Jeb! calls for convention of states

In the weeks since the election, Jeb(!) Bush has been conspicuously absent. He ended his absence today with a surprising op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that, among other advice to the president-elect and the Republican Party, calls for a convention of states to amend the Constitution.

Bush, who acknowledges that Mr. Trump “tapped into the anger and deep distrust that voters feel toward Washington” and the belief that “our system is skewed in favor of the powerful and the connected,” points out that “This election was more about voting against something than voting for something. Americans voted against the ‘establishment,’ against the country’s changing culture, against a dysfunctional Washington, against the privileged, against Hillary Clinton—and, yes, against Donald Trump.”

Bush notes that, even though Republicans won a decisive electoral victory, neither Trump nor the party is popular. To assume that the election results are a mandate for everything that Trump campaigned on, even as he trails by more than 2 million popular votes, might lead to the same trap of federal overreach that ensnared Barack Obama.

Instead, Bush argues for a positive agenda that will appeal to the majority of Americans. “Americans, by wide majorities, agree that Washington is broken, so let’s send power back to the people and back to the states,” Bush writes. “Republicans should support convening a constitutional convention to pass term limits, a balanced-budget amendment and restraints on the Commerce Clause, which has given the federal government far more regulatory power than the Founders intended.”

What Bush is referring to here is typically referred to as an “Article V convention” or a “convention of states,” an alternative method of amending the Constitution that has never been used, but that has been much discussed in recent years. Article V of the Constitution provides that two-thirds of the states can call a constitutional convention and amendments can then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or conventions in three-fourths of the states. This would require 34 states to call for the convention and 38 states to ratify.

While the election of 2016 may give Republicans their best chance at a successful Article V convention, it is by no means a slam dunk. Ballotpedia shows that starting in 2017, Republicans will control all three branches of government in 25 states. While this is a historic high, it falls short of the number of states required to ratify an amendment or even call for a convention. Conversely, only five states are completely controlled by Democrats. This falls short of the 13 states needed to block an amendment.

These numbers give the Republicans have an advantage, but the 20 states with bipartisan government control will be decisive. A constitutional convention would be dominated by Republicans, but there would be no blank check. Republicans would be forced to compromise to amend the Constitution.

Perhaps realizing the difficulty of amending the Constitution, Bush offers an agenda that can be accomplished through Congress. “Most critically, Republicans should reverse the Obama-era policies that have made America weaker, both here and abroad. We need to repeal and replace ObamaCare, eliminate business-killing regulations, and reverse the massive expansion of government. While we protect our borders and our laws, we should also take on the hard work of reforming legal immigration and affirming the role that immigrants play in building up our economy and our nation.” Bush also calls on the new president to “restore American leadership in the world” and “protect and reassure our friends and allies.”

He also calls upon Republicans to repair their party’s tarnished image. “Republicans must restore our brand as the party of conservative ideals, shared prosperity, liberty and responsibility,” he writes. He stresses that this should be done “without stooping to the identity politics of the left. Let’s not focus on angst, grievance and division over race, class or gender.”

Bush makes the point that Trump’s victory was neither a license for Republicans to take reckless action or an excuse to take the reins of power and then rest on their laurels. Democratic overreach and disregard for the will of the people is what handed the Republicans this victory. The voters will hold Mr. Trump accountable if he does not follow through with his promise to “make America great again.”

“The GOP has no excuse for failure,” Bush writes. “We are in charge of both the executive and legislative branches in Washington, and we dominate in the states like never before. We have the power to set the agenda, and we have the responsibility to govern, not merely on behalf of the voters who supported President-elect Trump, but for all Americans.” 

Hillary Clinton promoted Donald Trump as way to damage GOP

Among the documents in the leaked John Podesta emails recently posted by Wikileaks was a strategy memo that suggested that the Clinton campaign may have colluded with the Democratic National Committee and the media to promote certain Republican primary candidates that the Democrats considered extreme. If genuine, the memo indicates that the Clinton campaign interfered with the Republican primary with the help of the media.

The memo was an attachment to an email with the Wikileaks ID number 1120. It was sent to numerous staff members on April 23, 2015 with the subject line “[AGENDA & MEMO] Friday Strategy at 8:00 AM ET.” The email was sent by “MASTOR,” probably a reference to Marissa Astor, who is listed as a surrogate on the Hillary for America organizational chart. The attachment file name is “150407 Strategy on GOP.”

The memo is addressed to “The Democratic National Committee” and is dated April 7, 2015. The introduction says that its purpose is to “outline the strategy and goals that a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field.” The introduction notes that, even though Hillary Clinton was not yet the Democratic nominee, “most of what is contained in this memo is work the DNC is already doing.”

The memo lays out three strategies to “make whomever the Republicans nominate unpalatable to the majority of the electorate.” First, the Clinton campaign planned to “force all [emphasis theirs] Republican candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a general election.” Second, they wanted to “undermine any credibility/trust Republican presidential candidates have” among independent voters. Finally, they planned to “muddy the waters on any potential attack launched against HRC.”

In “operationalizing the strategy,” the memo described a plan to “use the [Republican] field to inflict damage on itself.” The Clinton campaign wanted to use “more extreme candidates” as “’Pied Piper’ candidates” who would seem to “represent the mainstream of the Republican Party.”

The memo identified three “Pied Piper” candidates by name. They were Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and Ben Carson. At the time the memo was written, Donald Trump was still two months away from declaring his candidacy. It is not clear if the Clintons directly influenced Trump to enter the race.

“We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them [sic] seriously,” the memo says. This indicates coordination between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and members of the media.

The memo goes on to identify several “more established” candidates who needed special attention to
“undermine their credibility among our coalition (communities of color, millennials, women) and independent voters.” The candidates identified as bigger threats to the Clinton campaign were Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal and Chris Christie.

To “muddy the waters,” the memo suggested building a dossier on each Republican candidate in the areas of “transparency & disclosure, donors & associations, and management & business dealings.” In a statement that presaged this week’s attacks on Donald Trump, the memo says, “any information on scandals or ethical lapses on the GOP candidates would serve well. We won’t be picky.”

 While the email does not contain a “smoking gun” that indicates that Clinton enticed Donald Trump to enter the Republican primary, it is apparent that Trump was considered a weak and extreme candidate who could hurt the rest of the Republican field. The reference to the press may help explain the large amounts of friendly press coverage that Trump received during the primary. There is also no indication that the Clinton campaign thought that Donald Trump could actually win the Republican primary and become the party’s nominee.

In the end, Hillary Clinton’s plan to sabotage the Republican primary must have exceeded her wildest expectations.  One of her “Pied Pipers” actually won the nomination and became the Republican candidate for the presidency. Hillary was ready when he did.

Read the full story on The Resurgent

Can Republicans put the brakes on Donald Trump?

youtube.com

Chances to prevent Trump from winning the nomination exist, but are slipping away.

So far insurgent businessman Donald Trump has been running away with the Republican primary elections. The question on the minds of Republicans is whether anyone can prevent him from becoming the Republican nominee for president.  As the nation moves toward Super Duper Tuesday on March 1, there are important differences that may act to narrow the race and put the brakes on Trump.

Game changers

The first game changer is the departure of Jeb Bush. Marco Rubio is expected to be the primary beneficiary of Jeb’s departure since the two were competing for the same pool of Republican voters. If the combined totals of Rubio and Bush from South Carolina were applied to Rubio, he would have been in a near tie with Donald Trump instead of Ted Cruz. This may have resulted in Rubio winning some delegates, which were apportioned by congressional district in South Carolina.

The second game changer is that that the nature of the primaries changes on March 1. Up to this point, second tier candidates could stay in the race and reasonably hope to win delegates because most of the primaries were based on proportional representation. If you won 10 percent of the vote, you won 10 percent of the delegates.

On March 1, that changes. Thirteen states are holding primaries and caucuses on March 1 and 10 of these states have a minimum threshold for a candidate to receive delegates. In most cases, the threshold would mean that John Kasich and Ben Carson would be unlikely to receive any delegates from most states even because they are polling at less than 10 percent. Massachusetts is the only state with a threshold less than 10 percent and Virginia has no threshold. These and the caucus states of North Dakota and Wyoming are the only states where Carson and Kasich have a chance of winning a single delegate. After March 1, they will be hopelessly behind and will probably drop out.

Who benefits from dropouts?

As the field of candidates dwindles, Cruz and Rubio have more to gain than Trump. An NBC News/Survey Monkey poll in early February asked about the second choice of Republican voters. Cruz and Rubio were the top second choices of most Republicans. Specifically, Rubio was the strong second preference of Bush and Kasich voters while Carson voters split between Trump and Cruz with Rubio running a close third. While the poll includes several candidates that have already dropped out and is slightly dated for such a dynamic election cycle, the indication is that Rubio would have the most to gain as more candidates drop out.

Trump’s weakness may be that in most cases he is restricted to about a third of the vote. Roughly two-thirds of Republicans have consistently voted against Trump and Real Clear Politics polling shows that this seems to be holding true in most upcoming primaries. For the first half of March, Cruz, Trump and Rubio could be in something close to a three-way dead heat.

Super Duper and Super Tuesdays

On Super Tuesday, March 15, there is another shift. Many primaries after this point are winner-take-all. The big prizes are Florida, Illinois and Ohio. It is fair to assume at this point that Trump will take these delegates.

In another Super Tuesday primary, Missouri is winner-take-all if a candidate receives more than 50 percent. If not, delegates are awarded by congressional district. This may be similar to Trump’s sweep of South Carolina in which he lost some counties and precincts, but won all congressional districts with less than 50 percent of the vote.

The key for Rubio and Cruz will be to seize the momentum from Donald Trump on March 1 and win large shares of delegates in the Super Duper Tuesday states. If they can make a strong enough showing to take away the sense of inevitability surrounding Trump then they may be able to build enough support to deny Trump victory in the winner-take-all states, including Rubio’s home state of Florida, beginning on March 15.

The delegate fight

The ultimate winner of the Republican nomination must win a majority of the 2,470 convention delegates. The magic number to clinch the nomination is 1,237 delegates. To put that in perspective, Trump currently has only 81 delegates after the Nevada caucuses, six percent of the requirement. Another 565 delegates are at stake on March 1.

Rubio and Cruz appear to be evenly matched with Rubio holding a slight lead in many states. The combined total of Rubio and Cruz votes is greater than Trump’s share, but it is apparent that the two are splitting the conservative, anti-Trump vote. Either would probably beat Trump if the other were to drop out, but with both in the race it is difficult, if not possible, for either to gain the advantage. At this point neither seems likely to drop out.

If neither Cruz nor Rubio is able to win the nomination outright, they may still be able to prevent Donald Trump from winning a majority of the delegates. With more than half of the states distributing delegates proportionally, splitting the delegates between the three frontrunners may mean that Trump doesn’t have the required number of delegates even if he wins most states. For example, Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucuses, but the victory margin was so slim that he only received one more delegate than Trump and Rubio.

Also making things more difficult for Trump is that not all delegates are up for grabs. Most delegates are bound by the results of the state primary, but a small number of delegates are unbound and free to vote for the candidate of their choosing. If the delegate race is close, the unbound delegates might be a deciding factor. The winning campaigns get to choose some delegates, but others, often party officials, automatically have delegate status. These unbound delegates would probably not vote for an insurgent candidate like Trump.

An additional wrinkle in the nominating process is Rule 40. Rule 40 requires that a candidate win at least eight states. At present it appears that this requirement would be more of a limiting factor for Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. This rule was amended by the Romney campaign in 2012 and may be amended again prior to the 2016 convention.

Contesting the convention

If no candidate wins a majority of the delegates, the result would be a contested convention. In a contested convention, no candidate is nominated on the first ballot. Depending on state rules, delegates are then released to vote for any candidate and the cajoling starts. Additional votes are taken until someone is able to claim a majority.

A contested convention would most likely favor Marco Rubio although it wouldn’t have to nominate one of the declared candidates at all. With Rubio’s support from other elected Republicans and Cruz’s antipathy toward other Republicans, Rubio’s campaign would probably fare better in a contest of coalition building.

Whether Republicans can put the brakes on Trump is an open question at this point. The March 1 primaries are unlikely to settle the issue. If Trump wins high percentages of delegates on March 1 and sweeps the winner-take-all states beginning on March 15, it will be very difficult for Republicans to prevent him from winning the nomination.

Read and comment on this article at Conservative Firing Line and Freedom Daily!

Scott Walker debuts in poll near Hillary Clinton

A new poll by Rasmussen found that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is near a statistical tie with presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The poll, released on March 3, found that Walker trails Mrs. Clinton by only five points in a head-to-head matchup. This was the first time that Rasmussen had asked about a Walker-Clinton matchup.

Rasmussen found that 46 percent of likely voters would vote for Mrs. Clinton while 41 percent preferred Gov. Walker. Six percent were undecided and eight percent preferred some other candidate. The margin of error in the poll was three percent.

At this point, Walker does better in a potential race against Mrs. Clinton than any other likely Republican. Other Republicans trail the former First Lady and Secretary of State by double-digit margins. Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, trails Mrs. Clinton 45-36 percent, little changed from a year ago. Retired neurosurgeon and first-time candidate for public office Ben Carson trails Clinton 47-36 percent.

The Real Clear Politics average of polls reports that other Republicans also trail Mrs. Clinton. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie fairs best with an average deficit of nine percent. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) trails by an average of 10 percent. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) trails by 11 points. Former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee trails Clinton by an average 13 points, and Texas Senator Ted Cruz is an average 14 points behind.

Walker’s debut at a near tie is nothing short of remarkable given his lack of name recognition and Hillary Clinton’s established presence as the candidate to beat. On Feb. 21, the Washington Post noted that Walker had the “lowest name recognition of any candidate tested.” In July 2014, Gallup found that 91 percent of adults were favorable with Clinton. Fifty-five percent viewed her favorably.

Walker has generated controversy in several areas in recent weeks. He drew fire from liberals for not distancing himself from Rudy Giuliani’s comment that President Obama did not love America. The comment was made at a private dinner for Walker. He was also criticized for his statement that “the most significant foreign policy decision in my lifetime” was “in August of 1981, when Ronald Reagan fired the air traffic controllers” (as quoted by Politico).

Gov. Walker, who left college to take a job, has also started a discussion about whether a president should have a college degree. According to a Public Policy poll, 62 percent think that a degree is important, but only 38 percent say that they are less likely to vote for a candidate without a degree.

Scott Walker’s strong debut against Hillary is encouraging for Republicans, but his challenge will be to adapt from state to national politics. His strong start will undoubtedly make Walker, already a prime target of Democrats for his controversial policies in Wisconsin, the subject of even harsher attacks. It may be difficult for Walker to sustain his lead for the next year until the primaries.

 

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Can Scott Walker unite the GOP?

The factions of the GOP are split and the Wisconsin governor is one of few candidates that can bring them together.

Scott Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin, has generated much buzz as a potential presidential candidate since he addressed the Freedom Summit in Des Moines, Iowa on January 24. Walker has jumped to the front of a crowded Republican field and may be uniquely qualified to unite the various factions of the Republican Party.

There are a number of factions within the GOP, the two most obvious being the establishment and the Tea Party. In addition to these groups, there are also religious conservatives, foreign policy conservatives, and libertarians. Most of the potential Republican nominees are championed by only one or two of these groups. For example, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush fall into the establishment category. Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and Sarah Palin are prominent candidates from the Tea Party. Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have the support of the religious wing of the GOP. Rand Paul is the obvious libertarian choice and no strong foreign policy candidates have yet emerged. Scott Walker is one of few candidates with the potential to bridge the divides between these groups.

Establishment excitement

Establishment Republicans like Scott Walker for his effectiveness and his experience as the governor of Wisconsin. Many conservatives favor a governor with proven leadership abilities after two terms of the meanderings of a former community organizer who was never tasked with a management position until he won the White House. The proven ability to get things done and forge majorities is a big plus for the next Republican nominee.

Additionally, establishment Republicans appreciate the fact that Walker is the best vetted candidate in the country. Likewise, after successfully managing three hotly contested campaigns (two gubernatorial campaigns and recall attempt), the potential for unforced errors is less likely than with untested candidates. Both areas have plagued many Tea Party candidates in the past and caused Republicans to lose races that should have been easily winnable.

Terrific Tea Partier

From the Tea Party point of view, Scott Walker is a fighter. He faced down Wisconsin’s public employee unions and won. He also cut taxes and moved the state budget from a deficit to a surplus. According to National Review, 95 percent of the state’s employers think that Wisconsin is on the right track, reflecting Walker’s pro-business and limited government policies. Walker’s new budget proposal also bans the use of Common Core assessment tests in Wisconsin’s public schools.

Walker’s views largely match those of Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz, but, unlike Cruz, Walker has a record of accomplishment. Where Cruz has made a name for himself in making principled, but ultimately unsuccessful stands against Obamacare and the debt ceiling, Scott Walker can point to a record of accomplishments in Wisconsin.

Religious, but not radical

Walker can also appeal to both religious and secular Republicans. He grew up as the son of Baptist pastor, notes the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. As a boy in Iowa he even started a “Jesus USA” club to do good deeds. In March 2014, he attracted the ire of the Freedom from Religion Foundation when he posted Philippians 4:13 on his official state Facebook and Twitter feeds.

Walker is pro-life and a defender of traditional marriage as well. In an October 2014 letter described in the Journal-Sentinel, Walker described how he signed a bill requiring ultrasounds for women seeking abortions and hospital-admitting privileges for doctors at abortion clinics. Walker also cut off state funding for abortion providers. With respect to marriage, Walker supports traditional marriage, but a court decision establishing gay marriage in Wisconsin meant that the issue was not prominent in his reelection campaign. As the governor of a blue state, Walker is seen as more mainstream in his faith than Huckabee and Santorum by secular Republicans.

As governor, Walker also had support from libertarians. Walker’s limited government policies and challenges to public unions drew the endorsement of the national Libertarian Party in 2012. When foreign policy becomes an issue in a national campaign, support from libertarians might become more problematic, especially if the pacifist Rand Paul runs.

Aggressive on foreign policy

On foreign policy, Walker has begun to stake out a claim that is decidedly not pacifist. He recently told ABC News, “I think aggressively, we need to take the fight to ISIS and any other radical Islamic terrorist in and around the world, because it’s not a matter of when they attempt an attack on American soil, or not if I should say, it’s when, and we need leadership that says clearly, not only amongst the United States but amongst our allies, that we’re willing to take appropriate action.”

Walker went on to say, “We have to look at other surgical methods. And ultimately, we have to be prepared to put boots on the ground if that’s what it takes.” He continued, “I don’t think that’s an immediate plan. [But] I wouldn’t rule anything out.”

Walker’s sharp comments come after months of executions by ISIS and the Charlie Hebdo murders in Paris. Polling shows that voters are sharply critical of President Obama’s tepid response to Islamic terror, but are not necessarily ready to commit U.S. ground forces to the fight in Syria.

Immigration impasse

On immigration reform, Walker opposes an amnesty, but does see the need for immigration reform and securing the border. He told ABC News, “We need to enforce the laws in the United States, and we need to find a way for people to have a legitimate legal immigration system in this country, and that does not mean amnesty.”

So far, Walker has been vague about his position on immigration, but at various times has voiced opposition to the idea of deporting all illegal aliens and support for a pathway to legalization. With some conservatives decrying any suggestion of reform as “amnesty,” the issue of immigration is likely to be the most difficult for Walker to negotiate in the Republican primaries.

Other possible uniters

Scott Walker is not the only candidate with the potential to unite the GOP. Several other candidates might possibly bring the establishment and Tea Party, the two largest factions, together, but each has their own weakness. Marco Rubio has broad support, but as a one-term senator has little leadership experience. Rick Perry is a successful governor of Texas, but is under indictment for abuse of official capacity and must overcome his poor performance from 2012. Bobby Jindal is the two-term governor of Louisiana, but faces questions of effectiveness and experience at the national level.

The down side

There are several potential problems that might affect a Walker campaign. A simmering investigation in Wisconsin has searched for illegal coordination between conservative groups and Walker’s gubernatorial campaign. A recent Washington Post column hinted at how Democrats might respond to a Walker candidacy. Points of attack include Walker’s cuts to the University of Wisconsin and the state’s Seniorcare prescription drug program. Walker’s response to a projected budget shortfall was a round of spending cuts. Additionally, Walker is one of the few politicians at the national level without a college degree.

Walker’s largest obstacle at this point is coming to terms with immigration reform. While a small, vocal minority in the GOP opposes any change to immigration laws, a large majority of Americans want the system fixed. According to a Beyond the Beltway poll from December, 48 percent, a plurality, favor “a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers if they undergo a background check, pay taxes, and learn English.” This is one area where Republicans are out of step with the rest of the country.

Veering right on immigration in the GOP primary may prove fatal in the general election. Some observers believe that Mitt Romney’s fate was sealed in 2012 by his comments in the primary about “self-deportation.” Romney ended up losing the Hispanic vote by 44 percent according to CNN, a worse performance than any Republican candidate since Bob Dole.

So early into the 2016 race, anything can happen. At this point, Walker is not even a declared candidate yet. Nevertheless, he is well positioned to bring Republicans together, an important first step taking back the White House.

 

Read the full article on Elections Examiner.com