Ben Carson broke into jail on Meet The Press. He volunteered that he could not recommend a Muslim to be President but depending upon the individual Muslim, he might vote for that person for a lesser job, like for Congress. On one hand this speaks to Carson’s sincerity and on the other his naivety. The only acceptable answer is religion does not count as long as the candidate is qualified and their policies are acceptable. Religion, or the lack of any religion is expressly prohibited as a test for public office in the Constitution.

Donald Trump lost an opportunity earn a “statesmanship” badge when a questioner claimed President Obama was a muslim. Instead Trump ignored these allegations and later said it was not his job to defend the President. Hmmm. If you are a Democrat, you can’t hide your glee that Trump is still leading the GOP pack.

Carli Fiorina made a dramatic pronouncement on Planned Parenthood during the debate and got her facts all wrong. For the pro-life choir, it made no difference. She was speaking to them.

The lesser names, like Huckabee, Santorum, and Bush each picked contradictory targets. Huckabee jumped on the Kim Davis bandwagon and hitched his “religious freedom” kite to it. Religious freedom is a nebulous right that if one claims their religious view prevents them from adhering to some law, it’s ok. I wonder whether a Muslim’s beliefs count too? And this guy wants to be President?

Rick Santorum and Jeb Bush want to go a le carte with Pope. Since the Pope’s views on global warming don’t fit the GOP take on this subject, the Pope’s still a great person but they don’t listen to him on climate or monetary matters. Hmmm.

Oh, and Ted Cruz is still full speed ahead for a government shutdown.

The immensity of the hole the GOP is digging one candidate at a time is impressive. GOP leaning pundits are now waking up to their plait. There are few candidates in the current field who have currency to turn this around. Marco Rubio has been far more careful with his public statements. John Kasick is clearly the most experience executive with conservative credentials. And the seven dwarfs (Graham, Pataki, Gilmore, Paul, Christie, and Jindal, ok just six) can’t mount a credible campaign separately or together.

Following the 2016 elections GOP bigwigs gathered and concluded they needed to modulate their rhetoric so as to not alienate so many voters. No one proposed they reexamine their policies and confirm their policies were right for the times. The problem with the current GOP field is not their answers to specific questions, it is their fundamental policies on subjects like women’s rights, sexual orientation, taxation and economic wealth distribution, foreign policy, and healthcare for beginners.

The GOP seems more in love with the idea of being President than what policies are appropriate for the country as a whole.

Is Joe Ready?

Carefully placed news leaks reported that Vice President Joe Biden is about ready to announce a run for the 2016 Democrat  Presidential nomination. Timing was somewhat vague but the middle to end of October were cited. With this move, at this time, the Democrats are handing the GOP a reprieve from the side show Republicans are offering as a process to pick their standard bearer.

So far the GOP has combined un-presidential name calling and general election un-winnable policies for a sure 2016 loss with any of the current candidates. Joe’s potential move could do something similar for the Democrats.

I would imagine from Biden’s perspective it is now or never. Also it is not unreasonable for Biden to think that Hillary Clinton is damaged from the email controversy and may be beatable by someone more “genuine”. And lastly, Biden may think the Democrat deep pocket donors will switch their allegiance to him. So what’s wrong with this analysis?

First, we have to remember this is Joe Biden. He has a long record of speaking first and thinking later. Just like the problem with selecting the GOP standard bearer, Biden will be fighting for media recognition. The incentive to say memorable things could easily push Joe’s rhetoric over the line.

Second, the main Democrat field consist of Bernie Sanders (left leaning), Hillary Clinton (center sitting), and if Biden runs, someone who might fit in between the two. This will make it difficult to differentiate the candidates based upon policy without disowning the policies of the other candidates. So, what basis would Biden offer for Democrats to choose him?

Third, the Democrat with the best chance of winning the Presidential election will depend upon who the GOP nominates and what form the GOP platform takes. Sporting policies which intrude upon women’s rights, antagonize Hispanics, ignore the growing inequality of wealth, and marginalize the LBGT community, a plain vanilla Democrat should be able to win. If Biden decides he needs to trash Hillary or try to “out-Sanders” Bernie Sanders, he could easily shatter the Democrat vote and end up losing a perfectly winnable election.

If one could use sports analogies, Joe Biden is a dependable relief pitcher or backup quarterback. While it might be possible for Bernie Sanders to get the nomination, he would have no chance in a general election. His views are too left of center. Biden, on the other hand, could campaign close enough to the center to make a serious challenge to any GOP candidate. Were there to be additional and more serious revelations about Hillary, backup Biden could save the day for Democrats.

The question of the day is should Biden wait to be called, enter the race but just register present, or should Biden make an all out run and let the chips fall where they might?

GOP Debate – 1 Out Of 7?

The second GOP Presidential nomination debate was a huge hit with Americans. An estimated 1 out of 7 households were tuned to CNN. There must have been some important information covered that evening for so many Americans to tune in. The press has had a field day picking the various candidates who “won” the debate. Hmmm.

If you watched the three hours or if you have seen on any number of talk shows’ clips of what the candidates said, you know one thing – last night was not a debate and offered little or no insight into each candidate’s perspective on domestic or foreign issues. The debate was entertainment.

Imagine, Jeb Bush said that brother George kept America calm following 9/11 and helped the nation heal. Brother George looked petrified on 9/11 if you recall and when he spoke to firefighters with a bull horn, he told them America would find the perpetrators and bring them to justice without apparently knowing that Dick Cheney and friends were already planning their Iraq takeover.

America did identify Osama ben Laden and al Qaeda, tracked them to Afghanistan, and neutralized their operations (and their Taliban hosts) in a relatively short time. Jeb did not add that 12 year later the US is still mired in Afghanistan.

The debate message (later emphasized by Jeb Bush people) was that Jeb showed emotion and flashed a more dynamic style. The content of Jeb’s remarks were a side issue to them.  Hmmm.

The second debate had already been billed as a “get Trump” night. Each of the other candidates had prepared lines aimed at dirtying Trump. Many of their attempts were successful and at evening’s end, Trump had taken a lot of incoming. The country was not any wiser about what the great problems the next President would face nor even a hint on how these problems would be addressed.

Scott Walker’s enemy number 1 were the unions. A wide number of candidates felt defunding Planned Parenthood, even at the expense of a government shutdown, was a worthy, if not necessary step. Immigration was mainly about how high the wall should be. And anything involving foreign policy was the result of President Obama’s “failed policies”.

The TV viewership was never the less impressive.  I wonder whether the real take away is that a “reality show” look alike just might be the best game in town?