Daily Roundup - Feb 4, 2016

NewYorker: Ted Cruz and the art of the dirty trick - Amy Davidson

Ms. Davidson gives a good account of the time table and what happened in IOWA.

Ted Cruz used the dirty trick of actively convincing Iowans at the caucuses that Dr. Carson had withdrawn from the campaign. They should not waste their vote on him, but vote for Cruz who was closest to their religious and conservative ethos.

The New Yorker does not comment on the impact to Trump's campaign, but notes that in an age of cell communication, the tweets and messages around this subject "left behind a digital trail of tweets and e-mail alerts. One of the tweets, from Representative Steve King, the campaign’s national co-chair, said, “Carson looks like he is out. Iowans need to know before they vote. Most will go to Cruz, I hope”—and it was sent after the Carson campaign had issued clarifications."

Karl Rowe on O'reilly pointed  out that if only 4 people per caucus were convinced by the Cruz captains who were contacted, that represented the difference between Trump wining or losing in Iowa. He also provides a minute by minute recount of what happened.

So CNN screws up, Cruz's team uses this to win IOWA, but where is the Republican Party? Where is Rince prevys? I wen't to GOP.com and there is nothing there I could find that was about the Republican Campaign and the IOWA results.  Even their "find" didn't find anything. I looked at the Tweet Site @GOP, nothing for the entire last 24 hours. Only one Tweet on IOWA, at the time of the election with the results. O went to @Reince for information, nothing. Lots about Hilary, about technology in GOP usage, nothing on any Republican Candidates.

So: No interest in the GOP establishment for preventing fraud during voting in the primaries.  An interesting bit of information for people who in 2000 bitterly denounced a premature announcement that Bush Lost Florida while voting was still continuing in the western part of Florida. I guess if it was Jeb that was robbed, they would have acted?

The Republican debate, no Trump.

I did not particularly like the format where there were lists of questions, and even clips for specific candidates which jumped subject matter and provided only limited and antagonistically focused responses by the participants.

The moderators inserted their own opinions as well: They called Climate Change a Science? Its now separated from long term weather prediction? If so why, what is the difference. Clearly a look for PC responses and an attack on those who do not respond properly.

They brought a Muslim America whose question implied ISIS was caused by America, and no one picked it up: "Muslim American- Hate crimes tripled, many attacks, "culture of hatred has only driving ISIS to radicalize..."  Bush missed it completely. Immediate change of subject prevented anyone else to respond. ISIS is not radicalized by anything we do, but the statement was accepted as if that is the case.

The moderators had clear control of the proceedings which were not a debate, were not focuses on issues, and really seem to lack coherence. Not a very good performance.

Cruz began as usual in excellent fashion preening himself as the most conservative Republican since Lincoln, and lambasting Trump comically in pretty impressive fashion.

He was specific on Obama Care specifying his plans as:
1. Permit buying of insurance across state lines.
2. Increase the availability and the tax exemptions to medical savings accounts
3. Separate employment from medical insurance without specific how.
On Immigration there was a donnybrook with Rubio as to who supported what when with the moderators placing inflammatory  clips in front of both participants.  Why the "Why don't you and him kill each other" approach?
Cruz convincingly showed that he was opposed to normalization of illegal aliens. That he was for controlling both the borders and the ability of illegals to work and get benefits within the country. That has been his position and I may be reading into it what I know from the past since the moderators where directing the conversation instead of promoting it.
On ISIS: He has an insufficient grasp of what is needed, explained carpet bombing as 1000 sorties or 2000 sorties a day not 30. Never promised ground troops. Will provide for growth in the Army, Navy and Air Force.

Ethanol - Cruz only: Pursue all of the above, gas, oil, wind, ethanol. Washington should have no mandates or support for everyone. No subsides for oil and gas, or ethanol.  The EPA's blend wall is to be deleted, which makes ethanol much more enticing. A flat tax law which eliminates all exemptions.

Rubio: engaging and with good ripostes, was at least once beaten by Bush to the punch. He accused Bush of changing his mind, and the replied, correctly, "So did you" He then made it worse by insisting he hadn't and both were clobbered by Rand.

Obama Care: don't recall what he said

Immigration: He denied what was obviously the case. He sold his voters out by being one of the "Gang of Eight".

On ISIS: Really the same as Cruz, both differing from Kasich only in K's reliance on other Sunni powers.  They (Rubio and Cruz) stress it less. The agree  about the use of Guantanamo (not sure Cruz was asked). They have taken over the position of Trump, using softer language.

Rand: as usual, excellent at protecting our freedoms, ignores our needs for a strong army and recommending we never stray from our borders.  He is the only one totally committed to fiscal responsibility.


Governor Christie, I have been evaluated by democrats and achieved with them some conservative goals. Whoopee! These two bozos killing each other over the meaning of words show you need a Governor, not a Senator.

On Terror: Let law enforcement decide if what you saw is significant or not, but if you don't talk, or if you denigrate the law enforcement you can't get there.
On Obama Care: An example of waste in Obama care, supporting Planned Parenthood, give me something more substantial, answer: than not killing thousands of humans? Beautiful response with a total change of subject hidden in it. Not a fiscal conservative!
On Hillary: Great points on Benghazi, she won't be indicted by Obama, I'll indict here during the campaign: The days of the Clintons in public housing are over!

Bush: Impressive in his affect when talking about veterans. He clearly wants to help them, and to clean up the Vet Administration.

Then switch to Puerto Rico? Why the scripted reading of questions instead of a debate on the large items in detail. Cover less, in more depth, show the positions of all the participants.

Daily Roundup - Jan 20, 2016

WAPO: The gospel according to Trump -- by Dana Milbank

Once again a Newspaper I love to hate.

"Monday on the thrice- married head of a gambling empire who talks about the need to kill members of terrorists’ families."

If Dana is writing as a Religious person, he just struck out on being Christian, having kind sentiments for a fellow human being, or even treating others as you would be treated.

I went to discover the context of the statement which I remember being that while we cannot influence those that want to suicide with threats on themselves, threats and actions against their families might influence them. "They care about their families"

The rule Trump is proposing is biblical, from Exodus 21:22-24

22 And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders].

23 But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life,

24 an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot,

While Rabbis tended to convert life to its value in money and were totally against capital punishment, and Rashi restricts it to when both mother and child are lost, it is clear that at some time some crimes were thought so grave that lex talionis (The law of the Jungle), a life for a life is required. 

Terrorism clearly falls under this category, if any crime does.  We are talking about the targeting of our innocent so as to inflict as grave a social pain as possible, and doing it in the name of total obliteration of our civilization. 

This is done in the context of the aggressor being a tribal civilization where the group, not the individual, is paramount. Clearly a situation in which "it took a village" to create the suicide bomber.

In this situation, inflicting maximum damage on "the village" makes sense, since communal ethics, not individual responsibility rule as an influence in that society.

The question is not, "is it nice, is it humane, is i permissible under international law?" The question is "Is it effective?".

To accuse Trump of making a statement against the common wisdom or our civilization does not answer any of those questions.  We are not willing to commit the trillions and thousands of casualties that it would take to teach Muslims to respect individual rights. But we are willing to blame Trump from making a suggestion which might resolve the conflict without such huge expenditures of capital and personnel, without considering its sociological basis. In the meantime our Western policies allow millions of civilians to die in the ME, and hundreds of millions to be placed at risk by suicide bombers, and rogue nations with nuclear capabilities. As Trump would say: "We got a real problem here!!!  We got a real problem..."

We need to solve that problem. Dana Milbank, other than insulting our intelligence with out of place quotations from both the New Testament and Trump, provides none.

=========================================

JJournal: Is Ted Cruz an anti-Semitic hypocrite? - Rob Eshman

"We know Ted Cruz is a hypocrite. The urgent question before us is whether he is an anti-Semitic hypocrite."
End of reading.  I don't know TC is a hypocrite, and no data is presented to convince me.

The fun continues:
1. Cruz comment on Trump's NY values was hypocritical-- Not really, we do thing of NY as a place of left politics (gay marriage, pro abortion..) and money (Wall Street).  It is Hypocritical of Rob to state otherwise.
Trump certainly trumped him properly when he made the comment, but that was one expert debater to another, nothing to do with the facts. You can be valiant, place community interest first, and still be left on politics and have money corruption.

2. Cruz has a successful wife working at G. Sachs.  Great for him.  He mortgaged his home to be elected Senator! Fantastic, he puts his money where his mouth is.

3. He didn't declare his loans. Fact Check has him declaring his borrowings in his financial disclosure papers, but not in his FEC submissions. Since he did declare them in one, not declaring it in the other would only cause trouble so I believe it was unintentional. Not a big deal in either case since he was self funding and that loan was less than 1/3 his total worth.

4. The following shows Eshman is not for any of the front runners:
"But let’s forgive Cruz his hypocrisy. He’s a politician. Trump spent last week pretending to evangelicals at Liberty University he knows the difference between Corinthians and corned beef. Marco Rubio twisted the English language in knots explaining how isolating Cuba is good for average Cubans. Bernie Sanders was against gun control before he was for it. And Hillary Clinton is so anti-Wall Street firms, she is taking away all their money — $300,000 at a time, in speakers fees. "

So what is his point?

5. He is anti-semitic.  YEAH! finally we have what Rob means. It may be idiotic, but here it is.

Cruz criticised NY values -> lots of Jews live in NY. There fore he criticized Jews!!!!

"he knows that by saying “liberal New York values,” he is dog-whistling the anti-Semites. "

It is just incredible that this dribble is placed in JJ! Once more: SHAME ON YOU JEWISH JOURNAL.

What was Cruz position on legalizing illegal immigrant status?

My cursory review of Cruz's own speech in the Senate, the content of his amendment lead me to the conclusion that he tried to torpedo the gang of eight.  His proposal to prevent illegals from ever becoming Americans was placed there after the Hispanic Caucus made it known it would not accept this under any circumstances.
I don't believe he ever thought to support a bill which had been changed in accordance to the amendment he proposed. He certainly opened the door to that when he proposed it, but I see little to indicate he meant it.
The following are abstracts from the NYT, the Texas Tribune, and Cruz's Senate speech in support for his amendment. Those were the principal sources of my conclusions.
================================
NYT: Cruz Tries to Claim the Middle Ground on Immigration -- Jay Root and Julian Aguilar

This article, published in September 2013, seems to have an even handed review of Cruz. I wish it did not come from such a compromised paper as the NYT.

"Immigration-reform legislation from the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight passed that chamber in June and includes a 13-year path to citizenship. Mr. Cruz pushed unsuccessfully for amendments that would have, among other things, eliminated the citizenship component."

1. “The amendment that I introduced removed the path to citizenship, but it did not change the underlying work permit from the Gang of Eight,” he said
2.Mr. Cruz said the Obama administration and partisan Democrats would not yield on the citizenship requirement, which they know would kill the entire effort because of a lack of support in the House.
3. “If your objective is actually to pass a bill insisting on a path to citizenship, it is in both intent and effect a poison pill,”
==================================================
TexasTribune: Cruz files border security anti amnesty amendments - Juan Aguilar
1. Forbid doling out entitlement benefits to illegals,
2. Mandate the Dept. of Homeland Security to triple the number of Border Patrol agents, quadruple equipment (cameras, drones and helicopters) before any certifications are accepted,
3. If the goals are not met within 3 years, 20% of HS budget gets slashed by 20% which is give as a block grant to Texas, Arizona, New Mexico for border security.

Response from pro ilegal group "America's Voice": “An amendment from Senator Ted Cruz would prohibit anyone who had been undocumented for any period of time ever from becoming a United States citizen in the future,” Frank Sharry, the group’s executive director, said in a statement. “This would not only destroy the path to citizenship in the Senate bill — the popular heart of an immigration reform solution — but also turn its back on one hundred years of precedent in immigration policy.”
===============================================
Cruz, Speech in support of his Ammendments

The gang of 8's bill will:
1. It handcuffs law enforcement.
2. Allows illegal re-entries to be naturalized
3. In 86 we amnestied 3M promising border security, the first part was correct, the 2nd time never happened. What comes first? Legalization or Border Security?
Overwhelmingly, the answer is security first, fencing first, biometric entry systems first none of which are in the gang of 8's bill.
4. My amendments does all of the above. (see Texas Tribune)
5. They assault them sexually and physically and often leave them to die in the desert.