Canadian Cincinnatus

Hey Donald! How about returning the 35 ill-gotten delegates you won in Maryland, Connecticut, and Delaware?

In Tuesday’s Republican primary triumph, GOP candidate Donald Trump won all the delegates in the winner-take-all states of Maryland, Connecticut, and Delaware. Given that 182,000 Republican primary voters cast ballots for Kasich and Cruz in Maryland, 85,000 Republicans voted for Kasich and Cruz in Connecticut, and 25,000 voted for that pair in Delaware, doesn’t this mean that 292,000 Republican primary voters were disenfranchised?

The reason I ask is that Donald Trump made a big deal about not winning any delegates in Colorado or Wyoming, accusing the system of being “rigged”. He and his media surrogates even spread the patently false charge that they were voterless primaries, even though he must have known that plenty of voting went on in both states. It was just that there was a time lag of about a month between when the rank-and-file Republicans voted in their precinct caucuses and when the state conventions actually selected the delegates. How did they get from point A to point B? With a series of further votes.

Donald Trump justified his false claim on the principle of proportionate voting, that is that the amount of delegates should be awarded in proportion of votes cast for each candidate. In this context and in the interest of fairness, I call on Donald Trump to return the 35 ‘extra’ delegates that he shouldn’t have won, to Ted Cruz and John Kasich. (He received 17 extra delegates in Maryland, 12 in Connecticut, and 6 in Delaware.)

Of course, in making his false charges about Wyoming and Colorado, Donald Trump knew exactly what the actual score was, and he didn’t complain when he won most of the delegates in Hawaii, a state with a similar voting system to Wyoming and Colorado. He was deliberately trying to delegitimize Ted Cruz’s entirely legitimate victories. This is reprehensible, unsportsmanlike, and completely unfitting behaviour for a President of the United States.

This is part of a bigger effort to delegitimize any outcome other than a Trump victory at the convention by slandering the process.

But turnabout is fair play, so turn over your ill-gotten delegates Donald! You wouldn’t want people to think that the system is “rigged” in your favour, do you?

Glenn Reynolds: “So if Putin is so popular, why is he creating a personal army outside of the general military power structure?”

In a surprise move, Russian strongman Vladimir Putin is creating a new paramilitary police force:

“In less than a week, he liquidated the federal drug control and immigration agencies, firing more than 50,000 people, including his longtime ally from the KGB, Russian drug tsar Victor Ivanov. Putin then let Russians know that he had created a new force, called the National Guard, a powerful structure that includes more than 180,000 interior ministry troops plus special police units.

Putin’s shakeup creates a military and police force of up to 400,000 well-trained servicemen loyal to him personally. The newly appointed commander is one of Putin’s most trusted men, a former undercover KGB agent named Victor Zolotov, a man with the massive build and intimidating face of a bodyguard who has been responsible for the security of the Russian leadership for almost 20 years.”

As the good professor points out, “That’s usually what leaders do when they’re afraid of a coup.” The Daily Beast goes on:

“When The Daily Beast asked Putin supporters why Putin decided now to form what amounts to a vast Praetorian guard, they said (privately) that the Russian president is terrified a new Russian revolution will be staged by Washington.

‘Of course, the president is concerned, he can see that the United States wants to overthrow him, like they did to Gaddafi, or look what they have done in Ukraine—they dream of seeing Russia fall apart, so Putin takes measures to prevent a Ukrainian-style coup,’ Sergei Markov, a member of the Duma`s Public Chamber, told The Daily Beast.”

By Putin supporters, this article refers to Putin’s actual supporters in Russia, people who have some inside knowledge of Kremlin affairs, not Putin’s useful idiots in the West.

Returning, to Reynold’s question, Putin’s actions don’t seem to fit those of somebody confident in the support of his people, which contrasts with his sky high popularity that Russian public opinion surveys indicate.

This brings me to the thesis that I proposed a couple of years ago - that recent events have only confirmed: that the root of Putin’s recent bellicosity was the near-disastrous (from his perspective) 2012 Russian Presidential election when he transitioned back to the President’s office from a stint as Russia’s Prime Minister. The whole election was supposed to be a propaganda love-in for Putin, sort of a big Stalinist Kumbaya moment.

The first sign of trouble was when he was booed at an MMA tournament, the kind of event that should attract Putin supporters. Then came the demonstrations against corruption and abuse of power. To counter this, Putin pulled out all stops. Every TV channel covered Putin’s re-election campaign non-stop while ignoring the protests, his opponents, or anything else that might indicate that things in Russia were amiss. The existence of his real opponent, Mikhail Prokhonov, was buried. Only 8% of Russian’s even knew that he was a Presidential candidate. There was widespread ballot-box stuffing. Stories circulated that Putin supporters were bussed from work to rallies as well as the polling booth (and sometimes to multiple voting stations). There were reports that “one third of all electoral commissions had substantial irregularities at the stage of vote counting and tabulation.” It was reported that in some polling places in Chechnya - that traditional hotbed of Putin support – Vladimir Putin received greater than 100% of the vote. The results were so suspect that even the Communist Party didn’t acknowledge the results.

And still - after all that - Putin only received 64% of the vote!

My thesis is that after this near-death experience, Putin quietly said to himself, never again. I think all of his aggressive geopolitical moves, in Ukraine, in the Baltics, in Syria, against Sweden and Finland and Denmark and Great Britain and the US, all of it is designed to foster an Us vs. Them mentality among the Russian people. This is a standard go-to gimmick that demagogues use to drum up popularity and it has worked so far, mostly because Putin has been allowed to win (except in the Ukraine where he increasingly appears to be mired in a Vietnam-style conflict). Nobody has given him a bloody nose – yet.

Of course, as George H W Bush can attest, popularity after a military victory can be fleeting. In spite of his approval rating was 89% after the Gulf War, he went on to lose the Presidential election of 1992 to Bill Clinton badly. If Putin suffers a defeat somewhere, I think this US vs. Them dynamic will boomerang against him hard. Especially as there is nothing else positive going on in Russia these days.

Of course, how much damage this thug creates on his way to the ash-heap of history remains to be seen.

Happy Lenin’s Birthday! er, I mean Earth Day

Once again, its that time of year. Every year on this day, I take the time out to remind everyone that April 22 - Earth Day - is Vladimir Lenin’s birthday.

Lest you think this is just a 1 in 365 coincidence exploited by right-wing hate-mongers such as myself, consider the fact that the first Earth Day - April 22, 1970 – was the one hundredth anniversary of Lenin’s birth.

To be fair, Earth Day is increasingly being celebrated on the spring equinox. This is a positive development that helps distance the environmentalist movement from the ideals of a bloodthirsty killer.

Hey Donald, are you going to give back your unearned New York delegates?

In the past several weeks, presidential candidate Donald Trump loudly and bitterly complained about the results of the Colorado delegate selection process, where his rival Ted Cruz won 34 delegates to Trump’s one delegate (out of a total of 37), and Wyoming, where Cruz was awarded 23 out of 29 delegates. Trump charged that the system was “rigged”, that it disenfranchised Trump supporters in those states.

Trump surrogate, The Drudge Report, even called Wyoming and Colorado, voterless wins, which is an outrageous slander because both states had record voter turnout. It is just that both states have a multistage process that begins with precinct primaries that elect delegates for county conventions which selects delegates for the state convention which actually selects the delegates for the national convention. In Colorado the voters voted on Mar 1 and in Wyoming they voted on Mar 12. The actual convention delegates were selected in April 9 in Colorado an April 14-16, long after the initial voting took place. Matt Drudge seemed to have been confused by this time lag when he posted his misleading and inflammatory headlines. It seems Donald Trump was just as oblivious to this as well, judging by the fact that his campaign was AWOL in both states.

In making the charge that Trump voters in Colorado and Wyoming were disenfranchised, Donald Trump seemed to be supporting the principle of proportional representation, that the number of delegates should reflect the share of votes cast. By this principle, Donald Trump, who received 60.5% of the vote in the New York State primary, should get 57 of the 95 delegates; John Kasich, who won 25% of the vote, should get 24 delegates; and Ted Cruz, who received 14.5% of the vote, should get 14.

Unfortunately, as a result of New York State’s “rigged” system, Trump was awarded 89 delegates, John Kasich 4 delegates, and Ted Cruz none at all. (Two are still being disputed as I write this.) 215,000 New York State residents cast their votes for Kasich and another 124,000 selected Cruz. In the spirit of proportional representation, it sounds like Donald Trump owes John Kasich 20 delegates and Ted Cruz 14.

So how about it Donald, are you going to hand over those 34 delegates to the candidates who actually won them?

P.S. Mark Levin just pointed out that Trump was awarded 89 delegates for 525,000 votes cast for him in New York while Ted Cruz was awarded only 36 delegates in Wisconsin for 531,000 votes cast for him in Wisconsin. Sounds like a ‘rigged’ system, doesn’t it Donald?

Giving it to The Donald, good and hard

Ever since Donald Trump got shellacked in Colorado, he has been whining and complaining about the rules of the Republican nomination process. Marion Evans over at the Ricochet site has an excellent suggestion for Trump:

“One way to deal with gadflies, rogues and bullies is to give them exactly what they want on the theory that they will eventually do themselves in. Since his Colorado debacle, Donald Trump has been arguing that the delegate attribution should reflect the percentage earned by each candidate in each primary/caucus.

But under these new “Trump rules,” his total delegate count today would be 564 (table below), well below his official current total of 755. Cruz would suffer a smaller downward adjustment, ending up with 495 delegates to date instead of his current 545. The gap between the two would fall from 210 to 69, less than 3 percent of the total delegates.”

His article has a state-by-state analysis of how he arrived at his numbers.

In the past, I have been critical of GOP establishment schemers who want to change convention rules mid-stream in order to get their desired result (i.e. a nominee who isn’t Ted Cruz or Donald Trump). But the same admonition applies to Trump as well - if he wants to change the nomination rules to suit himself. The basic principle of fairness in every contest is that the rules of the game must not change once play has begun.

Except that in Trump’s case, what he wants is even worse than what the RNC conspirators desire. He wishes the rules changes to be made inconsistently. He is all for proportionate representation in states like Colorado - where he got skunked, but he is perfectly happy with the Florida results, where he won all 99 delegates while only winning 46% of the vote, or South Carolina, where he was awarded all 50 delegates while only winning 32.5% of the vote. You can’t have it both ways, Donald.

Of course, the simple truth is that Donald Trump is in over his head. He lost Colorado because his team failed to show up. Contrary to his charge, there was plenty of voting going on in precinct caucuses that led up to the statewide convention. Tens of thousands of people voted, just not for him because his campaign was AWOL. Ted Cruz has set up dedicated campaign teams in every state, has had them set up, in some cases, for years, and continues to operate them after the primaries are over in order to snag the actual delegates. This is called playing by the rules. Cruz has done his homework and is being thorough.

Until recently, this part of the game eluded Donald Trump’s attention because nobody else was paying attention to it either. There hasn’t been a brokered convention in decades. But Ted Cruz paid attention, and he was working the rules a year before anybody thought a brokered convention was anything but a remote possibility. That says a lot about Ted Cruz’s perspicacity and thoroughness. It also says a lot about Donald Trump’s perspicacity and thoroughness. I think these qualities are not irrelevant to the job of President.

I think Donald Trump entered the presidential race on a self-promotional lark and to his great surprise, found himself winning, mostly because he accidentally tapped into underlying issues such as political correctness and immigration. When he first adopted them, I don’t think he had any clue about their potency. He is like the dog that caught the car he was chasing. He doesn’t know what to do next.

Why I don’t support Donald Trump

I admit that early on, I was a bit seduced by Trumpism, mostly I think because he has exquisite taste in enemies. When the incompetent GOP establishment went ballistic over him, it was hard not to feel sympathetic towards Trump. Especially when their attacks on him have been so ham-fisted.

My political instincts tend to be with the populist upstarts and against the arrogant establishment. In the early 1990’s, I was an early and enthusiastic supporter of the Reform Party. At the time, the Canadian political establishment was at its most corrupt, arrogant and insular and the Reform Party was the right antidote. But while today’s American political establishment is equally corrupt, arrogant and insular, the answer is not Trump. Donald, you are no Preston Manning.

The moment when serious doubts about Trump’s competence first entered my head was over a seemingly minor point. In a speech in December, when he railed against unfair trade from the Far East, Trump lumped China, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea all together. So let me get this straight Donald, you want to start a confrontation with China and you want to push Japan onto China’s side? In the real world, China really is one of America’s premier strategic adversaries, but Japan is America’s number 1 ally in the region.

How important is the alliance with Japan for America? Let me put it like this: In 2014, China produced almost 24 million cars, the US was second at 12 million, Japan was third at 9.3 million, and South Korea was fifth at 4.5 million. From the Civil War onwards, the US has enjoyed an overwhelming material advantage over its adversaries based on America’s manufacturing might. In a hypothetical conflict with China, this would no longer be the case. But with Japan and South Korea at America’s side, it still would. However if Blunderbuss Trump thoughtlessly alienates them, it won’t be.

And then I realized, like I was shot with a diamond bullet, that there is no there there. Trump has no ideas, he has no philosophy, he has no governing principles. He is little more than a salesman selling himself. He is a hollow man, a stuffed man, headpiece filled with straw.

Not only doesn’t he know, he doesn’t care to find out - which is much worse. Read this article from Spengler about how Trump doesn’t read. (‘"What I noticed immediately in my first visit was that there were no books," says D'Antonio. "A huge palace and not a single book."’) If somebody like this were to run the foreign policy of the world’s most powerful country, it would be an unmitigated disaster. In a narcissistic fit, he may start World War III. And then not have a clue about what to do after it begins. Only then will it dawn on him that not everything in the world is a transactional deal.

Once I realized this, other examples became evident. There are his extensive ties with top Democrats, like Harry Reid and the Clinton family, as well as establishment Republican figures like Mitch McConnell. There is also his past – but very recent – support of many left-wing causes, including illegal immigration. Most tastelessly, he has personally attacked conservatives who have been fighting the good fight for a lot longer than Donald Trump has, and with much fewer resources. Take his disgraceful feud with Michelle Malkin. Donald, Michelle was pulling her weight back when you were cutting checks to Anthony Weiner and employing illegal aliens.

Of course it can be argued that people can change. This is true, they can. Roger L Simon, David Horowitz, and Whittaker Chambers all came from the hard left. Even Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat. Normally though, when somebody has had a genuine change of heart, it only comes after a protracted inner struggle (often detailed in their writings) or as the result of some dramatic event, like the way that the death of Betty van Patter changed David Horowitz. It has been said that converts make the best zealots. The reason why is because their soul-searching has given them an in-depth understanding of the issues. Absent a dramatic turn of events, or an eloquent ability to explain basic principles, it is entirely appropriate to doubt the sincerity of the convert. Particularly, if the timing is convenient.

But what about Mexican immigration and Trump’s promise to build The Wall? Look, when it comes to building a wall to secure the southern border, rounding up illegal aliens the way President Eisenhower did with Operation Wetback, instituting exit controls to monitor visa overstays, and cutting back legal immigration to manageable levels, I am on your side. One-hundred percent. But here’s a newsflash for you: Trump isn’t going to do any of this. He’s just shining you.

How do I know this?

One of the best ways to divine a man’s true intentions is to examine his past actions, particularly in hard circumstances, i.e. does he favour the hard right over the easy wrong? One of the reasons I think Cruz is a rare sincere politician was his opposition to ethanol subsidies during the Iowa Caucus. Iowa was a must-win state for Cruz but Cruz didn’t budge. And wasn’t silent about it either. Look at this confrontation with an Iowa farmer angry about Cruz’s ethanol stance. Cruz’s ability to win him over is one of the most remarkable things I have ever seen. In contrast, Trump embraced ethanol subsidies with gusto.

Suffice it to say, there is no comparable instance where Trump took an unpopular position that was personally disadvantageous to him. He was for Chuck Schumer and the New York Democrats because they were whom he needed to please in order to run his pay-to-play Manhattan real estate empire. He adopted Republican principles when he saw a better opportunity in the GOP. And he saw immigration opposition as the untapped issue to exploit (though I credit him for seeing that opportunity before anybody else).

I predict Trump will continue to oppose immigration in order to win the nomination. In the general, he will soften his position somewhat. And once in the White House, he will do what he has always done: he will cut a deal with Schumer and McConnell. And all those Trump supporters who think he is being sincere? You are his saps, just like those unfortunate students who were duped by Trump University.

There is an old adage that if you look around the card table and don’t see who the mark is, you’re the mark.