RUTHFULLY YOURS

A birther lawsuit challenging Ted Cruz’s eligibility was filed today in federal court in Texas. I had previously written that such a lawsuit challenging the eligibility would most certainly lack standing and would be frivolous. The lawyer who filed the complaint, Newton B. Schwartz, Sr., had been suspended from the practice of law by two separate states for disciplinary infractions.
According to the detailed disciplinary ruling against Schwartz in Louisiana, he engaged in legal matters in Louisiana but was never admitted to practice law in the state and never sought temporary admission. (You can read the lengthy disciplinary case against Schwartz here).

Beware the zeal of the reformer. True, the reform impulse has occupied a long and sometimes necessary place in American politics, going back to Andrew Jackson’s fiery allegation that John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay stole the 1824 presidential election through a “corrupt bargain.” Four years later, Jackson rode to the White House on the wings of the outrage he had summoned. His refrain—that malefactors of power had undermined American democracy by thwarting the will of the people—has probably been the most catalytic recurrent theme in the country’s politics. Even when the flames of populist passion subside, they seem ever-present through a kind of after-burner of latent protest.

Yet the political reforms generated by these passions often go awry, producing unintended consequences. Sometimes they fall victim to the vicissitudes of human nature and the reality that politics is rarely about good guys versus bad guys. Reformers are human, and often when power comes their way their frailties are exposed.
Let The People Rule

By Geoffrey Cowan
Norton, 404 pages, $27.95

A particularly potent period of reformist zeal followed the tumultuous campaign year of 1968, when activist Democrats infuriated by the Vietnam War flooded the early presidential primary states and obliterated President Lyndon Johnson’s hopes for a second full term. For their pains they got, instead, Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, who embraced Johnson’s war policy and cadged his party’s nomination without having entered a single primary. The reformist refrain went up: The party’s nomination process was dominated by backroom bosses who exercised power without regard to voter sentiment.

The reformist answer was to revise party rules in order to encourage states to select national convention delegates through primaries rather than boss-controlled caucuses and state conventions. The result was the nominating system we have today, with generally 80% of national convention delegates selected through primaries.

The nation tuned in to Round Six of the Republican debate mashup Thursday night, and the media is busy micro-covering every last rift between the GOP candidates. In the process reporters are ignoring the far more interesting party crackup going on.

You might not know it, but the Democratic Party is in the middle of an internecine battle that potentially dwarfs that of conservatives. On one side is a real but weakened mainstream Democratic movement that has its roots in Clinton centrism. On the other is a powerful, ascendant wing of impatient and slightly unhinged progressive activists. This split has been building for years, but The Donald has been so entertaining that few have noticed.

Now it’s getting hard to ignore. Polls this week show Bernie Sanders tying or beating Hillary Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire. Put another way, a self-declared socialist, a man who makes many think of their crazy uncle Bob, is beating a woman who spent eight years planning this run, who is swimming in money, and who oversees the most powerful political machine in operation.

Some of Mrs. Clinton’s struggles are self-imposed. She’s a real-world, political version of Pig-Pen, trailing along her own cloud of scandal dust. Even Democrats who like her don’t trust her. And a lot of voters are weary or unimpressed by the Clinton name. For all the Democratic establishment’s attempts to anoint Mrs. Clinton—to shield her from debates and ignore her liabilities—the rank and file aren’t content to have their nominee dictated.

Shortly after a conservative website on Wednesday posted 2008 footage of Sen. Marco Rubio backing a cap-and-trade program to combat climate change, his campaign roared back with a counterattack that included an entire web page aimed at debunking the video.

Mr. Rubio’s muscular response revealed how toxic the issue of climate change has become in the Republican Party under President Barack Obama, who has sought to make reducing carbon emissions to alleviate global warming one of his signature accomplishments.

As speaker of the Florida House, Mr. Rubio did vote for a 2008 bill authorizing the state to come up with rules for a cap-and-trade plan, though he raised questions about its cost and effectiveness. A press release from the House Majority Office at the time described the bill as a “responsible response to concerns about global climate change.”

But since running for U.S. Senate in 2010 as the conservative alternative to then-Gov. Charlie Crist, Mr. Rubio has questioned whether climate change is man-made, and opposed potential remedies like cap-and-trade that he says would hurt the economy.

Shifts by Mr. Rubio and some of his rivals on the issue recall an inconvenient past that many in the GOP would like to forget: Republicans, not Democrats, first championed market-based systems to control pollution, as a way to avoid more direct regulation.

Until 2008, many Republicans, including then-presidential nominee John McCain, supported cap-and-trade to address climate change. Once Mr. Obama won the White House, Republicans swiftly unified against nearly all of his initiatives, including a cap-and-trade bill that would have set limits on carbon emissions and allowed companies to trade pollution credits to comply.

Received wisdom is what “everybody knows” is true without anyone having to think about it. Received wisdom has a lot of defense mechanisms: for example, trading in unexamined assumptions, avoiding contrary evidence, dismissing the need of evidence at all, or demonizing those who question it. Question-begging slogans are another. Mantras like “nothing to do with Islam” or “war on women” substitute for evidence and analysis. Another is “you can’t say that,” used to dismiss or marginalize comments or proposed policies by assuming disastrous consequences, or implying that saying such things is morally repugnant and, to quote Obama’s favorite obfuscation, “doesn’t represent who we are as a country.” In fact, “you can’t say that” is usually an ideological weapon, or an excuse for inaction.

Various “establishments” left or right are founded on received wisdom. They are the original “box” we’re all advised to “think outside” of. The Republican “establishment,” for example, purveys an electoral narrative that says Republicans can’t win nationally unless they “reach out” to women, minorities, and immigrants, and so must avoid alienating these potential Republicans.

We saw the effects of this narrative in 2008, when John McCain gave Barack Obama a pass on his relationship with race-baiter Jeremiah Wright, terrorist Bill Ayers, crook Tony Reszko, and apologist for Palestinian Arab terror Rashid Khalidi. McCain also passed over Obama’s refusal to release his complete medical records and college transcripts. All so McCain wouldn’t appear “racist” and alienate all those fence-sitting black voters who might vote Republican. Mitt Romney was just as timid in 2012. His worst “preemptive cringe” came in the foreign policy debate, when “moderator” Candy Crowley shamefully––and incorrectly––corrected Romney about Obama’s characterization of the Benghazi attacks. Instead of scolding Crowley (can’t bully a woman!) and Obama (can’t appear racist!), Romney just stood there with a deer-in-the-headlights look while Obama smirked.

The Republican debate may have been taking place in South Carolina, but over it hung the shadow of Iran. And so, despite its FOX Business hosts, the topic quickly turned to the American sailors who had been captured and humiliated by Iran’s terrorist regime on television.

“We were horrified to see the sight of 10 American sailors on their knees, with their hands on their heads,” Ted Cruz began the debate.

“I give you my word, if I am elected president, no service man or service woman will be forced to be on their knees, and any nation that captures our fighting men will feel the full force and fury of the United States of America.”

That was also the way that Trump closed the debate describing the “terrible sight” of American hostages. “I stood yesterday with 75 construction workers. They’re tough, they’re strong, they’re great people. Half of them had tears pouring down their face. They were watching the humiliation of our young ten sailors, sitting on the floor with their knees in a begging position, their hands up. And Iranian wise guys having guns to their heads.”

Last night, Hillary Clinton was interviewed on a Lifetime show called “The Conversation” by host Amanda de Cadenent and a bunch of “YouTube stars,” and I must admit that it wasn’t as bad as I expected it to be.

It was much, much worse.

Earlier this week, Politico touted the interview as something that would be “showing off a softer side” of Mrs. Clinton. In other words: It would be her campaign’s 9 billionth attempt at humanizing her, an attempt to get voters excited about Hillary the Gal and not just Hillary the Candidate.

There’s just one problem: Hillary is not an exciting person. I’m a young and energetic insomniac, but this “interview” had me wanting to pass out before 11 p.m., and had I not been repeatedly jarred awake by the urge to vomit in disgust, I’m sure that I would have done just that.

It opened with Hillary (her chyron: “presidential candidate and grandma”) and de Cadenet sitting on a couch, gazing into each other’s eyes and smiling sheepishly like two high-school kids who had been left alone in one of their parents’ basements.

And it only got worse from there.

Given that tales of adversity are “in” now, de Cadenet wasted no time in trying to make Mrs. Clinton appear to be a sympathetic figure. Within the first minute, she was prodding Hillary to talk about her “mom’s traumatic childhood.”

If Bonnie and Clyde were alive today, they would stop calling themselves bank robbers and, instead, introduce themselves as “financial-asset removal specialists.” Unfortunately, Republicans and conservatives then would start using that exculpatory mouthful to describe these legendary thieves.

Democrats and liberals are incredibly wily about ditching words associated with themselves and their causes as soon as they become unpopular or indefensible. And, with equal predictability, the Right stupidly plays into their hands by engaging in the same linguistic whitewash.

This shrewd leftist tactic and this vexing rightist tendency help liberals escape accountability, just as bank robbers vanish by abandoning getaway cars and slipping out of the clothes that they wear when they grab the loot.

Obama excels at this dark art. Like the wretched dictator that he is, Obama loudly boasts about “going around Congress” to do whatever he wants. But rather than employ “executive orders,” which suggest ordering people around, Obama adopts “executive actions.” How convenient! Most people appreciate “a man of action” and people who “take action.”

Similarly, Obama and the Left have abandoned the highly controversial term “gun control.” They now push “gun-safety laws.” While many Americans dislike gun control, most folks want guns to be safe. Of course, Obama’s quest has nothing to do with making guns less likely to misfire.

My friend DPS sent me the following appraisal of the tough guy from New Jersey by Andrew McCarthy in 2011

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/273865/christies-crazies-andrew-c-mccarthy
Christie’s ‘Crazies’Sharia is not a figment of our imagination.

This “sharia-law business is crap . . . and I’m tired of dealing with the crazies!” So blustered Chris Christie. Bluster is the New Jersey governor’s default mode. It has certainly served him well. When directed at surly advocates of New Jersey’s teachers’ unions — who, after all, deserve it — bluster can apparently make a conservative heartthrob out of a pol whose bite is bipartisan moderate, however titillating his bark may be.

The style is so effective that Christie seems to be trying it out on everyone. A few weeks back, a local reporter had the audacity to ask His Honor whether he believes in creationism or evolution — a question that seemed more pertinent than impertinent in light of the controversy over whether the former ought to be taught in the schools that the governor’s 9 million constituents subsidize to the tune of $11 billion annually. Yet his answer was to growl, “That’s none of your business.”

“None of your business,” has moved to the front of the Christie repertoire. So discovered a citizen who recently had the temerity to ask her governor why he does not send his children to the public schools whose bloated budgets he is trying to pare. It was a pretty tame question, one customarily asked of politicians who crow about the alleged greatness of our public-education system while opting out of it when it comes to their own kids.