Noonan Mourns Her Party

It must be especially sad for someone who was a part of the Reagan revolution, itself an insurgent campaign against an earlier Republican establishment.

And I find myself receiving with some anger, even though I understand, those—especially on the top of the party—who are so blithely declaring the end of things. Do they understand what they’re ending?...

It’s no longer clear what shared principles endure. Everything got stretched to the breaking point the past 15 years.

Party leaders and thinkers should take note: It’s easier for a base to hire or develop a flashy new establishment than it is for an establishment to find itself a new base.

Even if the party stays together with a Trump win, what will it be? It will have been reconstituted.

There's a chance to put together a party that respects the Reagan Democrats, and pursues blue collar interests that unite poorer white and black voters. It would have to break with the Chamber of Commerce to do that, but it would be a formidable party if it could do it. If you cut into black support so that you were winning a third of the black vote, the Democratic party would not win another national election until they found a new coalition. Unite that black vote with the ~40% of Americans who are blue collar whites, and you wouldn't have to win many other voters -- Evangelicals might do it alone. If you could hold most conservatives, you'd have a dominant coalition. If you lost the conservatives who were most attached to Chamber of Commerce issues, you'd still win.

It's not the end of the world. There's a chance it could be the beginning of something good, if the "new thing" has principles that accord with the principles of these most ordinary American people. It does need some thought, but there's an opportunity for the thoughts of ordinary Americans to matter.

The window won't last. It never does. Think now, and think carefully, and make sure you make your best thinking known.

Clinton Earns Zero Votes at UNL Caucus

Sanders wins the state overall, after caucuses in every county were held for the first time in Nebraska history. At the caucus closest to the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, Clinton received zero votes and failed to attain viability.

Say It Ain't So

In fairness, does anything in New York City get constructed without mob buy-in?

The conservatives' indirect path to power

Laura Ingraham argues that small-government conservatives should rally behind Trumpist populism because it's the only way to break the iron grip of the GOPe and ensure that the GOP is no longer where genuine conservative ideas go to die.  She acknowledges that many conservatives fear Trump is an unprincipled closet liberal, but counters that all the ostensible conservatives we've managed to elect are the same.  Cruz might be different, yes, but he should let Trump pave the way and then hope he can get in there somehow and have his ideas heard for a change.  Finally, she argues that supporting populism is kinda sorta congruent with small-government conservatism, even if populism has to be implemented by big-government policies, because populism is about increased opportunity instead of the status quo.

I don't find any of this persuasive.  The real question is, though, whether I find it more persuasive than the idea that we should either stay home or (gag) vote for Clinton.

A Little More Insight on Venezuela

It's not a fun place, as we saw recently. How'd it get that way? Well, socialism. But also...

Great News!

Georgia Legislature Update

We're getting close to the end. Most of the issues that opened big are closing weak. Casinos are dead -- they didn't make the 'crossover day' cut, the last day legislation has to jump houses if it's going to get finished in the 40 day session. Medical marijuana just survived that cut, and is now in the Senate.

The campus carry bill is due for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote Monday. Feel free to write them and encourage passage if you'd like. I wrote the chairman.

The Religious Freedom bill is in final negotiations, having passed both houses (unanimously, in the Georgia House of Representatives). The Senate version made some changes that have to be ironed out in committee. However, the bill is considered very likely to die given that Governor Deal has all but promised to veto it. Like many Republican governors, he favors corporate interests over the protection of his constituents' basic liberties.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has developed new bill-success-predicting software that estimates the campus carry bill (HB 859) has a 55% chance of becoming law. The bill tracker has a problem with the religious freedom law, because the Senate combined two house bills -- one of them the tracker estimates has a 99% chance of becoming law, and the other a 5% chance. Most likely the governor will kill them both with his veto. The Republican governor backing corporate interests against the Georgia citizenry by killing a religious freedom bill that passed unanimously in the House will give Evangelical voters in Georgia -- who went huge for Trump in the primary -- yet another reason to hate the Republican establishment come the General Election.

Jim Webb: Anybody But Clinton

No other commitments, but that one is pretty loud and clear.

The Eleventh Republican Debate

Last night's debate must have been very gratifying for someone who prefers Python metaphors.



Eh, Mike?

Medieval Oaks

Found forgotten in the backyard of Churchill's old palace -- I did not realize he had lived in a palace -- are sixty oaks that date to the Middle Ages.

Some More Takes on Trump

Elizabeth Price Foley at InstaPundit:

What is the GOP establishment smoking? They’re behaving like they’re zoned out on crack–hypersensitive, overheated, paranoid, and filled with anxiety. Why do they not gracefully accept the decision of their own voters?

The rise of Donald Trump is a direct result of the GOP’s failure to listen to, or even care about, the issues of concern to ordinary (i.e., beyond the Beltway) voters. They want a leader who ardently defends U.S. sovereignty, security, and economic interests, and who overtly snubs stifling political correctness. They don’t want a patrician like Mitt Romney, whose speech today smacks of a controlling, wealthy father chastising his upstart children for their foolish attempts at independence.

Nick Gillespie at Reason:

People—even or especially Trump supporters—aren't idiots. They know political grandstanding when they see it, and they fully understand that conservatives and Republicans don't really believe in the things they talk about. Or, same thing, that everything can and will change in the blink of the eye or in ways that just don't make sense. Didn't Mitt Romney beg Donald Trump for an endorsement a few years ago? Romney, whom every conservative news org endorsed and approved, ran for president by attacking Obamacare and the incumbent for spending too much money. He also promised to keep the parts of Obamacare "he liked" and refused to name a single big-ticket spending program he would cut or even trim. Upon becoming Speaker of the House after a million years in waiting, John Boehner was incapable of naming a single program or department he would get rid of.

You can hear it already: But...but...but...Romney and Boehner and all the rest aren't real conservatives or Republicans or whatever. No, that would be Paul Ryan, whose first big act as Boehner's replacement was to sign off on a deal that increased spending on defense and social programs. Whatevs, buddy, whatevs.

Operation Restore Hope, Homeland Edition

Otherwise known as "Update: Hillary for Prison, 2016."

A Department of Justice decision to grant immunity to Hillary Clinton’s top IT aide indicates officials are “considering potential criminal charges” against the former secretary of state or her aides, according to a source familiar with the investigation... “Giving him immunity” indicates “they are considering potential criminal charges against people higher up in the chain,” said the source who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the investigation with reporters.

If you're a Democrat in office who is afraid of Donald Trump, one way you could help derail his train is by proving that the government is not quite as corrupt as everyone has come to believe that it is.

It's Only "Indiscriminate" in the Technical Sense

The Russian bombing campaign that Gen. Breedlove is describing as "indiscriminate" is so only in the sense that it does not meet the Just War standards for the "discriminate" use of force. It is not indiscriminate in the sense of "random" or "careless." The Russians are hitting the targets they are aiming to hit.

Putin has simply adopted Assad's strategy of emptying Syrian cities by directing mass violence towards civilian populations and their institutions, such as hospitals. There are two strategic goals advanced in this way:

1) An empty land is easier for a weak ruler like Assad to govern, making it more likely that the war will end with him in control of this physical territory.

2) The mass wave of refugees creates incredible pressure on European governments, making it more likely that they will accept any outcome that stops the pain -- meaning that they are more likely to accept an end to the war that leaves Assad in control of that physical territory, in spite of his use of chemical weapons and his ruthless attacks on noncombatants.

In other words, the Russian strategy to protect Assad from ouster because of his attacks on noncombatants is to increase sharply the number and severity of attacks on noncombatants. Europe can't survive the pressure of waves of millions of refugees, going on for years. They will cave, and Assad -- with Russian fire support and Iranian ground support -- will be able to reassert control of at least the western parts of Syria. Those are the parts Russia cares about most.

Then, in the second phase of the war, Russia and Iran can lead Iraq and Syria in consolidating their mastery of eastern Syria and Western Iraq. That will leave the Russian/Iranian alliance in control of the northern Middle East, from Afghanistan (once we withdraw) to the Levant.

A target of opportunity may be breaking NATO, which could occur if the Turks end up in a conflict with Russia that the rest of the NATO powers are unwilling to support. Even if they don't get that, they'll have won a Grand Strategic victory over the United States and the West. If they do, they'll have broken our key alliance for resisting Russian domination of Asia and Eastern Europe.

All in all, a good bit of work from Putin's perspective. Somebody still knows how to play this game.

Special Forces Sergeant Charles Martland

A delegate from Culpepper, VA -- a city with some significant American heritage -- rises to call his fellows to the defense of an American warrior. The speech is impassioned. I don't know if it is convincing. Many will be put off by the admission that the sergeant "beat" an Afghan police officer, regardless of the fact that this officer was a child rapist.

In the old days, we would have simply asked: What would you have done, if it had been you standing there, and the child came to beg you for help? What would you have done, when the police laughed in your face and the faces of the child and his mother? What else could you do to convey that, at least as long as you were there, the rape of children was going to stop?

In the old days, any American worth his salt would have said nothing in answer to those questions, but nodded. There are no good answers to the questions. In such a place as Afghanistan, there is only doing what you can do as the man on the ground with the gun. You may not be able to change the culture, but you can make it stop for a while.

That's what any of us would have done. It's not a question of what is right. It's a question of what is left.

Ah, the "Tricky Phase" of War

Just when you thought Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bucca and other infamous American moral horrors were behind us, captured ISIS figures means a return to what the NYT calls the "tricky phase." How can we possibly detain these poor creatures without inflicting unavoidable American abuses upon them?

Actually, it sounds like we're just going to turn them over to the Kurds once we are done with them. I imagine that will mean a mercifully short detention.

Upholding Standards

Headline: Obama giving a eulogy for KKK grand wizard Robert Byrd - Skips SCOTUS funeral

More Kant for Lent

Kant's approach to faith is rational rather than simply faithful, which causes him to disdain the idea that one can obtain (or ought to seek) justification by faith alone. To look to God when you aren't shifting the load yourself strikes him as a doomed project, as you are unworthy of the help you seek.

He also brings the Stoics in for some criticism in thinking the natural inclinations are the primary evil in the hearts of men. Not so, he says: the natural inclinations are good, as long as they are well-managed.



Even just the first couple of pages here ought to make for an interesting and worthy discussion.

Enthusiasm versus Age

In general in American politics, it is better to be supported by the old than by the young. The young have enthusiasm, and will volunteer and knock on doors for you. The old actually show up on election day.

This strikes me as explaining yesterday's results fairly well. Bernie Sanders has all the enthusiasm: no one at all seems to be enthusiastic about voting for Clinton. Democratic participation is way down across the board from 2008 or even 2012. Bernie is winning young voters by vast margins, but he loses the elections because only a few of the young show up relative to their numbers.

As the enthusiasm of the young is disappointed by watching the corruption of the DNC wash away their icon's chances, how many of them who did make it out to the primary will make it back out to the general? I have already heard three young people I know say that they will not be turning out to vote for Mrs. Clinton in the general. Perhaps they will change their mind. Perhaps not.

Republican enthusiasm is way up. Trump voters especially seem to be both enthusiastic and showing up, suggesting that the enthusiasm for him is with the older voters rather than the younger ones on average -- though there are occasional surprises in Trump's support. But anti-Trump Republicans are enthusiastic too: they are enthusiastic about voting against Trump.

Cruz did well last night relative to all the other non-Trump Republicans. By taking Texas and Alaska, America's most emblematically Red states, he has surely won the right to be the conservative candidate in the race. I think the remaining non-Trump candidates should withdraw, especially Rubio, whose near victory in Virginia was occasioned entirely by his support in the Washington, D.C. metroplex. This is not the year for D.C.'s favorite son.

If you don't want Trump, Cruz is probably the last chance. He's the other candidate in the race who is plausibly an outsider, and who speaks to the anger among the millions of voters who have been backing Trump enthusiastically. If you want that enthusiasm to carry over into the general, and you certainly do if you want to win, finding a way to swap Trump out for an establishment figure is not the way to go. Cruz could win the primary and the general. Trump could, too. Nobody else in the field strikes me as having the chance.

You Mean It Might NOT Be That They're A Bunch of Authoritarians?

The RAND Corporation says that the single biggest predictor for taking Trump as your first choice is the feeling that "people like me don't have any say" in politics.

Hamas Eats Its Own

Mr. Ishtiwi, 34, was a commander from a storied family of Hamas loyalists who, during the 2014 war with Israel, was responsible for 1,000 fighters and a network of attack tunnels. Last month, his former comrades executed him with three bullets to the chest.

Adding a layer of scandal to the story, he was accused of moral turpitude, by which Hamas meant homosexuality.

UPDATE: Blogger IsraellyCool says he was "rubbed out for Hamasexualityᵀᴹ."