Trump is Zelig

Since Trump looks likely (I think there's still a chance for Rubio -- see the Weekly Standard take on the rally I missed out on in the previous post), I have been thinking hard about him. First, to see if I can in conscience vote for him if he's the nominee and second, because a handful of people whose political judgments I deeply respect support him over all the other nominees and I've been trying to be open-minded and see what they are seeing that I am not.

I "get" the voter rage angle. Yesterday during a conversation about politics I completely lost my cool in front of Eldest Weed (not at him) in a way that surprised me. It was a moment of self-awareness where for the first time I realized  I am one of those profoundly angry voters. I am not only deeply saddened, but enraged, that the liberty of a great nation has been utterly squandered for decades, and with rapid intensity in the past 10 years, thanks to the corruption of crony capitalism and our utter failure for generations to teach people what freedom is, such that we the people have willingly traded our inheritance for bright baubles and empty promises.

I learned from the Romney defeat that no one in the GOP is speaking the language of the working class, which feels itself increasingly threatened by an economy simultaneously stagnant and in rapid transition to something "else"; by a weakened currency that means wages can't keep pace with purchasing power; and by the feeling of malaise and weakness from losing wars, racial tensions and crazy policies that Trump rightly calls "losing" and "making bad deals." I understand the Trump phenomenon to be at bottom about jobs and patriotism (I  take worries about immigration to be overblown, both because the crisis has peaked and because hostility to aliens is a proxy for fearing for your own job -- and also because voters in SC said it was low priority).  Obama hasn't brought any jobs. The GOP Congress, after a lot of big talk, hasn't defeated the job-killing Obamacare. So why not give the successful businessman who promises incessantly he'll bring all the jobs back and put competent managers in charge of the government a shot? If he gives the middle finger to all the crony capitalists and media people who look down their noses at Middle America, so much the better. 

To those who are scandalized that Trump is pulling evangelical voters -- and telling those people they aren't Christian-- I would point out that Pastor Jeffers, one of Trump's supporters, makes a good case when he says that after Obergefell, evangelicals gave up on the idea that there would ever be godly leadership, and decided to go for a guy who would at least make rational decisions in the country's interests and leave discipleship to the Church.  So I absolve the evangelicals of being merely money-grubbing or hypocritical in their choice. They are perhaps learning to think politically rather than sentimentally; more likely, they're just being pragmatic. 

The argument that disturbs me enough that I've been trying to wrestle with it is the idea that Trump is a "Declaration candidate." This is the argument that while Trump is vulgar and a disrupter, what he represents is the people at long last manfully asserting their own agency as against the crony elites -- and therefore for all his coarseness, will be a purifying force for the body politic.  Yes, he talks like a demagogue, but in office in all likelihood, because he wants to succeed, he will take advice and put competent people in place and he might just be the one man who could actually rein in the size of government. (When you think about it, this was the Romney argument: "I like to fire people." Except Romney was hurt by the idea that he was mean; Trump's whole persona is "mean," so you can't attack him with it.) 

Having read sensible people taking this view, I took to listening to Trump speeches and campaign appearances to see if they were right. That's where I picked up the patriotism note, which I hadn't previously noticed. 

Still, I am sorry, they are wrong.

1. His promise to put "the right" people in charge is a Progressive promise, not a revolutionary one. He is running as a strongman & champion -- a Chavez (who also rose to power by being coarse and shocking the elites)-- or perhaps just an Obama. He doesn't sound like a person who will roll back the Administrative state and return us to a republic of self-government and personal and community agency. 

2. Statesmanship often involves tacking with the winds in order to keep the ship on course. In desperate times, prudence may require fighting for a single foundational principle, even at the temporary cost of other ideals one holds dear. Lincoln sacrificed much for the sake of holding the Union together because he understood that if the Union fell apart, not a single other good of the fledgling republic would remain. Does Trump have such a North Star to navigate by?  There is nothing whatsoever to suggest so.  Lincoln had a long track record of reflection on the meaning of the Declaration and the rule of law by the time he ran for President. Reagan had a track record starting from "A time for choosing." Trump's record is one of carefully adopting the popular -- the "winning"-- opinion of the moment. His opponents look at his past support for abortion, single-payer health care and the Clintons and see a life-long Democrat masquerading as a Conservative. I see a guy who adopts the views of whoever he happens to be hanging out with today.

3. Along these lines, in spite of his strong man image, I find Trump to be an extraordinarily weak man. Remember how he melted before Carly Fiorina's withering response to his having insulted her looks? He fell all over himself in that early debate to walk his comment back just because she stood up to him and he saw that his attack wasn't winning. 

His ability to lie boldly and often is well-known. But what strikes me in interviews is not his lies, but how often he changes his mind right on camera in the face of an interviewer who presses a point. The only point he ever sticks to is that he didn't say whatever it is you disapprove of.  On all other matters he capitulates easily --how often at debates he's changed his mind right in front of us as he rambled through a point!  He may revel in the dislike of the elites,  as populists do -- and that dislike may propel him to personal popularity-- but those elites are masters at manipulating public opinion on specific issues, and Trump is a slave to polls.  Where Reagan molded opinion to his will, changing the polls, Trump will change his opinion to whatever way the wind blows on any given topic.

4. Are you ready for Chief of Staff or other influential operative Roger Stone? Roger Stone? Is there a more corrupt figure in American life apart from the Clintons, and we're to turn the nation over to a man who chooses Roger Stone as his pal and political advisor? To support Trump is to throw away forever the argument that character counts and that self-dominion and self-restraint and virtue are necessary for the regime of freedom. You don't get to support Trump and be angry with Hillary for making good deals for herself and being a shameless liar all her life. 

5. This evening on a long drive home from a going-away party, I couldn't find anything good on the radio and so settled for a C-SPAN recording of Trump's appearance today in Huntsville, AL.  Mostly the same old tedious stuff about how great his polls are and winning, winning, blah, blah. But two things stood out. 

First: for the umpteenth time Trump promised he will bring back jobs by saying that as President he will personally call the CEOs of companies that try to move to Mexico or elsewhere and threaten them with a 35% tariff on their specific brand and the next day they will call him and say they're actually going to stay stateside.  

At one time I would have said this is no different in principle than other GOP candidates promising to lower taxes (which no President can do). But those candidates are using shorthand to describe the agenda they will set with the Congress. Trump, I'm convinced, literally doesn't know the president can't levy a tariff at all, much less on a specific company. I say this because he clearly has heard the criticism that the President has no power to impose a tariff, because he addressed it with the audience. In a stage whisper he declared (paraphrasing), "They say this wouldn't be presidential, so maybe I will make the call in secret." Then he goes on to describe in detail how the call will go and who will say what to whom. It's not a joke or hyperbole or agenda-setting. It's the actual view of the same guy who told us the other night that his sister the judge "signed a bill" that judge Alito also signed.  It's also a ridiculous claim, and a disturbing one, considering what it implies about his concept of executive power. A man who doesn't know how the government operates --and hasn't bothered to learn in this long campaign-- is going to be eaten up by the system, not make himself master of it. 

Secondly: I was amazed to hear Trump discuss the problem of China manufacturing islands in order to control the sea lanes in the South China Sea, and then denounce the Obama administration for allowing our military to decay such that we have aging equipment and aren't able to defend ourselves against Russia, China & Iran.  You know who has been talking about those two issues since the beginning of his campaign? Marco Rubio -- and he's the only one who has. Trump stole the talking points and his entire understanding of those issues from Rubio.  So the Strumpets can say they despise Rubio, but Rubio is actually setting their man's agenda on any question that isn't about saving jobs by personally threatening CEOs.  Rubio's the idea man in this election cycle. Candidates ought to learn from each other how to make good arguments. But great men do not just wholesale adopt whatever ideas they happen to hear from their opponents in debate.  

Trump is not some Prince Hal who is going to surprise us all by evolving into a statesman.  He is a Zelig, who will adopt the policy positions of whomever he ends up standing next to, as at this link, in which it is revealed that when talking to the NYT, his vaunted "wall" suddenly disappears and becomes an "opening bid." He is not strong; he is enormously weak.

*This essay has been tinkered with since I originally published it. Took nothing out, but added a bit and re-arranged. Intend to add some links to it later. 

Marcomentum Comes My Way

I've been feeling sorry for myself for missing a Marco Rubio rally this afternoon. The location was more than an hour away and Mass ran long, so Girl Weed and I would have arrived with just about ten minutes left in the event. Campaign stops always run late, so I toyed with going anyway, and then decided it was not a prudent use of time.

Now I'm not sure whether to feel sorry or not. On the one hand, I seem to have made a good traffic choice, at least given the testimony of folks live-tweeting:

Police officer outside Rubio event in Purcellville: "They told us 3,000. It's gonna be a lot more than that."

— Mike Warren (@MichaelRWarren) February 28, 2016

The traffic backup for Rubio's Loudon County rally at 1pm stretches back 3mi on the highway.

— Drew (@FigDrewton) February 28, 2016

(Breitbart's take on that will be: "Rubio lies to police....")

On the other hand, it sounds like fun...

This Rubio crowd in Purcellville is by far the largest and most fired up I've seen in person -- tone of election has changed

— Benjy Sarlin (@BenjySarlin) February 28, 2016

...with Rubio on his game. If you've ever watched one of his town halls or stump appearances, you know he is terrific on his feet, full of ease and light-hearted, good-natured humor, as witness this takedown of a heckler:

Rubio takes down heckler at his rally: "Ladies and gentleman, the valedictorian of Trump University." #NeverTrump

— Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) February 28, 2016

He's also terrific at educating voters -- not just taking positions, but explaining what is at stake. And he doesn't pander. He's matter-of-fact about what his positions are, respectful of those who disagree w/o backing down -- and he's the only Presidential candidate for many cycles who has been willing to tell voters that there are things Presidents can't do -- to respond to a question by saying, here's what I think the right approach is, but the President isn't the one to solve that -- see for example his answer on minority families here.


  


 Or, again, talking about poor families, see his answer at the CNN town hall to a public school teacher worried about her students. (I think I have it set up to start at the right place, but if not, the Q. comes around 31:55.)

 

 Will be looking for video of this afternoon's event. Wish I'd been there.

Chris Christie is Even Deader to Me

Rubio had a bad night last night. He can come back from it, but his path is harder, not least because now neither Kasich nor Jeb will quit.

So, as Mr. W. points out, Chris Christie may turn out to have done a serious disservice to the country twice. First he got Obama re-elected in 2012, and how he's undermined Rubio (and he didn't even help himself), possibly giving us a Trump nomination.

What a vindictive poseur.  Right for NJ, wrong for America.

Well, That Was Dispiriting

I couldn't watch Saturday night's GOP debate live. Before catching up to it on video, I was of course privy to the common opinion that Marco Rubio shot himself in the foot by repeating himself four times in the wake of Chris Christie's withering accusation that Rubio has no achievements to point to and just repeats his canned lines.

This seems to have been the opinion not only of the majority in media, but of those of my own household. Contemporaneous text from Eldest Weed:

Is Rubio a buffoon? What is he doing? This is absolutely insane.

Prepared by this talk for cringing on Rubio's behalf, the exchange didn't seem that damaging to me. (Watch it here, roughly minutes 10-15). I'm not sure why Rubio coming back repeatedly to his point that the problem with Obama is not that he was inexperienced but that his agenda was poisonous is somehow more robotic and canned than Christie's coming back repeatedly to his point that a governor is much better suited than a senator to hold executive office. (How many times did Christie say that Saturday night? How many times has he done it in all the debates combined?) No one has more canned lines than Christie. Here are 5: 

• I was a federal prosecutor during 9/11. 
• I was scared for my wife during 9/11
• I am a governor, a job where you actually do stuff
• (interrupting substantive debate that defines difference between candidates, turning to camera to say:) "See, we need a Washington to English dictionary, the American people don't care about this. 
• The American people are terrified, cringing in the corner, in case there's another terrorist attack

I grant that Rubio's response was not stellar.  As an argument, Christie's contention that an executive role better prepares you for the higher executive role of President than does the deliberative role of senator is strong, and one I have often made here. In the abstract, I would always choose a governor over a senator if each were equally conservative and electable.  But it looked to me as if Rubio, though occupying the weaker ground, basically held his own, particularly since Christie, not satisfied with laying a good clean punch, went pissy and then got a bit of his own back.  

Rubio is already running for the general election, and it's my judgment that he did well just keeping a smile on his face while Christie indulged his inner New Jersey -- and later in the debate, staying out of the weeds of his gang of 8 participation, carefully navigating away from that topic (where he is defensible, but the defense is too complicated for sound bites).  Not his best night, but I doubt it does him much long term damage -- especially since except for those 5 minutes, he won the rest of the debate in my mind. Great answer on abortion; clearly has a better command of what's happening in the middle east than the others; much clearer handle on the state of the armed forces and the prosecution of terror; clear articulation of the principles of limited government. 

I agree with the conventional wisdom that Ted Cruz had a good night (seemed a little more human and less condescending than usual somehow, in addition to having some effective and attractive answers on several questions) and Jeb Bush showed some life. But on the whole I found the Saturday debate dispiriting, and it lowered the entire field in my esteem. 

1) Sometimes I have thought I could get behind Christie, but this is the second debate in a row where he has used enemy language to tarnish pro-lifers unfairly (he likes to say he's pro-life even after people are born -- the precise malicious taunt used by Planned Parenthood types against pro-life activists. I go white hot with rage when I hear anyone level it, because pro-lifers are the ones who adopt the kids (including minorities and those w/ special needs), run the pregnancy centers and homes for single mothers, etc., etc. As a former pro-life lobbyist I know personally all the heads of the pro-life groups, and they all walk the walk. They all do an enormous amount of charitable giving, hosting single moms in their own homes, fostering and adopting special needs kids.... ALL of them do that; it comes with the conviction. There is no more terrible calumny than the one that pro-lifers don't care about born children -- and to hear it from someone who styles himself pro-life is just lemon in a cut. It's betrayal.  I feel I hate Christie when he talks that way, and I guarantee you everyone else actually engaged in the issue does too).  

And, in this debate he defined a child conceived in rape as a "predator" against the mother.   Rubio did a vastly superior job (besides taking my own position) of discussing competing rights without turning babies into Alien. Sheesh.  That offensive line of argument makes Chris Christie dead to me.

But on top of that, if he's such a wonderful leader who can get things done, someone who can take the tough decisions, then why doesn't he throw some of his punches at Donald Trump, who is damaging the conservative movement, instead of confining himself to Rubio? He's too afraid to take it to Trump, so I don't want to hear anything about toughness and courage. 

2) Marco Rubio did damage himself with me Saturday night, as did the entire field, by having not one word to say against women in combat, and even supporting selective service registration for women.  Oh. My. God.  Three of the candidates on stage explicitly supported women in combat and selective service, and the others -- not even Cruz, not even Carson-- felt no need to jump in. 

So a) apparently not a single GOP candidate understands the difference between opening combat positions to those (few) women who desire them and can qualify for them and compelling all young women via the draft ?!? 

One of them (I no longer recall who -- Bush?) said something about not politicizing the military, but none of them could extrapolate from that and make the point that opening combat roles to women IS experimenting with the military? No one could take it to Obama and point out the administration is doing this against the advice of the military experts and that in a dangerous time, while our military is catastrophically weakened, we're now forcing the military to turn its attention to affirmative action-ing women into combat? 

And that's just the easy, obvious argument. The larger point is that it's suicide for a nation to send its young women to war. All kinds of cultural upheaval was the result of WWII and a generation of men never returning home. Nothing good in the culture came from the loss of that generation of men ("war is always a defeat for humanity" as St. JP II said), but at least old men can sire children. Old women cannot bear them, and therefore only a culture of death (or a nation fundamentally unserious about war and peace) can entertain sending its young women off to war. (Bush, as I recall, said he was for selective service for women because the draft isn't coming back. Is he sure? And there's principle for you.).  All my heart for this election and for any of those men drained out of me in those moments. 

After the fact, Ted Cruz has discovered that drafting women into combat is nuts. But Mr. Stand on Principle, Never Be Politically Correct didn't find that very important to say to a national audience, so I'm not impressed. 

I suppose I will rally in a day or two. Maybe if I contemplate a Sanders presidency.

Update: NR w/ more on why women in combat is stupid policy, and selective service super-stupid.  

Fine, I Am Just Going to Outright Schill For 30 Seconds

 We'll see in the next few contests who does better, Cruz or Rubio. But no one calls a serious pro-life, pro-religious liberty "tax payer superhero" an "establishment squish" on my watch.

Watch this. Listen to the beginning, where Rubio appeals to the principles of the Declaration and talks to "real" people who are struggling financially and worried about raising their kids. Listen to his good natured humor.



Listen to what he says about immigration and about national defense. At least watch the last few minutes, beginning around minute 30, where he talks about his family's experience and what it will take to unite the country --where he talks about "if you come to heckle me, I'm cutting your taxes too" and where he says he will never divide Americans against each other deliberately -- and yet at the same time, no Pollyanna, he admits that we'll have some issues we need to fight out.

Just really listen and see what you think.

Rubio Is A Real Conservative

A friend makes an interesting point on his Facebook page regarding the Cruz campaign:

Cruz has a chance to TKO Trump and knock out the Bush-Kasich-Christie establishment candidates by focusing his attacks on all of them, making this a race where the party is guaranteed one of two real conservatives as the nominee, himself or Rubio.
Or, Cruz can join the establishment in its all-out assault on Rubio. This will revive Trump's campaign by keeping Trump's numbers up and giving him a big win in New Hampshire. It will also bring one of those establishment governors as a fourth viable candidate in South Carolina and beyond.
One choice is good for the party and the country, and if Cruz believes in his organization it still gives him a chance to win as the front runner and Trump killer.
The other choice risks ruin for the party by taking his foot off the throat of the Trump and establishment campaigns and making it possible for one or two nonconservatives to win the nomination.
What's the right thing for Cruz to do?

If you think the right thing for the country is for YOU to be President, you have to play hardball against your strongest perceived threat. So I raise this point not to knock Cruz for being somehow immoral if he attacks Rubio. That's fair game in politics. I raise it only to show that Cruz' behavior belies his claim to be always working from pristine principle (as opposed to everyone else) and because my "injustice" and "false" hackles go up when I see Rubio dismissed as the "establishment" candidate, when in fact he was a Tea Party candidate, not supposed to have won, and he has been a rock-solid conservative, more effective in actually moving the ball forward than Ted Cruz.  Here are two links you can follow to other links to amply demonstrate this point.

Here's an Atlantic  "expose" of Rubio's "feigned" moderation that makes the point anyone interested in liberty and  small government ought to be paying attention to: not who can say the loudest, boldest conservative things, but who can persuade voters and move the ball down the field? 

Rubio has mastered the same technique Barack Obama used so effectively when he was seeking the presidency. When faced with a controversial issue, he doffs his cap to the other side, pleads for civility and respect, insists that it’s a hard call—and then comes out exactly where you’d expect him to come out. On social issues, Rubio is as predictably conservative as Obama is predictably liberal. What they share is their moderate-sounding rhetorical style.

The real establishment candidate, Jeb Bush, is spending all his time and money attacking Rubio viciously (including, I believe, though cannot prove, being the source of the stupid NYT piece running the shocking, scandalous news that Rubio's wife has had parking tickets and that Rubio once bought a small boat. In Florida). Bush's campaign surrogate, Lindsay Graham, has just attacked Rubio for being too pro-life. (C'mon, Jeb. PLEASE get out before you beclown yourself any further). That is what the "establishment" does, and it has nothing to do with Rubio. 

And as for who is likely to have a better understanding of the difficulties of normal Americans, is that going to be the Princeton & Harvard-educated, SCOTUS-clerking Ted Cruz, whose wife works for Goldman-Sachs? Or the football-scholarship/ community college/ finally got his act together at U. Florida, and then JD from University of Miami Rubio, whose wife was once a Dolphins cheerleader and is now ashamed of it? The Rubios are not "establishment" -- they're normal middle-class Americans. He just happens to come from Cuban immigrants, so he knows in his bones what is great (or at least could be great again) about our country, and he's enormously principled and scrappy in doing something about it.  He's an outspoken pro-lifer, outspoken defender of marriage, outspoken defender of persecuted Christians (whereas Cruz -- my big bugaboo against him-- threw them under the bus to fundraise).  

By all means, let Cruz & Rubio duke it out and show us which of them would be a better conservative President. But the scorn for Rubio as a Jeb-like establishment figure is either taking Cruz' word for it, prejudice against his good looks, or a matter of not being truly familiar with Rubio's record. Here, let Rush Limbaugh tell it. 

Why Cruz Won

Huzzah! Who wins Iowa doesn't necessarily become the nominee, but at least last night's results tell us the country is not yet fully a reality tv nation.

Conventional wisdom was that huge voter turnout in the Iowa caucuses would indicate a Trump victory. So much for that: huge voter turnout, and Trump underperformed by several points.

I have to hand it to Ted Cruz, whose character I dislike: he did the hard work of retail politics and earned his victory. More than that, he won on principle -- another casualty of conventional wisdom is the proposition that you can't oppose the ethanol subsidy in Iowa(and a popular governor!) and win. But Cruz did it, and that does cause me to think again about whether he could win a national election.

Yesterday before the voting I watched this video, and it explains the Cruz win, I think. An angry farmer confronts him about ethanol and Cruz keeps his calm, doesn't back down, and actually persuades the guy. If this is the way he interacted w/ people all over the state, no wonder he won. This person could be president (really: watch! He shows us how it's done). I could wish THIS Cruz would show up for debates and speeches.

 


Alas, just as I was softening toward him, he took the stage after his big win last night and stomped all over his own victory by being unable to be gracious or even to enjoy his own moment. He launched right into a way-too-long 32-minute speech that seemed not unifying but divisive and sour. If you arrived late, you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a concession speech.

Hugh Hewitt tweeted last night, in contrast to my opinion that the longer Cruz spoke, the worse he did for himself, that since Cruz was the last to speak, he knew people would be channel surfing and it was wise to take advantage of free media for as long as possible. I learn a lot from Hewitt, but I think he's wrong about that, because what Cruz said was suitable only for his volunteers in the room, not the larger public, and certainly not all the Huckabee-Bush-Christie voters who will be deciding where to land.

Cruz is just not capable of framing anything in terms other than he and his people are courageous fighters with knives in their teeth (he actually said that), which leads everyone else to conclude he thinks what about them? And he's always telling you about his war wounds from the past rather than painting a picture of the future. The longer he spoke, the more I thought, " Nope, this is not a president talking."

By contrast, Rubio's succinct, sunny, forward-looking remarks seemed gracious, canny and presidential. And by effectively tying Trump (same # of delegates) and surging 10 points in two weeks, he showed he, too, can do retail politics. Marcomentum!  I only wish Rubio would stop saying "they said we couldn't do this, they said my hair didn't have enough gray and I should wait my turn." He can keep the black hair -- it fits with his theme of capturing the American future. But he should stop saying some people think he should wait his turn, because it reinforces that idea rather than quelling it.

Here's a powerline post from last night. Couldn't agree more w/ the final update at the bottom:

Marco Rubio has just finished his “victory” speech on Fox News. He killed it. I pray–literally, not figuratively–that the Republican Party has the good sense to nominate him to run against the corrupt septuagenarian Hillary Clinton.

Update: I forgot to name two other observations. High turnout in the GOP race w/o a Trump win means a huge GOP crowd came out to vote AGAINST Trump. And the massive turnout there, plus Sanders tying Hillary on the other side means last night there was an incredible repudiation in both parties of Barack Obama's policies. Voters are energized for NOT what Obama gave us.

Off the Fence Before Iowa

Tomorrow night's Iowa caucus will give us our first true information about the GOP primaries. Donald Trump's been sucking up all the oxygen with a brilliant media campaign. The guy knows television and branding.

I can't believe --which is to say I absolutely can, but shake my head-- his pulling out of the most recent GOP tactic worked to get everyone talking about him for 72 hours. Goodness. He pulled that threaten-to-pull-out stunt already with the first two debates. If FOX news were a serious news organization and not a ratings gimmick, it would have responded with a simple, "We will have a podium ready for Mr. Trump and hope he'll come" and left it at that. But of course, it was to their advantage to play along and amplify his game, so they taunted him with a snotty news release instead. Fun reality tv: but unserious, and unfair to the other candidates.

I'll give Trump something else, an understanding to which I've been late in coming because I've been so put off by his personal vulgarity and long history of supporting Lefty causes (though he's probably not done so out of ideological commitment, but merely to grease the skids for business dealings -- something about which he's unapologetic). I watched his "speech" (really his random commentary) at Liberty University and realized that deep down, the man is motivated by a certain patriotism. His understanding of the Declaration, the Constitution, the rule of law, statesmanship, and the value of limited government is no better than the average American's in our age of college-teaches-you-nothing. But he at least loves his country in his limited way, and that plus the promise of jobs in an economy that's closing out a full decade of disastrous economic policy ON TOP of an economic revolution akin to the industrial revolution that not one single politician understands, much less addresses, is Trump's appeal.  People aren't fools and they aren't fooled by him. They're not loving his crassness; they're tolerating it in order to get some of these "wins" he promises.

He's been riding high in the polls, but the interesting question will be if those polls translate into actual voters in the caucuses. Reporters traveling with the various campaigns have said for months that Cruz has an excellent get-out-the-vote campaign and has been doing the hard work of retail politics, visiting every polling site.  Trump, by contrast, is said to have been relying on big rallies and events that are captured on camera. His poll numbers are good, but they're good with people who haven't been previously active in caucuses. So will they actually show up? If so, maybe we're a reality tv nation now, and retail politics means less than it once did. Or maybe not.

Meanwhile, I'm crossing my fingers for Marcomentum. Marco Rubio is also said to have a don't-count-him-out ground game in Iowa, and everyone's noticing that Ted Cruz' attack ads have suddenly gone viciously against Rubio rather than Trump, which suggests a Rubio surge.

I've decided I really whole-heartedly like Rubio. As I've mentioned previously, I see him as a more effective legislator than Ted Cruz --who, for all his vaunted constitutionalism, seems not to understand the body to which he was elected and how it works, and has spent his time helping to weaken it rather than shore it up against executive encroachment.  Polling continually shows that of the GOP candidates, only Rubio consistently beats Hillary and Bernie, and Cruz, whatever his merits, I think is too angry and too condescending a figure to appeal to the electorate at large. Trump TALKS angry and say horrible insulting things, but somehow he doesn't actually seem all that angry or condescending. Whereas with Cruz, something in his face just makes you want to slug him for being so smug -- even when you agree with him.

People who have worked with Rubio always remark on his sincerity, his transparency, his hard work in understanding issues, and that is what comes across to me when I hear him in interviews. I am always impressed with his detailed knowledge on defense issues in particular, but also on economic policy. He's been a champion of religious liberty and persecuted Christians (don't take my word for it, take a look at what Michael Cromartie has to say), and I love him for this:



It's not just that he cut a pro-life ad. That's what you do when you're running in Iowa and courting evangelical voters. It's that he didn't use the throw-them-some-red-meat boilerplate that insincere GOP politicians use: where they say they're pro-life and that they think Roe v. Wade should be overturned and would support a constitutional amendment to defend life.  That's what politicians say when they either know nothing about the issue or intend to do nothing whatsoever about it. The fact that Rubio tells you specific measures he'll support -- how he will advance the cause-- tells you he's given it some thought, understands the state of play, and actually means it.

Here's another Rubio ad I like. I'm not sure I fully get it, actually -- there seems to be an in-joke that I don't know about.  But it shows his sunny personality, and I'll tell you what's smartest about it: it shows his wrinkles, so he doesn't seem so young. His youthful good looks, along with his rushed, earnest delivery (even though he's capable of great eloquence), are weaknesses. They make him seem too young. But any time I hear him in an interview where there's time for an actual answer as opposed to a sound bite, I am impressed.