Commentary on the Iowa Caucuses

Iowa Caucuses

There’s really only one thing I care about in the 2016 election and that is the composition of the Supreme Court. I also wouldn’t mind someone who’s willing to put Putin, Iran, and the Chinese in their places and hopefully avert some damned fool thing that ends up starting World War III. But the Supreme Court is my top issue.

What we’re seeing is a three way race between Cruz, Trump, and Rubio. I don’t honestly think any of the other candidates stand a chance. At some point, either Cruz or Rubio will likely need to drop out to overcome Trump. The other candidates should do us all a favor and drop now.

The problem I’ve had with Trump is that I don’t know what I’m buying. Who would Trump put on the Supreme Court? Maybe his sister, who is a presiding federal judge in the 3rd circuit? I don’t know much about her judicial philosophy. Maybe she’d be fine. But Trump has been all over the map on so many issues, I really don’t know how he’d govern, or who he’d pick.

Not being a Trump supporter, I’m pleased to see that he may in fact be over-polling. It’s one thing to tell a pollster that you support Donald Trump, but Trump has not been building a ground operation. His campaign has been relying strictly on earned media. Trump’s media game is stellar, but you need foot soldiers on the ground to get butts to the polls or caucuses. Iowa is one state though, and its caucus system plays against candidates without a ground game more than the systems in other states. I would not count Donald Trump out of the race by far. There’s a lot of lessons to learn from Trump that the GOP is totally ignoring, but that’s another post.

I believe both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio would put better candidates on The Supreme Court than any of the other front runners in both parties. I think Marco Rubio has more raw political talent, but I’m not sure his style is suited to the times. He’d be a great “good times” candidate, but these are not good times. As for Cruz, Charles C.W. Cooke had the linguistic kill shot on Ted Cruz for me: “midwest vacuum cleaner salesman.” He’s the obnoxious nerdy kid who kissed the teacher’s ass in class and who everyone wanted to punch after school. I might agree with him on more issues, and he may be less “establishment,” but demeanor matters to low-information voters, and Cruz’s demeanor is what I worry about. I don’t see Cruz fundamentally altering the electoral map. Rubio might have a shot.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t have any accomplishment in her life other than marrying well. I’ve said this before, but she doesn’t have enough political talent to get elected dog catcher on her own. Bill’s coattails got her to where she is. That’s why she nearly got schlonged by a kooky old socialist from Vermont in Iowa, and will definitely get shlonged in New Hampshire. I’m rooting for Bernie. I remember being pleased as punch when Obama started to knock of that 2nd rate hack of a candidate in 2008. Even after eight years of Obama, I’m not sure I was wrong to be pleased. Bernie might be a kooky old socialist, but he does not greatly offend me. He’s talking about the things people care about. He’s great on the stump, and knows how to work a crowd. If he won, I think as a President he’d be entirely ineffective — less so than even Obama. Hillary knows where bodies are buried, so she’d be a far more hazardous nominee than kooky old Bernie.

21 thoughts on “Commentary on the Iowa Caucuses”

  1. A Rubio/Cruz ticket wouldn’t be terrible IMO, if they can get along after the primary fight.

  2. “…linguistic kill shot…”

    You haven’t been reading Scott Adams’ Persuasion series by any chance, have you?

  3. Trumps sister was appointed by Reagan to the District COurt in New Jersey, and by Clinton to the 3rd Circuit (I think that has more to do with who was President at the Time and Trump buying his sister a judicial appointment).

    Not sure how she has been on the bench, but she testified in support of Samuel Alito when the US Senate was considering his nomination to the Supreme Court. I just had a case before the 3rd circuit (its on appeal to SCOTUS now) but she wasn’t one of the judges we were before (she’s on “senior” status which means she’s basically retired but gets to maintain an office and work as much or as little as she desires when she desires (its nice to have a lifetime appointment)

  4. Also, and Bitter probably knows this, but she’s a Mt. Holyoke Alumn

  5. Rubio would be a disaster on the scale of Bush I or Jeb!. He is the big business chamber of commerce/amnesty candidate. He would have another “moderate” judge or a wide eyed “progressive” appointed “to be fair”. Trump or Cruz and we MIGHT be OK. Rubio would be the same as the hildabeast.

    1. No, he wouldn’t. He might be another Bush, but we managed to win Heller and McDonald with who he put on the bench.

      1. Rubio is a placeholder for the Hildabeast. He is the democrat lite candidate and is designed to lose. And I’m not voting for any more democrat lite candidates. And neither is the “base”. You want a milquetoast loser that is trying to make the media love him and mouths platitudes while making government bigger and his cronies richer, then expect to lose. Hillary and Rubio represent the SAME PARTY. The uniparty only wants power. And will do anything to get it. It is the socialists and the country club RINOs and do-gooders that want your money and power. Never again.

      2. Import another 10-15 million Democrat voters in key swing states like Rubio wants and you might not see the collapse, but your children will.

    2. major problem with this argument is calling Trump a rock-solid conservative compared to Rubio and guaranteeing he’d appoint better justices.

  6. You wrote: “Hillary Clinton doesn’t have any accomplishment in her life other than marrying well.”

    That’s one of the worst things I’ve ever read about her.

    Hillary Clinton has at least one significant fact in common with Heidi Cruz. They were both smarter and more successful than their husbands, but they dropped/reduced their own ambitions in order to play second fiddle and promote their husbands’ careers instead.

    And both women are more interesting than their spouses.

    1. Smarter? Sure. More successful? It’s hard to be successful when your boss won’t write you a letter of recommendation. It’s tough to find an employer when you’ve been investigated a few times for financial improprieties. I would venture a bet that her husband’s ‘less successful’ political carrier has saved her from prosecution a time or two.

    1. Depends on what your goals are. If you want to become the first woman president, you could do worse. If you want fidelity, obviously not!

    2. They got rich. That qualifies as marrying well She got be First Lady .That also qualifies

  7. Bernie Sanders was pro-gun a long time ago. Now he is straight anti-gun. He would appoint anti-gun justices.

    Here is his latest position on RKBA:

    “And second of all, I believe that we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people exclusively — not for hunting — they should not be sold in the United States of America.”

    -Bernie Sanders

    Does that sound like someone harmless to you?

    1. I view it as a good thing that Sanders is trying to run from his record and now opting to out anti-gun Hilary. It should prove quite useful in the general election where only Trump would be the candidate I would feel lukewarm about on guns.

  8. I was the chairperson of my Democratic precinct caucus in Iowa (Polk City 1) and here’s one of the platform planks we approved Mon. night:

    We support efforts to promote, protect, and preserve hunting and the shooting sports.

    Some might recognize that as the NSSF vision.

  9. Rubio is just a younger Jeb (act of love) Bush. Let um all in as soon as he’s elected. Bush has the demeanor and presence of a weak person, name recognition can’t save him. Although I like Cruz I’d rather see Trump win with Tom Cotton as his VP and then send Cruz to SCOTUS. Then watch the media talking heads explode.

  10. Wow. Reading people talk about Ted Cruz’ manner lately has left me somewhat at a loss to understand what job they think the President of the United States is. We complain about slick politicians, then when we get one who is straightforward and plain-spoken, people complain that he is not slick enough!

    Perhaps “the obnoxious nerdy kid who kissed the teacher’s ass in class and who everyone wanted to punch after school” who actually memorized the constitution at age 13 is just what we need. I am very, very tired of the usual politician and like Ted Cruz exactly because he is NOT slick like Bill Clinton and does NOT take the position-of-the-day to pander to whomever. I think this guy is a class act and despair over the way people continue to repeat this electability idea. Perhaps I will be schooled on the subject if Ted Cruz wins the Republican nomination and cannot win the general election because he does not appeal adequately to low-information voters, but have we really sunk that far?

Comments are closed.