There is nothing going on

If there's anything important going on in American politics right now, I'm not seeing it.

The situation in Ferguson is being treated as a political topic by many. But it's not. It's an investigation into a situation involving local law enforcement even to allow the discussion that this was a racially motivated crime is to make it political. Why? Because the officer followed protocol and his training. Even if it was the action of a racially hostile individual, that is an isolated situation not a reason to indict a system as endemically racist. Does the training need to change to account for different situations? Maybe. That is still not political.

Obama's amnesty power grab? That may be political but right now, nothing meaningful is happening on that front. Speculation? Sure. Angst? Definitely. But movement? Nope. That will happen eventually as both Republicans and Democrats decide how to react to the president's actions and then act on their own. Otherwise, it's just talk. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Discussion is important. Hashing out ideas is a good thing, but it's too early to comment on the direction that has yet to be taken or speculate on which direction ultimately will be taken. It's just too early.

Secretary of State John Kerry telling Russia to ignore Obama's tough talk on Russia? Yeah, they were already doing that.

Chuck Hagel's forced resignation? Nothing to see here. Hagel was a yes man for Obama, just not quite yes-y enough. It's more evidence that the White House has been so insular it can't stomach any opinion not precisely aligned with its own. But we didn't need that evidence and the left still doesn't want to acknowledge it.

I might be sounding disenchanted with politics. Perhaps, but it's not a reflection of how I feel about American politics. It's more about the lack of development. We're in a lull. That's not a bad thing - sometimes it's necessary. In an Obama era, with a lame duck Democratic senate, less is definitely more.

Meanwhile, wait for it. Lulls typically don't last very long.

Kerry, Apartheid and his anti-Israel reality

Future host of America's Funniest Home Videos?

Secretary of State John Kerry recently made a comment about Israel that is causing many to call for his resignation.  Kerry now seems to be backing off his statement, but given that the irony of his comment is lost on him, one can't help but wonder whether he really is anti-Israel and therefore, should resign.

Via Breitbart:

On Sunday, The Daily Beast reported that Kerry had told a closed-door meeting of the Trilateral Commission in Washington on Friday that Israel risked becoming an "apartheid state" with two classes of citizens if negotiations to forge a peace deal fail and a two-state solution is not reached.

The Merriam Webster defines Apartheid as:

"a former social system in South Africa in which black people and people from other racial groups did not have the same political and economic rights as white people and were forced to live separately from white people."

Kerry was clearly talking about second class treatment of Palestinians or Arabs in general in Israel. But here's the irony; Israel has been subjected to treatment in the Middle East as not second class, but as not having a right to exist in the eyes of many in the Middle East, since its very inception. In other words, the threat of genocide trumps the threat of apartheid.

Kerry Off

It looks like the Obama administration has gone from bad (Hillary Clinton) to worse (John Kerry) at the State Department.

Via Breitbart:

In what looks like an off-the-cuff blunder, Secretary of State John Kerry might have accidentally given Russian President Vladmir Putin the opportunity to muddy the international diplomatic waters and buy his friends in Syria some time.

During a press briefing on Monday, Kerry said that Assad could avoid American air strikes by giving up all his chemical weapons within a week. Within hours, the State Department was forced to walk Kerry's new red line back with the claim that he was making a "rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used."

It seems, then, reasonable to conclude that Kerry spoke out of turn. Kerry was not authorized to offer Syria an "out" or a new ultimatum. But Kerry's hypothetical hyperbole appears to have already backfired.

In an obvious desire to make Kerry pay for his flub and throw a wrench in Obama's determination to go to war with Syria, Putin has seized upon Kerry's hypothetical and called on Syria to accept Kerry's offer and turn over all of its chemical weapons. No one believes Assad would ever willingly give up his chemical weapons, but should he agree to an offer the Obama administration did not mean to make, it could stall American action for weeks and even months.

Syria is already warming to the idea.

Blunder indeed.

Get ready for "Kerry lied, people died."

Because on the right, we are vindictive like that...

Word today, John Kerry is saying it is undeniable that there Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Syria.  When president Bush said this about Iraq, most of the liberals who subsequently targeted president Bush as liar were on board for invading Iraq.

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the use of chemical weapons in attacks on civilians in Syria last week was undeniable and that the Obama administration would hold the Syrian government accountable for what he called a “moral obscenity” that had shocked the world’s conscience.

I doubt conservatives are eager for a Syrian expedition at this point.  But what of the general public?  Is there any appetite at all for yet another foreign intervention?  I sincerely doubt it.  And even a few cruise missiles at a million dollars a piece might be too much for voters to stomach in light of things like a Detroit bankruptcy, and Chicago school kids having to go through no man's land to get to school these days. We'll see.  But if WMD's are not found the temptation to start with "Kerry lied, people died", or even "Obama lied, people died." will be hard to resist.

 

Of course if they find WMDs, that's another story. But don't hold your breath.

Handicapping 2016 yet?

It's early.  2016 is a political lifetime away.  But there are already some indications of what might happen in the next presidential election.  True, these indicators should be taken with a block of salt, but it sure looks like certain things will come to pass.  Other things are less clear, and of course nothing is certain this far out from the election. But the 2016 election already has me thinking and so far I'm not feeling warm and fuzzy.

Not my numbers - click for source odds.

In a series of recent polling and news items it looks like it's a fait accompli that Hillary Clinton will be the next Democrat presidential candidate. Others in the race who may have a chance to contend - Cuomo, Biden and Kerry - will all have their work cut out for them. As CNN noted, she's lapping the field. She probably has already locked up New Hampshire. She hasn't said she'll run, she's busy making gobs of cash in different ways. The sort of cash one might need for say a presidential run. She's going to run. I'm not suggesting she has an impressive list of accomplishments but that doesn't matter - the press was able to make a threadbare Obama resume into the greatest guy EVER for audiences. Clinton has no business answering the 3 a.m. call (Benghazi or Bosnia ring a bell?), but it just doesn't matter.  She's the next liberal superstar heir apparent.  She's going to run, and she's going to be the Democratic party's nominee.  She's going to be the press' nominee.

She's going to have to be beaten.  Unfortunately things on the Republican side seem muddled for the time being.  In the same poll extolling Clinton's extended lead, the Republican field is understandably unclear.  There are some apparent front runners - Rubio, Christie and yet another Bush among them.

As CNN noted,

While the race for the Democratic nomination is basically frozen until Clinton makes a decision, the hunt for the Republican nomination remains wide open. The new poll, as with past surveys, indicates that there's no front runner on the GOP side.

Eighteen percent of self-identified Republicans or those who lean towards the GOP say they support Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, with 16% backing former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and 14% supporting New Jersey Gov. Christie. Nine percent back former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a 2012 GOP presidential candidate who battled eventual nominee Mitt Romney deep into the primary calendar, with 21% preferring someone else and one in five unsure.

"Republican uncertainty mirrors the identity crisis the party is facing as it redefines its message in the aftermath of the 2012 presidential loss. Republican voters seem to be saying they remain on the lookout for their party's Mr. or Mrs. Right," says Krista Jenkins, professor of political science and director of FDU's PublicMind.

While the identity crisis may be an over-the-top misnomer gleefully perpetuated by the left-leaning mainstream media, it is not entirely without merit.  The 2012 primaries proved there was a rift between conservatives in trying to achieve what William F. Buckley advised - nominate the most conservative candidate in the field who can win the election.  No one clearly, has a solid understanding of what that actually means in the real world. Electability is an amorphous concept.  Was Sharon Angle electable before she lost her election bid? Was Pat Toomey before he won?  Similarly "most conservative" may mean entirely different things to different types of conservatives - social conservatives, libertarians, defense hawks, economic conservatives and other conservatives constituencies will have differing definitions.  Hence the confusion.

Another problem on the Republican side is timing.  Clinton will likely lead the Democrats wire-to-wire.  But for conservatives, is it better to decide the primary early in order to focus fundraising on the general election as early as possible?  That didn't work for Mitt Romney. But he also didn't spend effectively and clearly was not the technocrat, economic whiz he presented himself to be.  On the other hand, is it better to have a nominee determined as late as possible in order to avoid the slings and arrows of the left and media yet foregoing name recognition building opportunities at the same time?  I'm not sure but I'd lean towards doing the opposite of what both Romney and prior to him McCain did against Obama.

That means come out fast, furiously and unrelentingly as early as possible and sustain the message, and sustain the attacks on Clinton.  Not attacking Obama did not work for either GOP nominee.  Both were attacked and yet wanted to come across as above the fray and empathetic.  It worked for Bill Clinton and even more so for Obama. because they had the media on their side.

Getting back to the Republican field for 2016, I think that the party that wants to internally debate ideas may shift gears in the run-up to 2016.  It may come down to who they think is the best fighter and who can best undress Clinton (politically and rhetorically only please). Conservatives are not only sick of losing, they are sick of losing because their nominees aren't fighting tooth and nail for victory at every turn.  We are going to need a battler. Conservatives would do well to modify the Buckley rule to look for the most (effectively) combative conservative in the field.  At least that takes electable to a more granular level, right or wrong.

So who does that mean in the GOP contender field right now? Jeb Bush isn't made of that sterner stuff, but he will still poll well. He may win but I don't think he will at this point.  He's still too Bush, in an era when Bush 43 memories have not faded.  Marco Rubio on the other hand is very intelligent, and a likable conservative. But he may be too nice to dig in for a battle.  We haven't seen if he can win a street fight yet.  If my presumption is right, then the likely nominee will be electable, but not the most conservative candidate in the field - Chris Christie.  He wouldn't be my choice, but this early on, unless someone else better positions themselves as a fighter, he's the likely nominee.

There's my worthless way-too-early prediction.  Modifications will undoubtedly follow.