Police Raids, Torture- Maybe the GOP Can Just Call for a Concentration Camp Next

Everyone who watched the terror in Brussels yesterday was horrified. The senseless death and pain inflicted on the public by the monsters of ISIS deserves a tough response. While that may not mean another ground war in the Middle East (in fact, it shouldn't, at least if we're fighting it), all decent people should join together to destroy ISIS.

We also should not abandon our values. We have a free and open society. The minute America abandons that for the sake of safety, we're just not the same people. We become not much better, frankly, when we start targeting innocents in any group of people, for the purpose of making others feel safe. Here's the truth- America is a very safe place, but there will always be exceptions to the rule. I ride in subways in New York, in Philadelphia, in Washington, and I know the risks associated with that. I do not want us to infringe on the civil liberties and human rights of others to make me .01% safer from the frankly impossible to totally prevent events like we saw in Paris and in Brussels. There will always be crazies. They will always commit harm. We will always be disappointed to see this. I think our government does a very good job preventing as much of this as possible. I'm fine with their current efforts.

Ted Cruz apparently is not though. He's a Presidential candidate, but he called for police to patrol and secure "Muslim neighborhoods." This disgusting suggestion of engaging in strong-man, "big brother" tactics across the nation are beneath a Presidential candidate. The good Muslim-Americans in Orange County, Dearborn, Brooklyn, and other places are not criminals, and do not deserve to have their civil rights infringed on by a megalomaniac like Cruz. This suggestion is beneath our nation.

But.... Donald Trump had to one up that. He accused British Muslims of not reporting suspicious activity, agreed with Cruz, and then said we need to go back to waterboarding suspected terrorists. Basically, Donald Trump called for us to use torture. This is obviously illegal, stupid, and doesn't work. He wants to do it anyway. Because of course he does, he's Donald Trump.

Since the GOP candidates are trying to one-up each other with crazy xenophobic statements about Muslims, I guess we can expect someone to call for "internment camps" like we used during World War II for Muslims, or maybe full-blown concentration camps after that. This kind of red-meat feeding to the masses of ignorant voters these two are attracting to the primary polls is well beneath the standard of such past Republican Presidents as Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and even Reagan and the Bush duo. The Republican Party should be embarrassed to have these men running for their nomination.

No, There is Not Going to be a Brokered Convention for an Establishment Republican

Donald Trump won all but one of the primary contests on Tuesday for the Republican Party and knocked out their "golden boy" Marco Rubio. At the end of the night, he made it mathematically impossible for John Kasich to win the nomination, and virtually impossible for Ted Cruz to do so either. Yes, he could fall as much as 200 delegates short of the necessary number to win the nomination, that is true (as I wrote).  Even under that "best case scenario" for the GOP establishment, they cannot beat Donald Trump on the first ballot after Tuesday, and he had a very good night.

Still, all the media, professional Republicans in DC, and even some Republican friends of mine on social media want to talk about is a "brokered convention." Let me just dump some cold water on that right now- it's not happening, at least not how you think. There is no pathway to nominate Mitt Romney. There is no pathway to nominate Paul Ryan. No, you're not going to resurrect the hopes of John Kasich just because he won his home state's primary. The Republican Party is going to nominate Donald Trump. If they are really hellbent on fighting on the convention floor to stop him, they might be able to get to Ted Cruz. There is no other pathway for any other person. They are the only Republican options.

First off, Donald Trump is going to finish no worse than 200 delegates from the nomination. He will have the shortest path to the nomination at the end of the process. Republican Party leadership is not going to want to have two months of limbo at the end of the primary process, and they will want to get to a winner as soon as possible, especially since Hillary will be the Democratic nominee by then. Even with all of Trump's issues, he's probably stronger than someone who emerges two months later, two months behind the Democratic nominee. There will be party leaders who will simply want the process over, and will turn to the first place finisher.

If it does get to the convention floor though, he will needed 200 or less delegates. Trump's pathway there will be simply a deal or two away. Pull over the Cruz delegates, pull over the uncommitteds, or offer some other candidate the Vice-Presidency for their delegates, and he is over the top. The fact is, even in a brokered convention, Trump is favored.

Let's say there is a brokered convention though, and let's say that all of the anti-Trump forces get together and deny him the nomination. Who else could win? Well, the obvious choice is Ted Cruz. He is in second place, he has the second shortest pathway to the nomination. He also probably has the most similarities with Trump, so if you were to somehow peel Trump delegates away, you would probably see them go there. Rubio delegates could back Cruz, and so could uncommitteds. He's even starting to gather establishment endorsements. It would be really hard for Ted Cruz to win, but he is literally the only person that could do so besides Trump.

Why do I say that? Math. Let's start with a basic premise here- Trump and Cruz will have the most delegates, and if you add them up, they will constitute a majority of the convention floor. Would any Trump or Cruz delegates defect to a Mitt Romney candidacy? I doubt many would. Would they accept Paul Ryan as a "consensus" pick. It's not likely many would. Of course, there is John Kasich, who may do reasonably well going forward, but is extremely likely to finish third in the delegate count, even if he does. Kasich is sort of a less exciting Marco Rubio- the establishment loves him, he's a creature of DC, and he's "more pragmatic" than Trump and Cruz. Why would the Trump and Cruz delegates move over to him. It doesn't really make any logical sense. If the Cruz delegates think Trump can lose, wouldn't they want to win? If they can't win, why would they back an establishment candidate? It doesn't make any logical sense. If Trump and Cruz's delegates make up the majority of the floor, and they are both fairly anti-establishment candidates, it's unlikely the supporters of either are going to break away for an establishment "consensus" pick.

There is really only three possible outcomes here:

1. Trump wins enough delegates, the race is over.
2. Trump gets the most delegates, but not enough to win the nomination, and he makes a deal with some group of delegates to get over the top.
3. Ted Cruz comes in second, makes deals, and wins the nomination.

So, what is Kasich's play here? Well, the more delegates he has, the more leverage he has. My sense is that if he has a fairly sizable number of delegates, he may negotiate them for the VP slot. That makes more sense between him and Cruz, but he may even do it with Trump. A Cruz-Kasich alliance could emerge in the days after the primaries, and that alliance could rival or surpass Trump in delegates. They could go to the convention together, simply looking to pick off Rubio and Uncommitted delegates, as well as party leaders with votes. They could possibly edge Donald Trump out in a vote count and be the ticket. It is mathematically possible. It's also the third, and least likely outcome.

Here's the simple facts- if the GOP does not give a clear first-place finishing Trump the nomination, he is likely to turn their convention into chaos. He's also likely to either launch a third-party bid, or actively play a negative role in the race. Obviously if he implodes and finishes 300 or 400 delegates short of the nomination, it's easier to dismiss him as a sore-loser. If he wins though, and is really 200 delegates or less from the nomination, the GOP would be seen as denying him his victory. They are not going to really want to do that. They certainly aren't going to do that for the third place finisher or someone who didn't run. I know that's not what a lot of people want to hear- a brokered convention is much more fun, and Trump is repulsive- but that's reality.

That Time When Marco and Teddy Made Fools of Themselves on the Way to Defeat

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are running around the country crowing about Donald Trump's tax returns, how he "might have mob ties," and all other sorts of madness. They are hoping to derail Donald Trump, something they thought they had done in the other night's debate- though it's now clear that no one was moved by that.

Let's be clear- Rubio and Cruz are losers. Let's be more clear- they're actually more extreme than Trump, even if they are more politically correct. Ted Cruz has actually had to campaign in his home state for their primary on Tuesday, a true embarrassment if I've ever seen one. Marco Rubio hasn't won anywhere yet, and isn't really favored to win anywhere either. A couple of key points here:

• Marco Rubio has made "victory" speeches in Iowa and South Carolina, states where he got a lower percentage of the vote than Bernie Sanders did last night in South Carolina, and Bernie had left the state already when the polls closed. Despite these pre-packaged, canned victory speeches that the Beltway Republican class then tries to artificially turn into momentum for their guy, he just doesn't sell. He wasn't very close to winning in Iowa, he finished third. He finished fifth in New Hampshire. He finished more than ten points behind in South Carolina, despite finishing second. He lost by over 20% in Nevada as well, also finishing second. He claims he is the strongest suited candidate to appeal to Hispanics and youth, and yet Trump crushed him in both in Nevada, the first state with a good percentage of both. Marco is just a bad candidate. 
• Ted Cruz did win Iowa, as he reminds us all. Since then, he hasn't been very good. He's finished third in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. His share of the Evangelical vote has gone down in each state since Iowa. He has not a single endorsement from within the Republican conference of the U.S. Senate, and really no establishment support at all, despite being a sitting U.S. Senator. He hasn't defeated Marco Rubio in either of the last two states, which is closing in on a month ago. His one win, while convincing, was also aided by his campaign telling caucus goers that Ben Carson was dropping out. He couldn't even win that cleanly. His campaign is in disarray, firing his communications director. Again, he's had to campaign in Texas this week- his home state.

So as these two losers continue to campaign, I find them both rather sad and pathetic. If they are the "future" of the Republican Party, not having the White House for 12 years is the least of their worries. Beyond all of this, I'm amused by the Republicans who really want to nominate these guys. Rubio is picking up establishment support without a single victory, while saying things like how he wants a confrontation with the religion of Islam. He's just as nuts as Trump, if not more, and really wouldn't do much better in November. Same for Cruz. In fact, they are less dangerous to Democrats in the Fall, because they are both heavily scripted, career politicians, who won't fire up the GOP base the way that Trump does. In short, these guys should stop throwing wild accusations out, and perhaps step back and contemplate where they really are politically, because they aren't where they think they are.

Cruz, Trump, and Attacking the Media

This week, Ted Cruz put out a satire video making fun of Democrats using spin-offs of Christmas stories. In that video, he used his daughters in the video. A Washington Post cartoonist then drew a cartoon, spoofing Cruz, showing his daughters as monkeys. Cruz was outraged, probably fairly. The cartoonist said he made it a fair-game topic, by using his children as props. They both have a point, though I generally just wouldn't use a candidate's children. Cruz is now fundraising off the cartoon.

Donald Trump said that Hillary Clinton got "schlonged" in 2008, recently. The media correctly called that vulgar. Trump says they are wrong, and is attacking them for a bias. We all know what "schlonged" means, and it's not the kind of language that a Presidential candidate should be using about any woman, let alone the one he might end up running against. Trump has made his fight with the media over this term a staple of his speeches to his followers.

My point is that this isn't about real outrage. This is about posturing by conservative candidates to "egg on" their crazy base of voters. Don't give them too much credit when they start bashing the media.

The Vile, Disgusting, Dangerous Ted Cruz

As the Ben Carsons and Carly Fiorinas of the world increasingly make fools of themselves, we're seeing more realistic contenders for the Republican nomination for President begin to rise in the polls. You're going to hear a lot about Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and you're going to hear them mentioned together a lot. Both are children of people who left Cuba, so they are Latino. Both are Senators. Both have rich backers. Both were at least at one time, favorites of the Tea Party. That's as far as the comparisons should go though. While Rubio is an empty suit who would simply serve as a puppet of his wealthy masters, like failed former Eagles owner Norman Braman, Rubio is actually a skilled, capable, downright evil man.

Take his response to the Planned Parenthood shootings last week:

A reporter pointed out that Dear was babbling about “baby parts” when he was arrested, Cruz flew off the handle, saying, “It’s also been reported that he was registered as an independent and a woman and transgendered leftist activist, if that’s what he is. I don’t think it’s fair to blame on the rhetoric on the left. This is a murderer.”

Zack Ford at Think Progress said that Cruz was basing his remarks on a right-wing canard spawned by fringe right-wing blogger Jim Hoft, also known as The Gateway Pundit.

“(A)ll of the available information suggests he was none of those things,” said Ford. “None of the people interviewed about Dear had anything to say about his gender identity. Nothing about his appearance nor any past reports of his identity suggests that he identifies as a woman. The voter registration form identifying him as female is the only discrepancy, making it most likely a typo and nothing more.”

“I would call it a murder, and we’ll what the facts are,” Cruz replied. “It was a multiple murder of what appears to be a deranged individual. And it was horrific, it was evil, and we’ll find out more out about the facts, but I don’t think we should jump to conclusions.”

In one foul swoop, he denies culpability for pushing extreme, false rhetoric about Planned Parenthood, blames a "soft" target on the other side that he knows his voters are afraid of anyway, and then tries to sound the "reasonable" bell by calling the terrorist a murderer. It is most impressive rhetoric. It is horrifying though in it's cynicism.

Ted Cruz is dangerous. He is much smarter than most of his rivals, and much more capable of actually doing active damage. Democrats should be much more aware of the threat this man poses, than say a Ben Carson or Donald Trump. Those are simply novelty candidates. Cruz has the ability to do more damage than George W. Bush did to this country.

We Must Stand with the Refugees, Not Shamefully Abandon Them

Let's be clear- none of the people involved in the terrorist attacks on Paris this past Friday are refugees from Syria. Oh sure, they may be Syrian nationals, or even just Arab, but they were not refugees. They did not come to Europe as one of the hundreds of thousands looking for peace. Even the "passport" found on one of the terrorists' body was actually bought in Turkey according to reports. In other words, they had the passport on themselves as a plant, they were not an actual refugee.

ISIS has a stated goal of breaking down the Western concept of co-existence. They have continually told the refugees that they cannot escape them by going to Europe. They have said that real Muslims cannot live in peace in the Western world, where they will be subject to increased scrutiny and surveillance, especially after ISIS pulls off attacks in those regions. They want a black-and-white, one-on-one fight in mind, where all Muslims will have to support them against all non-Muslims. If they can turn Europe and the U.S. against the refugees and Muslims in general, it helps them achieve their stated goal.

The United States has taken in 750,000 refugees since 9/11, and not one of them has been arrested for domestic terrorism since. Zero. Zip. Nada. These people fleeing Syria are human beings who need our help. They face death, living under awful leadership, or worse. America has always been a friend to people in this situation,  it is who we are. It's in our values.

It is shameful to hear Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz talk about instituting a religious litmus test, to say we should only help Christians. It's even more shameful to hear Donald Trump say we shouldn't take any. This is not who America is. This is not about our safety, our safety is not any more in doubt with refugees than without. This is about our values. These men would shamefully abandon our values. It is disgusting.