Are Any Of The Democratic Candidates For President Not Completely Crazy?

Perhaps President Trump is not particularly your cup of tea, and you are thinking that you might consider as an alternative supporting one or another of the Democratic contenders for the presidency. If so, here is an important question to consider: Is any one of these people not completely crazy?

To start with, I’m willing to grant that the bar for selecting a candidate to support for President is of necessity a low one. A person matching your idea of the perfect candidate simply does not exist in the real world; and even if such a person did exist, he or she would not make it past the first week of the campaign. Working strongly against the potential for even any half-way decent candidate is the fact that everybody who throws a hat into this ring is almost by definition a self-centered ego-maniac. Plus, every one of them deeply believes that each word they utter, no matter how ridiculous, is a pearl of God’s wisdom. And then, by the time you get to the general election, you will only have two options left to choose from. It goes without saying that both will be very deeply flawed.

But “deeply flawed” is not nearly the same as “completely crazy.” Surely, we can find some among the Democratic candidates who can pass the “not completely crazy” test.

Well, good luck trying. To evaluate the question of whether any of these people are not completely crazy, I’m going to look today at what they have said recently — mostly in the debates — about the federal government’s appropriate role with respect to “climate.” . . .

Read More

Should We Be Optimistic About The Future Of The United States?

At the Manhattan Contrarian family dinner table the other day, the subject of conversation turned to this question: Should we be optimistic about the future of the United States? Good and valid points were made on both sides of the issue. But the most important point weighed for the side of optimism. That point was that, of all the countries in the world, the United States is the place where the people — rather than the government — really run the country. Here, more than anyplace else, people can pursue their own initiatives and dreams without the government having the ability to obstruct and stymie private efforts, and force resources into pathways chosen by elite government functionaries.

Why does this matter? It’s not complicated. From the perspective of aggregate economic performance, the simple answer is that a trial-and-error process with hundreds of millions of participants will come up with much better and more numerous solutions to human problems than the small number of the very smartest people with government authority can ever come up with. From the perspective of the individual, the answer is that the only worthwhile life to lead is the life of freedom, where you make your own choices and take responsibility for your own success or failure. . . .

Read More

Trump Has Some Basic Knowledge About Negotiation; Maybe Boris Johnson Does Too

Say what you will about Donald Trump, here’s one thing you have to give him: he has some basic knowledge — or maybe it’s just instinct — of how to go about negotiating a deal. This is in great contrast to others you see on the world stage, including people in the office of U.S. President or British Prime Minister. You would think that knowing the fundamentals about how to negotiate with other world leaders would be a basic requirement for either of those jobs, but of course that is not true. The voters don’t know much about this subject, and can’t be expected to. As to the U.S. presidency, other than Trump, I can’t think of any other candidate who has even put forward high-level negotiating skills as part of the campaign pitch.

I’m not saying that I agree with every tactic that Trump has employed in his various negotiations as President, let alone with all of the goals that he has pursued. Rather, I’m talking here only about basic negotiating strategy, where at its core there is only one point that is important among all others. Here it is: If you want to get your best deal in a negotiation, you must be willing to walk away, and you must demonstrate that willingness to your negotiating counterparty. . . .

Read More

Who Are The Racists Here?

You can be forgiven if you have the impression that the entire argument of the Democratic party to voters at this point in time consists of yelling at the opposition, “You’re racists!” Or maybe sometimes it’s “You’re white supremacists!” But is there any substance to these charges?

The last few days have seen a near total meltdown, after President Trump tweeted (on July 14):

Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!

No mention of race there, of course. Sounds to me like an invitation to the radical Congresswomen to start behaving like grown-ups and taking some responsibility for the absurd policy proposals that they throw around so recklessly. The Green New Deal for Somalia? I can only think it would take the impoverished Somalis from mere poverty to total destitution and starvation. But the “squad” thinks the Green New Deal is imperative for the U.S. Then why shouldn’t it also be the right policy path for Somalia? And if this plan is the route to a perfected world, what’s wrong with suggesting that its leading advocates bring some influence to bear on Somalia (or Palestine or Mexico) to implement their prescriptions? The backdrop of proposing Somalia for the GND seems to me like an excellent basis for an intelligent conversation about what policies might actually work in the real world.

So let’s get the reaction of Ilhan Omar . . .

Read More

Let's Investigate For "Obstruction Of Justice" Every Prosecutor Who Has Ever Declined A Prosecution

Now that the 488 page Mueller Report is out, and we are informed that the whole “Russian collusion” story was a hoax from the get go, you may have the feeling that, at least, Mueller and his people had a basic clue as to what they were doing. If so, then you clearly haven’t yet looked at the 182 page Volume II. This is the part of the Report that supposedly addresses “obstruction of justice” by the President. The conclusion of Volume II is that, “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach [the] judgment [that the President did not commit obstruction.]”

Let’s see. The President never fired Mueller or any of his people, or restricted the scope of their investigation, even though he had the constitutional authority to do so. The President never instructed Mueller who should or should not be charged, or for what crimes, even though he had the constitutional authority to do so. The President never claimed either attorney-client or executive privilege. The President produced over a million pages of documents. So what exactly is there about “obstruction” that supports writing this 182 pages of blather?

It’s simple. In the alternative universe that these people inhabit, it can be “obstruction of justice” if an elected official takes a constitutionally authorized action, in particular the exercise of what is known as “prosecutorial discretion,” while thinking the wrong thoughts. . . .

Read More

The Deep State And Media Cabal Will Never Quit

We’re still in the very early days since the Trump/Russia collusion hoax blew up in the faces of its Deep State and media promoters. But many in those circles have a visceral need to find something new every day to meet an official minimum quota of accusing the President of some kind of wrongdoing at least once per news cycle. What is going to fill all those front page columns and prime time program slots now that “Russia!!!” is gone? There just doesn’t seem to be anything remaining that remotely matches the scariness of the great imaginary Russian caper. But how far down the bottom of this barrel will we need to scrape?

The past two days bring forth a couple of examples that take this game to a whole new level of ludicrousness.

First, in yesterday’s New York Times, we have a front-page article headlined “White House Whistle-Blower Tells Congress of Irregularities in Security Clearances.” The authors are Nicholas Fandos and Maggie Haberman. Yes, it’s the same Maggie Haberman who authored a good third of the big Times “scoops” on the Russia hoax. Looks like she’s found her new McGuffin.

In the Times’s telling, a senior career bureaucrat in the White House’s Personnel Security Office by the name of Tricia Newbold has decided to come forward as a “whistle-blower.” Ms. Newbold’s job over several administrations has been to investigate White House personnel as to whether they should get security clearances. Now, it seems, President Trump and/or his senior staff have overridden Ms. Newbold’s recommendation in multiple instances. She has decided that it is time to take her concerns to Congress. Here is the Times’s spin on the situation: . . .

Read More