The Kentucky Derby 2016 Blue Ribbon Analysis is posted on the Horse Racing page.
Ted Cruz’ exit from the Republican contest is an interesting moment for conservatives – admittedly, I do not consider myself one.
After losing the national popular vote in five of the last six elections, the common thread espoused by “conservatives” is that the GOP nominee was not conservative enough. If there were a “true conservative,” results would be different.
The definition of “conservative” is one that is fluid and, perhaps, meaningless. Is a “conservative” someone who regulates personal sexual activity or, even more ridiculously, who gets to go in a bathroom? Or is it focused on domestic and/or foreign policy matters?
Whatever it is, I think it’s difficult to come up with someone who fits the definition of “conservative” at this point in our nation’s history better than Ted Cruz. His election to the Senate was a triumph for the Tea Party – although I do not know what is so traditionally conservative about them either.
So if a Ted Cruz cannot win in Republican primaries, how can anyone say that “true conservatives” represent a majority in America? Donald Trump does not fit anyone’s definition of conservative unless that term has been diluted to mean misogynistic, bigoted nationalism. I understand that a significant portion of Trump’s support comes from people who are disillusioned with our political system and the ongoing betrayal by political candidates who say one thing and then don’t do it. But that is a sentiment akin to that of supporters of Bernie Sanders.
Perhaps the weakness in the Cruz candidacy is his odious personality. After all, few national candidates in recent memory have been characterized as “Lucifer in the flesh” by a leader of his own party. And one commentator’s description of his smile as being “sepulchral” is the most devastating – and accurate – description of a personality that I have ever seen.
Nonetheless, the intense dislike of Cruz by members of the establishment and those who have actually dealt with him should have been a badge of honor in this year’s environment. Is it possible, then, that apart from his loathsome personality, “conservatism” is not as popular as some have thought it to be?
My wife called on the morning after the New York primary to ask if I had heard Carl Paladino on NPR that morning. I said that nothing Paladino would say could surprise me. I was wrong.
Paladino is Donald Trump’s honorary chair of his New York campaign. He was also the Republican nominee against Andrew Cuomo in 2011.
In describing Trump’s appeal to his supporters, Paladino said they wanted to “get the raccoons out of the basement.” The NPR reporter, David Greene, promptly terminated the interview at that point.
It’s not surprising that prominent Trump surrogates don’t hide behind the usual “dog whistles” in making their bigoted comments. The candidate himself has described Mexicans as rapists and has proposed banning all Muslims from entering the United States. Paladino has a history of passing along racist emails.
What is surprising, however, is how little attention has been paid to this comment by the political commentariat and the Main Stream Media. It’s not because they think it is trivial. There is no shortage of reporting on such less-than-cosmic matters as Bernie Sanders not knowing New York’s subways no longer accept tokens or Trump’s mistakenly referring to “9/11” as “7/11.”
Admittedly, Paladino is a complete nitwit. But he is Trump’s leading supporter in a major state and, indeed, stood right next to him during his victory speech. He also enthusiastically intimates that violence is an accepted part of political life in American politics, having threatened to bring a baseball bat to Albany while campaigning for Governor.
The media has moved on to its “narrative” for the week in opining that Trump has suddenly righted his campaign ship and is now appearing more “Presidential.” Having a top surrogate making blatantly racist statements, however, disrupts that narrative. They should at least be reporting the statement and getting a statement from the Trump campaign. So far, the only national outlet that I have seen reporting this is The Huffington Post. Trump had yet to respond to their request for a comment.
The New York Racing Association’s Board of Directors approved a report on Tuesday with two proposals that would – according to them – return NYRA to private control. Each of the proposals, however, would ensure that Governor Andrew Cuomo would retain control of the NYRA franchise for the foreseeable future. And despite their self-serving rhetoric, either of the “new” Boards could very well consist of nothing but current Board members.
The Board, known as the Reorganization Board, was established by legislation in 2012 following the seizure of NYRA by the Governor. The stated purpose was to have racing controlled by a government-appointed board of directors for three years and then “returned to private control, remaining in the form of a not-for-profit corporation.” When they could not meet the legislative deadlines in 2015, the deadlines were extended for a year.
The NYRA report outlined three options. The first two would create a 15-member board with NYRA’s CEO being a member. Here is how the remaining members would be selected in each option:
Option 1: Governor appoints two; Senate President and Assembly Speaker each appoint one; ten members appointed by the Cuomo loyalists on the current Board.
Option 2: Fourteen members appointed by the Cuomo loyalists on the Board.
Option 3: Continuation of the current 17-member Board, with eight appointed by the Governor, two each by the Senate and Assembly, and five from the prior NYRA.
Under the first two proposals, the so-called “private” members would be recommended by the Board’s Nominations Committee and approved by the Executive Committee. The Nominations Committee has five members, three appointed by the Governor and one appointed by the old NYRA. The fifth Member is Michael Del Giudice who was appointed by the Assembly, but is such a close confidant of both Governor Cuomos that he has been quoted saying “Andrew is like a younger brother to me.” The Executive Committee has six members: Del Giudice, three appointed by the Governor, one by the Senate and one by the old NYRA. Of the 11 seats on both groups, there is only one on each that is not a government-appointee. Andrew Cuomo controls eight of the seats.
There is perhaps a misperception that the current Board consists of actual government officials or employees. In fact, of the more than 20 individuals who have served on the Board since its creation, only one, Bob Megna, was actually employed by the government.
The remaining members, except for the five NYRA-appointees, were all appointed by government leaders. While this Board is widely-recognized as government-controlled, how can a Board appointed by the Governor’s loyalists not also be viewed as government-controlled? Are there benighted souls out there who think that a Cuomo appointee is going to suddenly start acting independently? If he does – and all his appointees are men – it will be his last act as a Cuomo-appointee. What we can expect, however, is that a Board appointed under this process will have many of the current members.
Michael Del Giudice, who serves as Chair of the entire Board, said that these three options to be presented to the Governor and the Legislature are the only ones. Of course, they are not. There are any number of options, so he must have meant that these are the only ones that perpetuate the Governor’s control. I set forth a proposal in this post that would not only move towards real private control, but is based on a model that this Governor used when he addressed the crisis caused by fatalities at Aqueduct in early 2012.
Del Giudice made some revealing comments when he addressed a suggestion that the Board include as voting members, instead of their current ex officio status, representatives of the New York Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association and the New York Thoroughbred Breeders. The former represents all owners and trainers who race in New York; the latter those who breed New York-breds.
He summarily dismissed the comment by Rick Violette of NYTHA: “We heard you. We like it the way it is.” In subsequent comments reported by David Grening in DRF.com, he added, “Expressing an opinion is one thing, but then voting their interests against NYRA interests potentially could create a conflict.”
That’s right. One group that represents the trainers whose livelihood depends on a successful NYRA in addition to the owners who spend tens of millions – if not hundreds of millions – could somehow conflict with NYRA. The same for the breeders who also expend tens of millions and contribute directly to New York’s farm economy. Does Michael Del Giudice think people come to NYRA’s tracks to see him give away a trophy?
His statements are typical of the arrogance and ignorance we have come to expect from the Cuomo Administration’s control of New York racing. “We like it the way it is.” You will not find that sentiment often expressed on the backstretch or in the grandstand.
This is an opportunity for New York to take a major step forward in restoring it to a leadership position in the industry. That will not be accomplished if the next NYRA Board is just more politics as usual.
At the meeting of the New York Racing Association’s Reorganization Board on March 10, CEO Chris Kay announced that a proposal for returning NYRA to private control would be presented for the Board’s approval during the week of April 11. While government control of New York racing is supposed to end, the anticipated plan will continue to ensure that the racing franchise remains under the control of Andrew Cuomo.
When Governor Cuomo seized control of NYRA with a complicit legislature in 2012, the stated purpose was to have state government run the racing franchise for three years. Of the 17 members of the Reorganization Board, 12 were state government appointees. The Board was to present a plan by April, 2015, to return to private control by October, 2015. Even though this was the only specific responsibility assigned the Board, it did not do it, and new legislation extended both deadlines by a year.
NYRA’s General Counsel presented a proposed plan at a Board meeting in November, 2014. It can be viewed at NYRA’s web site here. The 29-page PowerPoint presentation could have been done on a single page of paper, and there are only two components of the plan that might be controversial. The first is a reduction in the size of the Board. The other is the method for selecting the new Board.
The prior NYRA Board had 25 members; the Reorganization Board has 17 slots, although only 15 are active because the Governor has not filled one of his vacancies and another of his appointees has been on a leave of absence.
The stated rationale for reducing the number of members is that a smaller board would be “small enough to be agile; large enough to represent multiple perspectives.” Lack of agility has not been an issue with this Board. Despite the myriad of significant issues confronting racing in general and New York in particular, they complete most of their meetings in less than an hour. There is rarely any discussion, and to the extent there are votes, they are on minor matters. Most of the votes taken by this Board since it began in December, 2012, have been the approval of minutes from the prior meeting.
Representation of multiple perspectives would indeed be a refreshing change. Since the initial Board was appointed more than 41 months ago, only two women have been appointed, one of whom resigned. There has never been a Latino/a member or a non-white member. It has been older white businessmen. Some have been owners and breeders; others have no background in racing. The organization representing horsemen does not have a vote, nor does the group representing New York’s breeders.
That brings us to the most troublesome aspect of the NYRA proposal – the method for selecting members of a new Board. The 2014 proposal called for new Board members “to be selected by the current Executive Committee of the Board upon recommendation of the Nominations Committee after consultation with all Board members.”
The Nominations Committee has five members: three appointed by the Governor, one by NYRA, and one by then-Speaker Sheldon Silver. The Silver appointee, Michael Del Giudice, has been a close confidant of the Cuomos going back to Mario Cuomo’s tenure as Governor. He also serves as the Chair of the Board since Cuomo’s nominee to be Chair, Anthony Bonomo, has been on a leave of absence since being a prominent figure in the federal corruption trial of then-Senate President Dean Skelos.
The Executive Committee has six members: three appointed by the Governor, one by Skelos, one by NYRA, and Del Guidice, serving as the Chair of this Committee.
There is only one member of each committee not appointed by a state government leader. Four of the five members of the Nomination Committee are effectively controlled by the Governor. Four of the six Executive Committee members are Cuomo loyalists. There is the possibility that these groups will simply name themselves or other members of the current Board to a new Board. The notion that NYRA will be returned to private control when all of the new Board will be appointed by the Governor’s hand-picked cronies is as farcical as it is ludicrous.
I think any fair-minded observer would agree that the three attributes most needed in a new NYRA are integrity, independence and competence.
New York’s residents have observed a lengthy and persistent strain of corruption among its elected officials. When both the Assembly Speaker and Senate President are convicted of corruption just months apart in 2015 – not to mention the myriad of other convictions of legislative figures – no New Yorker can be confident that decisions are based on merit and not political contributions or illicit money. And while the Governor has not been accused of illegal conduct, his most recent nominee to chair the NYRA Board, Anthony Bonomo, figured prominently in the federal corruption trial of Dean Skelos. Skelos was convicted of several crimes, including soliciting a bribe – successfully – from Bonomo, who has been a major political contributor to the Governor.
Independence is a prerequisite for any Board of Directors that takes its fiduciary obligations seriously. It is especially necessary in the hyper-political environment of New York. While Governor Cuomo’s micromanagement of the smallest details of state government is legendary, it is Michael Del Giudice who can give us the best perspective. He was quoted in Michael Shnayerson’s Cuomo biography, The Contender, discussing the prior NYRA: “Andrew is like a younger brother to me, but if there’s ever a moment when he can take political advantage, he’ll cut someone off at the knees, me or anyone else.” From someone who may play the most prominent role – if not the only role – in selecting a Board under the NYRA plan, it’s not exactly a comforting message for the tens of thousands who depend on New York racing for their livelihood, let alone racing fans.
As for competence, there is little this NYRA Board has done that suggests it is up to the task of leading New York racing in the 21st century. Its most recent Board meeting provided yet another disturbing example of how badly it is in over its head. The topic was federal legislation introduced in July, 2015, and co-sponsored by Congress Members Andy Barr and Paul Tonko, who represents Saratoga Springs. The legislation isn’t complex – it’s not a 2000-page bill overhauling the health care system. Its central feature is one that would create an anti-doping agency similar to one that exists for human athletes.
Even though regular readers of the racing media are familiar with this controversial legislation, it appeared to come as news to the NYRA Board members. One thought that it was a NYRA proposal and did not understand why the feds had not yet acted.
They ended up supporting the bill with almost no discussion – let alone an informed one – as a token gesture of support. They did so with an erroneous conclusion that New York could continue with its anti-doping efforts even though the legislation specifically states the new agency “shall have exclusive jurisdiction for anti-doping matters.” That’s right – one of the two most significant racing entities in the United States took eight months to get around to this bill, did not understand it and concluded they had little influence over it. (I no longer count Churchill Downs as a major racing organization since they appear to be primarily a casino company and only care about two days of racing each year.) If that is the level of involvement in a major issue in national racing, one can only be apprehensive about their commitment to coming up with a new structure for NYRA.
There is, however, an approach to selecting a new Board that will address the matters of integrity, independence and competence. And, it’s something New York tried the last time it sought to address a crisis in public confidence at NYRA.
Here is a proposed approach (all members have voting rights):
- Governor appoints three members;
- Senate President appoints one;
- Assembly Speaker appoints one;
- Comptroller or Attorney General appoints one;
- New York Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association appoints one;
- New York Thoroughbred Breeders appoint one;
- Nine members appointed by Special Committee.
The Special Committee would be comprised of recognized industry leaders who have had hands-on experience in managing some aspect of the racing business.
There is a precedent for New York to address a crisis in racing by turning to a panel of recognized experts. In early 2012 when a rash of catastrophic breakdowns plagued the Aqueduct inner track, government officials and NYRA appointed the New York Task Force on Racehorse Health and Safety to investigate the causes and recommend improvements. The four members – Dr. Scott Palmer from New Jersey, Alan Foreman from Maryland, Dr. Mary Scollay from Kentucky, and retired jockey Jerry Bailey – produced a lengthy report. Their product was widely praised and could serve as a guide for tracks around the country in improving equine and human safety.
While the NYRA executives and the Reorganization Board may believe their press releases about the great job they are doing, it is not a sentiment shared in either the backstretch or the grandstand. The only way to restore confidence is to come up with a new Board that promotes integrity, independence and competence. Governor Cuomo knew that when he directed the head of NYRA in 2012 to “hire a qualified independent investigator or team of investigators” to review the circumstances of the Aqueduct fatalities. And it worked – I have never seen any criticism of the work done by the Task Force, and racing fatalities at the NYRA tracks have declined over the past four years.
The Special Committee envisioned by this proposal would consist of persons from within New York and outside. There is no shortage of respected, knowledgeable and committed figures who could serve on such a group. Indeed, the members of the Task Force serve as a useful starting point. The Committee can prepare a list of 15 nominees from which the current Board, voting in a secret ballot, can select nine of their successors.
Such an approach may not be perfect, but it would be insulation from a charge that “it’s just New York politics as usual.” It will maintain a level of involvement by New York’s government without ceding complete control to them. One reason the report by the Task Force on equine safety was accepted so readily was that the members had earned wide respect in the racing industry and were independent. While the NYRA Board members identified in the draft proposal to name new Board members may have their strengths, independence is not one of them.
It is important that New York get this right. There is too much at stake for this to be treated as just another exercise in political gamesmanship.
The leading candidates for the Republication nomination keep tripping over themselves in bringing the level of discourse in politics to ever-new lows.
After the terror attacks in Brussels, Donald Trump again endorsed the torture technique known as waterboarding, but vowed to do “even worse” if elected President. Torture, even if one can overcome the moral and illegal reprehensibility, has never been demonstrated to be effective.
Ted Cruz, who never passes up an opportunity to criticize Barack Obama for his purported assaults on the Constitution, advocated that the world’s leading democracy should “patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.” Even if terrorists were too dull to avoid Cruz’ “secure” neighborhoods, President Obama placed this dim-witted suggestion in the proper context:
As far as the notion of having surveillance of neighborhoods where Muslims are present, I just left a country that engages in that kind of neighborhood surveillance, which, by the way, the father of Sen. Cruz escaped for America, the land of the free,” he said.
(From Charlie Pierce’s blog.)
If there is a saving grace to this idiocy, this is at least an issue of national import. Not so with the latest battle over the candidates’ wives. It began with a super-PAC supporting Cruz running an ad with a picture of Trump’s current wife from a national publication that was not Foreign Affairs. Cruz, who has been running an odious campaign that befits his odious personality, denied that the photo came from the official campaign. Trump, who is doing for Twitter what FDR did for fireside chats, responded in his usual graceful fashion by retweeting an unflattering photo of Cruz’ wife alongside a flattering portrait of his own spouse.
If there is one top Republican who should have learned to be careful about spouting off, it is Mitt Romney. Romney, whose own wife was the subject of an unwarranted attack in 2012, felt it necessary to jump into this abysmal fray. He noted that Trump’s two foreign wives – a subliminal, albeit disgusting, shot – showed there were jobs Americans would not do.
And to think there are only 236 days until the election.
Yesterday’s primary results in Michigan and Mississippi are yet another indication that Hillary Clinton’s “inevitability” or “electability” tropes are in serious trouble. She lost Michigan after polls showed her with large double-digit leads. Her Mississippi margin of victory was huge, continuing a pattern where her biggest wins are in Southern states.
She may well hold on to win the Democratic nomination, although that no longer looks like the mortal lock it has long been viewed. But disturbing trends in the primaries make her vulnerable, even to a cartoonish character such as Donald Trump.
For starters, she cannot count on racking up general election wins in states of the Deep South. It’s been a while since any Democrat could bank on that. But states such as Michigan and Kansas, as well as barely wining in Iowa, demonstrate that she does not have wide geographic appeal.
Then there is her constantly being trounced by Bernie Sanders in younger demographic groups. It’s not just the enthusiasm gap, which is substantial. Younger women are not as enamored of the idea of this woman as President as older groups. Even among African-Americans – a group she views as her strongest base – she only tied with Sanders for the support of younger blacks.
Then there is her favorability rating among all voters. She and Donald Trump have the two lowest such ratings – both are under water with less than 50 per cent. That is remarkable when one considers that Ted Cruz is in the field.
Clinton has never been a good campaigner, although she does do better when her back is to the wall. This is, after all, the second time she started a campaign for the Presidency as the heavy post-time favorite. But her defensiveness and careful parsing of answers fuels the notion that she is not trustworthy – again her rating on trustworthiness does not exceed 50 per cent.
Her Sunday night debate with Sanders included two notable examples. Moderator Don Lemon quoted Avenue Q as saying that every white person has a blind spot on race and asked Clinton what hers is. It’s a tough and unexpected question, and Clinton evaded with a canned answer. Lemon came right back, and this time Clinton said, “Are you going to ask Bernie Sanders that?” After twice trying to not respond, she ended up doing so. (Sanders was asked the same question.)
But the other statement was one for which she has had ample time to develop a response. She had been asked by a moderator in an earlier debate if she would release the transcripts of the three speeches to Goldman Sachs for which she was paid $675,000. She said she “would look into it,” which, for veteran observers of both Clintons, meant “not on your life.”
When the issue came up on Sunday, she said she would release hers when all other candidates, including Republicans, released transcripts of their speeches. She said this with the smile of the cat who ate the canary, indicating that, once again, she was cleverer than the rest of us.
Actually, she is not more clever, since her non-answer indicated that her ties with Wall Street are more important than what voters might think. And, it again buttresses her inherent lack of trustworthiness and contempt for our intelligence.
Of course, one of the cardinal rules of writing about politics this season is that no column can fail to discuss Donald Trump. I was catching up on Real Time with Bill Maher this week. On his February 26 show, he was agog about how wild the previous night’s Republican debate had been, saying he had never seen anything like it. I laughed, because in the debate the following week, we saw the leading Republican candidate assure viewers that his penis was big. That, of course, became his next show’s most surprising event in political history.
I missed last night’s Trump victory speech in a room that probably is the model for how he will do a classy redecoration of the White House. By all accounts, it was a bizarre spectacle, with Trump standing near a table loaded with Trump steaks, Trump vodka and Trump wine, and discussing each of these top products. So in one of Charlie Pierce’s blogs today, I particularly enjoyed this sentence: “You will never see another performance like the one he put on last night.” What’s your over-under on how many more times that statement will be made during this campaign?
The latest statement by Donald Trump would knock an ordinary mortal out of the race for the Presidency, but Trump has proven, again and again, that he defies the laws of gravity. At one of the Sunday morning talk shows, he did not disavow support from David Duke, former grand wizard of the Klu Ku Klux Klan. He said he did not know Duke and needed to learn more about the white supremacist groups lining up behind his candidacy.
Taking the Republican front-runner at his word, it is disturbing that a candidate for President does not know who David Duke is since he raises his racist thoughts every couple of years. Of course in the fact-free zone that is the Republican primary, knowledge of actual facts is not regarded as a qualification for the office. One might think, however, that you do not need a lot of research to condemn groups that advocate white supremacy. While Trump later said he had a faulty ear piece and did not understand the question, the candidate revered for “telling it like it is,” clearly talked about both Duke and white supremacists in his answer.
But the traditional mores of politics do not apply to Donald J. Trump. Which of the following would not result in the departure of any other candidate?
- Proposing to ban all adherents of a religious faith from the country;
- Characterizing Mexicans as rapists and criminals;
- Ridiculing a disabled person by mocking the disability;
- Criticizing a reporter for her tough questions by implying she was having her period;
- Praising Vladimir Putin;
- Criticizing the last three GOP nominees for the Presidency, including John McCain because he was captured in combat;
- Demeaning your Republican opponents, most recently by calling Ted Cruz a “liar” and Marco Rubio a “choke artist;”
- Fighting with the Pope.
If Trump performs as expected on Super Tuesday, it would mean the race for the GOP nomination is effectively over – at least if he were any other candidate. But the so-called Republican establishment is aghast at the prospect of Trump as the party’s leader. It’s not because of his vile positions or vulgar behavior, but because it will harm the electoral prospects of down-ballot Republican candidates.
It’s also not because it would deprive a qualified opponent – possibly excepting John Kasich – from securing the nomination. Loathsome Ted Cruz is not only reviled by Democrats, but by his Republican “colleagues” in the Senate. Marco Rubio has been displaying his true mettle in recent days by suggesting that Trump may have urinated in his pants during the last debate, and lately suggesting Trump has a small penis. To think that this is the year the Republicans supposedly had a deep bench of candidates.
That Thursday night debate serves as a microcosm of the state of the Republican Party. Saint Ronald Reagan must have been rolling over in his grave to see his commandment to never speak ill of a fellow Republican being so universally ignored by the leading candidates. Amidst all the shouting, the insults were pointed and personal, with only Kasich and Ben Carson not taking part.
At one point, Donald Trump said that his health plan replacing Obamacare would not have people “dying in the streets.” Setting aside that Trump, like all other Republican politicians, does not actually have a plan, Ted Cruz actually went after him – without offering any assurance that his own non-existent plan would not result in people dying in the street.
But if anything embodied the obliviousness of the Republican establishment from both reality and the concerns of the many voters backing Trump, it was a question by moderator Hugh Hewitt. He prefaced it by saying that the threat to religious liberty “keeps me awake at night.” He wasn’t referring to ISIS beheadings or a proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the country. Rather, it was merchants – in the United States – having to provide “flowers or baked goods” to customers who were gay.
There are certainly matters that could keep me awake at night – Donald Trump becoming President near the top of the list – but a gay couple buying cupcakes is not one of them. So if Trump does become the nominee, we can hope that it might become the impetus for a party that relies so heavily on fear-mongering and obstructionism to conduct a real and meaning self-assessment.
My political junkie brother proposed a trip to New Hampshire in advance of the Tuesday primaries. I thought it a brilliant idea and am embarrassed that I had not thought of it. That would make me one of the few such junkies to not have done so.
We met a number of interesting people on our trip. While my intent was to get the thinking of the state’s residents, most of the people we met were also political junkies. The first two people we met were not only from Massachusetts, but one was from our home town. Then there was the Philadelphia resident who had been making this journey since 1984. Going to our second event of the day, we met three people who had come from the same event we were at, but one of them actually lived in the state.
We went to three events on Sunday, the day following the debate that will forever be known as the “Rubio debate” should his promising campaign collapse. We planned a second day in which we hope to see two of the most personality-challenged Republican candidates – Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz. A major snow storm targeting Massachusetts forced us to cut our trip short and miss “Coffee with Carly.”
Serendipitously, our first event was a Rubio pancake breakfast in Londonderry scheduled for 8:30. I was surprised to see a table offering muffins and fruit before the pancakes, but was even more surprised to hear that there would not actually be pancakes. According to the campaign, the anticipated crowd of 800 forced them to abandon the plan. We then, however, had to wait 90 minutes for the candidate to appear, who then said that he “hoped” there was food. I had hoped there was food too since I had not had breakfast. But, the campaign could not find a Legion hall, Rotary, or local church that could handle pancakes for a crowd?
Rubio delivered a standard stump speech, including the comment about the President knowing exactly what he is doing – perhaps the only thing he has said that I agree with. In fairness, however, I do not fault him for that. I just drove around to three events that day and did not have to deliver a speech or otherwise perform, and I was tired at the end of it.
So Chris Christie’s event – yet another dose of serendipity – was a surprise. I arrived late because I was talking to a real live New Hampshire voter in the parking lot. He lived in the neighborhood and was taken aback by the number of cars which he estimated to be twice that of a recent Donald Trump event. He is also the only person who told me who he was going to vote for – Jeb!
When I got in the Christie event, he was in shirt sleeves taking questions from the crowd, so I do not know if he began with his own stump speech. There was none of the surliness or bullying that have often been ascribed to him. (By the way, how can you bully someone running for President as some commentators accused him of doing with Rubio in the debate?)
The guy is a natural and gifted politician. He was thoughtful, knowledgeable, charming and funny. If New Hampshire is indeed a retail politics state where its voters appreciate direct contact, it is difficult to see how Christie could not be successful.
He had several compelling anecdotes. One was about the little girl crying because her home had been destroyed by Hurricane Sandy and his response to her – “Your home is with your parents.” Another about running into James Gandolfini at a Broadway play and being told “You know it’s all make believe.” It wasn’t clear whether he was referring to his TV show, the Mafia or politics – or all three.
But his line that brought the crowd to its feet had to do with who would be the strongest candidate to face Hillary Clinton at the first debate. Christie observed that she did not want to see him walk on stage “because she’s been running away from Federal prosecutors for six months.” Not true, of course, but it got the crowd going.
From there it was on to a Bernie Sanders event. I had been carrying a large camera bag to the previous venues without anyone asking to look into it. This time it – and I – were searched by Secret Service agents. If you thing the TSA is intrusive, don’t go to something being secured by the Secret Service. When we got into the hall, there was a media corral that looked like something you might see at a major sporting event.
Sanders delivered his standard stump speech, and the event seemed more like a rally than a town hall sort of thing in front of undecided voters.
When we left and walked to our car in the distant overflow parking lot, we started counting the number of New Hampshire license plates. It may not have been one of every ten cars, but it was surely at most one in eight. And many of the people we met at the earlier events were from out-of-state. While we attended three packed events – we could never sit down – it is not clear what percentage of the crowd were potential voters on Tuesday.
Yet there were New Hampshirites (Granite Staters?) who said they were undecided and attending events to learn more about the candidates. It’s a testimony to our political system that so many were willing to wait 90 minutes, many standing the whole time, to participate in the process.
I was also struck by the people who were not only undecided, but undecided about which primary they would vote in. I was surprised to hear that for some the choice was Bernie Sanders or one of the Republicans.
Yet another impression I had was that two candidates were viewed with a high level of animosity – Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
So in a campaign that has produced surprises within each party, confounding the pundits and other “experts,” I think we can expect more of the same from New Hampshire and down the road. As someone who often writes about horse racing and enjoys the occasional wager, I cannot end without a longshot prediction. He may not win, but I think Jeb Bush is primed for a surprisingly good result tonight.
When you have been a major national figure for 25 years, elected to the United States Senate and twice a formidable candidate for the Presidency, one might expect that you have developed a certain proficiency in the political game. But Hillary Clinton continues to demonstrate her tone-deafness, defensiveness and seeming inability to think beyond today’s question.
At Thursday night’s debate, she was predictably asked about her taking speaking fees of $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for three talks she delivered. It had been in the news and she had already been asked about it on several occasions. Once again, she could not explain adequately why a major Wall Street player – and one who had had just agreed to a $5 billion fine for its deceptive behavior in the mortgage sub-prime melt down – would pay her that kind of money. This time, it was because they wanted to hear her thoughts, in particular about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. She used the bin Laden comment twice.
As President Rudy Giuliani could tell you, you cannot make enough political hay from the 9/11 attacks. Clinton herself had already tried the 9/11 tactic on the Goldman Sachs payments by earlier saying – to much derision – that the payments were justified because she was the United States Senator representing Wall Street on 9/11.
But if a savvy Wall Street investment bank is going to pay $225K per pop to learn about the bin Laden killing, it is to hear details that were not in the public record. Of course, that would necessarily involve classified information, for which Clinton is already under scrutiny because of her email issue.
She was then asked by NBC moderator, Chuck Todd, if she would release the transcripts of her remarks. Once again, predictably, she did not attempt to diffuse any further controversy by saying “Of course, I have nothing to hide.” Rather, she said “I will look into it.” What that means, of course, is that she will only release them after considerable pressure, and never while in a primary fight with Bernie Sanders. Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone has a take on the likely content of her remarks.
Clinton also ridiculed the notion that she was a member of the “establishment” that is so under attack in both the Democratic and Republican campaigns. She may have been a key policy advisor in her husband’s Administration, served as a United States Senator, twice been the front runner for the Democratic nomination, and a multi-millionaire based on that CV, but could not be an “establishment” figure because – she is a woman.
While there can be no doubt that electing a woman as President would be a significant breakthrough, nor that the “establishment” is dominated by white men, her claim is fatuous. Aside from her background and legitimate claim to be one of the best qualified candidates to run for the office since George H.W. Bush, being a woman does not disqualify her from being not only part of the “establishment,” but one of its preeminent members.
And while running as a woman is certainly a valid point, she may wish to seriously consider the wisdom of the support she has received recently from allies who criticized young women for supporting Bernie Sanders. Madeline Albright, 78 years old, lamented that young women did not appreciate the contributions those of Hillary’s generation made to further equal rights. Icon Gloria Steinem, who is 81, speculated that young women joined the Sanders campaign “to meet boys.” Steinem recanted her remarks after public criticism. What could be more sexist than presuming that women – of any age – will vote based on their gender rather than on what they perceive the merits to be?
Such comments are not only tone-deaf and counter-productive, but oblivious of the reasons younger women may support Sanders. The most obvious one, of course, is that Sanders has strong support among younger voters – not just women. But also that Hillary’s questionable tactics in denigrating the many women who accused her husband of sexual behavior are especially troublesome in today’s atmosphere regarding violence against women.
Clinton, of course, may well defeat Bernie Sanders soundly. And her relationships with Wall Street and support among young women voters are unlikely to be a negative in a campaign against any of the Republican candidates. But her continuing inability to effectively anticipate problems and respond to them are going to continue to dog her campaign.
Tom Noonan 