SPIN IT

Notes of Concern…

   …Jack Blair

SPIN IT

Someone finishes first in the Iowa caucuses but not really because she didn't have a whole lot more votes than the guy who finished second so you see he really was first.

The second placer then claims he was the victim of shenanigans on the part of the first placer and therefore he really won.

Not to be outdone, the third place finisher claims he really won because he came from the farthest behind and surprised everyone,

Another guy announced BEFORE the caucuses was over he was headed out of town and wasn’t going with everyone else to New Hampshire to campaign for the next primary nor was he going to South Carolina, where the third event would take place. You see he had to go to Florida to pick up some clean clothes.

Well the press jumped on that as an obvious “I am considering leaving the race.” But then a second press announcement comes out reminding everyone he isn’t quitting just getting a change of underwear. This came as a great surprise to storeowners in New Hampshire who see mens’ clothing.

Along comes New Hampshire where there is a big fight over whether Governors make better presidents than Senators. That seemed to take up a lot of time for discussion, the bottom line of which suggests that Governors have a lot more experience than Senators. Then New Hampshire elected a sitting Senator by an overwhelming margin. The other winner wasn't a Senator or a Governor-EVER.

New Hampshire is so sophisticated that they believe if you are a candidate with a border that touches there your are the overwhelming better qualified.

So now this traveling circus is off to South Carolina for the next primary. Of course the pundits are making all sorts of predictions about how people from the South will have a great advantage over those from the north. I have lived in the South and I can tell you that most Southerners think the Civil War, whoops, War of Northern Aggression, is still being fought.

I am going to close with the observation that the political process of the Greatest Nation on Earth leaves a lot to be desired.

Shouldn’t we just be looking for the candidate whose philosophy and stated opinions demonstrate clearly a superiority over the others running?

‘

I do think it only fair though that we let a guy have a few days to change his underwear, don’t you?

IOWA'S OVERSTATED IMPORTANCE

Notes of Concern…

   …Jack Blair

IOWA’s OVERSTATED IMPORTANCE

I am sure you remember fondly President Santorum.

Equally fondly President Huckabee.

Iowans are fickle. Both Huckabee and Santorum barely eked out a point this year. So all those Iowans who thought they should be president in previous caucus years evidently thought better of it this year. They both scored in the bottom of the pack.

NH isn’t going to be a bell weather either. Native son from Vermont has a seemingly insurmountable lead. It is going to be boring for the DEMS and only slightly interesting for the GOP as the votes will probably mimic the Iowa finishes.

South Carolina is where the primaries will really begin to make a difference in the fortunes of those remaining candidates.

The real story of Iowa was that the peoples’ anger became countable. The outsiders in the parties scored mighty well. The era of establishment politics may well be over. Turnout also demonstrates a renewed voter interest. Many Iowans have been rather disinterested over the past caucuses.

Cruz, Trump, and Rubio are now in it for the long haul. Governor Katich has momentum with the endorsements of The New York Times and the Boston Globe, which should cause him to stay in the race and also bring some new money into his campaign. Those endorsements should also propel voters to take a look at his outstanding record in Washington, D.C., and Ohio. Up to now, he has been relatively unknown outside of Ohio. The papers suggest we should take another look.  

Jeb Bush may stay in because he has the money to do so and is hopeful of a better finish in the South. The best argument against Jeb is he is not seen as a non-establishment candidate and he is being soundly beaten, over and over again by the other Floridian in the race.

All of the others should abandon their campaigns. There is no evidence any one of them can win the nomination, so why continue to spend their supporters' donations in a lost cause. 

Clear the field, folks. Read the tea leaves. Many of the candidates are good people, and there will be important spots for them in the government after the election. And the president will be lucky to have their counsel.

I felt sorry for only one candidate in Iowa: Martin O’Malley. He is a very good man who never got traction. Up against the Clinton machine and the Sanders revolution, he got almost no attention. This is one man who is much better than his vote totals would suggest.

Polling in Iowa has almost always been off. Some years it has been way off. I have a cousin who lives in Iowa, and I asked him about this. He said he got as many as three calls a day asking who he would vote for. He also said most Iowans just gave out different names with each call. 

Call in the morning and ask, and he would say Trump. Call in the afternoon, and he would say Cruz. Call in the evening, and he would say Rubio. He suggested to me that Iowans long ago realized they could have some fun with all this.

Off to New Hampshire.

THE SUPREMES (AGAIN)

Notes of Concern…

   …Jack Blair

THE SUPREMES

(AGAIN)

The nine members of The United States Supreme court had bookends.

The most intelligent and wise member on the conservative side was Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. His counterpart, the most intelligent and wise member on the liberal side is Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginzburg.

Scalia passed away at a very bad time, right in the heat of a battle for the presidency. For years Bader-Ginzburg has been expected to step down due to various medical problems, including cancer. So it is reasonable to anticipate she will not have many more years on the court.

Bottom line: soon both the best Justices, in my view, will no longer be hearing cases, mentoring clerks, and writing opinions that will be read in law schools forever.

It is understandable that the Democrats would love to get to replace Scalia. They might not get a liberal but they could ensure his predictable conservative vote would be replaced with some sort of moderate that a Democrat president could nominate and convince a Republican senate to confirm.

It is equally understandable that the Republicans would like to replace Justice Scalia with someone just like him.

The Republicans say they will not consider a nominee sent to them by the sitting President. I personally find that unconstitutional. His term has as president has not ended just because they wish it had. Now has their responsibility to vet any nominee he might send to them.

The Judiciary Committee has a majority of Republicans so it is entirely possible they will choose not to confirm anyone this President sends to them. But it is his duty to nominate someone because he is the President and the Constitution so states. 

It is their(the Judiciary Committee of the Senate) duty to question and consider the candidate sent to them. They have absolutely no clear way out of this obligation.

But that is where the Constitution stops and politics enters. 

The GOP controlled Judiciary Committee can, for whatever reasons they choose, fail to confirm the President’s nominee. So if the GOP wants to hold the seat open, that is the Constitutional way to do so.

And the people need to remember that if the Democrats hold The White House in the election this will all work out in a manner favourable to liberals. If the Democrats retake the Senate and a Republican is in The White House, it will all work out. Because only a compromise candidate will garner enough votes and that means someone considerably less conservative than Associate Justice Scalia.

So all the current sturm und drang means very little. 

It will be a major issue in the coming campaign with Democrats and Republicans emphasizing the importance of the appointee a new president will pick. They will tell us of all sorts of things that could be changed or never considered. They will try to scare us. They will remind us of how quickly what each considers progress can be revised.

Take a moment to look at the ages of all the judges. 

Whomever is president it is highly likely there will be one or two additional replacements required over the four years of the next  presidential term.  Look at how many sitting Justices were born in the 1930s!  So while I would like to see another Scalia, and had it been Bader-Ginzburg who died, I would like to see another like her, which means politics is not as important to  the court as a good mind, the ability to discern the meaning of the Constitution, and the talent to write understandable opinions that will hold through history.

Considering the number of previous Justices appointed because they were liberal, and others because they were conservative, only to take seriously their responsibilities to listen to the arguments of their colleagues and in light of their lifetime appointment make their own judgments which often were in conflict with what the president who appointed them might wish, I would suggest we just look for a smart, articulate example of the best America has to offer. 

Sounds like a winning strategy to me.