Archive for 2015

SALENA ZITO: Who in GOP Field Will Seize Trump’s Populist Mantle?

At first the media dismissed Trump, which only made angry voters support him more. That led to a ratings bonanza for national media outlets; they decided to legitimize — and to exploit — his run.

In short, they still don’t get Main Street’s anger and frustration, but they are more than willing to cash in on it with Trump. Everyone — Trump and the media elite — is riding the populist wave to the bank. Everyone except Trump’s supporters.

Those people are still angry, still tired of all things establishment, still appalled at government incompetency, still weary of party labels, and still tired of no one listening to them.

Neither party’s elites represent the majority’s views on an issue such as immigration; Trump does.

So maybe it’ll be Trump who seizes Trump’s populist mantle.

HMM: Why Donald Trump Won’t Fold: Polls and People Speak.

A review of public polling, extensive interviews with a host of his supporters in two states and a new private survey that tracks voting records all point to the conclusion that Mr. Trump has built a broad, demographically and ideologically diverse coalition, constructed around personality, not substance, that bridges demographic and political divides. In doing so, he has effectively insulated himself from the consequences of startling statements that might instantly doom rival candidates.

In poll after poll of Republicans, Mr. Trump leads among women, despite having used terms like “fat pigs” and “disgusting animals” to denigrate some of them. He leads among evangelical Christians, despite saying he had never had a reason to ask God for forgiveness. He leads among moderates and college-educated voters, despite a populist and anti-immigrant message thought to resonate most with conservatives and less-affluent voters. He leads among the most frequent, likely voters, even though his appeal is greatest among those with little history of voting. . . .

His support is not tethered to a single issue or sentiment: immigration, economic anxiety or an anti-establishment mood. Those factors may have created conditions for his candidacy to thrive, but his personality, celebrity and boldness, not merely his populism and policy stances, have let him take advantage of them.

Tellingly, when asked to explain support for Mr. Trump in their own words, voters of varying backgrounds used much the same language, calling him “ballsy” and saying they admired that he “tells it like it is” and relished how he “isn’t politically correct.”

Trumpism, the data and interviews suggest, is an attitude, not an ideology.

The candidate he most resembles, actually, is Barack Obama, circa 2007.

IN THE COMMENTS TO THE COOKING-FOR-ONE POST, there’s a lot of discussion regarding the InstantPot. Anybody out there have experience? I’d buy one and try it, but I can’t buy any more kitchen gadgets unless I either throw some away or buy a house with more counter space.

THE GHOST OF GEORGE WALLACE looms over Politico. “By the way, I counted 5 out of 243 Politico staffers with a picture as being black.”

Plus: “Aside from the obvious smear, and the standard use of ‘many’ to reflect the writer’s leftist view, I am also amused by the sheer incompetence of the writing and proofreading.” Forget it Patrick, it’s Politicotown.

A PACK, NOT A HERD! My USA Today column is on the French Train story: See something? DO something! We are a pack of wolves, not a herd of sheep. Courage is contagious when intended victims thwart would-be terrorists.

Bureaucracies have their place, but they don’t deal well with diffuse threats like terrorism. By the time “first responders” get there, it’s usually too late. But there’s one group of “responders” who don’t have to go anywhere, and that’s the group that’s already on the scene. In conventional analysis, and in the terrorists’ hopes, those people are called “victims.” But as the three Americans on that French train demonstrated, victimhood isn’t the only response.

And there’s more. The purpose of terror is to terrorize. But responding appropriately has the opposite effect. The response of British businessman Chris Norman, who helped subdue the attacker, illustrates this: “Norman said his first reaction was to hide, but after he saw the Americans fighting the attacker, he said he went to help them.”

But the response is always to funnel more money to the bureaucracies that fail.

UNDER OBAMA, EVERY AGENCY GETS WEAPONIZED: Is this woman the new Lois Lerner?

As some at the Federal Election Commission seek to broaden the power of the agency, critics are arguing that it’s beginning to look increasingly like the Internal Revenue Service under Lois Lerner, who has been accused of using her office for partisan purposes.

They take special aim at the commission’s Democratic chairwoman, Ann Ravel, who also served as chairwoman of California’s equivalent to the FEC, the Fair Political Practices Commission, before coming to Washington in 2013. Ravel has lambasted the commission as “dysfunctional” because votes on enforcement issues have often resulted in ties, and she has said the commission should go beyond its role of enforcing election laws by doing more to get women and minorities elected to political office. She has complained that super PACs are “95 percent run by white men,” and that as a result, “the people who get the money are generally also white men.”

To remedy those problems, Ravel sponsored a forum at the FEC in June to talk about getting more women involved in the political process. She has also proposed broadening disclosure laws to diminish the role of outside spending, and suggested that the FEC should claim authority to regulate political content on the Web. She’s also voiced support for eliminating one member of the commission in order to create a partisan majority that doesn’t have tie votes, saying in an interview with Roll Call, “I think it would help.”

Hans von Spakovsky, who served on the FEC from 2006-2008, takes issue with Ravel’s effort to go beyond the traditional purview of the commission’s functions. “The FEC has one duty, and one duty only — to enforce the existing campaign finance laws. It has no business trying to ‘encourage’ or ‘discourage’ folks to get involved in politics, no matter who they are, minority or otherwise,” Spakovsky told the Washington Examiner.

Spakovsky also said it would be contrary to the function of the FEC to limit the number of commissioners. “The fact that any action by the FEC requires the votes of four commissioners, and thus bipartisan agreement, ensures that its investigations are based on enforcing the law evenly, without regard to the party a particular candidate is a member of. Ravel wants to end that, which would allow the FEC to be used for partisan political witch hunts,” Spakovsky said.

Partisan witch hunts are the whole point.

LESSON FROM EUROPE: EMPOWER (ARM) PASSENGERS. WHAT WE’LL DO INSTEAD: MORE POINTLESS SECURITY THEATER. Train Attack in Europe Puts Focus on Vulnerability of U.S. Rail. “Unlike airports, which are guarded with multiple layers of security — including airport police and Transportation Security Administration personnel operating metal detectors and full-body scanners — most railroad stations have minimal scrutiny for those boarding trains.”

TSA’s airport security has never caught a terrorist and misses 95% of weapons and explosives in tests.