On April 17, President Obama called for “creative negotiations” that would allow the Iranian negotiators “to make a presentation to their body politic that is more acceptable.” He might have added that negotiations will have to be at least as creative to find a formula that will also acceptable to the American body politic. Critics of the previously announced framework might be forgiven for describing the process as “creative cosmetology in porcine beautification” aka putting lipstick on a pig. We would not be quite so harsh, but remain skeptical that the agreement with Iran, whatever its final terms might be, will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. At the same time, we are also skeptical that rejecting the agreement, or attempting to significantly renegotiate its basic terms, would be any more effective in seeking that end.
We assume that the name of Margaret McGirr is as unfamiliar to readers of RINOcracy.com as it was to us. But Ms. McGirr had a letter published in today’s New York Times that was so well-stated that we thought it deserved recognition. The Letters section of the Times is not a place we ordinarily go looking for RINOs, but you never know. Continue reading
On Sunday and Monday, Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio announced their candidacies for president. In the nature of such things, neither announcement came as a surprise. (The Economist had quipped shortly before the Clinton announcement that “For most Americans this will be as surprising as the news that Cinco de Mayo will once again be on May 5th.”) Similarly, both announcements offered little in the way of substance. Indeed, Clinton’s may have broken all previous records for airiness, consisting almost entirely of brief videos of a predictably diverse and uniformly attractive collection of citizens. Continue reading
We Republicans, even including RINOs, tend to associate demagoguery—vague promises and appeals to emotion, fear and prejudice—with the Democrats. The rhetoric of such promises and appeals is sometimes lofty but often banal. Sadly, the first two announced contenders for the Republican nomination for President, Senators Cruz and Paul, have amply demonstrated that the disease is bi-partisan. Continue reading
Although we have indicated our tentative support for Jeb Bush to be the Republican nominee, it is still early days: Bush has yet to articulate his position on several major issues and the dynamics of the primary campaign, including the debates among the candidates – sometimes entertaining and sometimes dismaying – lie well down the road. We are in agreement with Bush on the two issues with which he has been most clearly identified and most sharply criticized from the right – immigration reform and Common Core. More generally, we have favored Bush for reasons suggested in a March 30 New York Times analysis, “Jeb Bush and Scott Walker Point G.O.P. To Contrary Paths.” A principal point was Bush’s distaste for paralyzing polarization: Continue reading
As regular readers will be aware, RINOcracy.com is no friend of Ted Cruz. Nevertheless, it seemed that his first-off-the-blocks entry into the Presidential race should not go unremarked upon. Lest there be any misunderstanding, we do not consider him to be an acceptable candidate for the Republican nomination or, worse yet, a candidate in the general election. As we have remarked before, the only possible merit we can see to a Cruz candidacy in the general election is that his trouncing might put to rest the shibboleth that the way for Republicans to win the presidency is by nominating a “real” Republican or a “real” conservative.
Cruz Control. By Adam Zygis, The Cagle Post. http://www.cagle.com/2013/09/cruz-control/ Continue reading
The Senate Republicans have once again contrived to tie themselves into knots from which there appears to be no graceful escape. The nomination of Loretta Lynch, has long been held up, and is now being further delayed while the Senate struggles to resolve a debate over an anti-abortion provision in an otherwise uncontroversial bill on human trafficking—a knot within a knot.
It sometimes appears that the capacity of Congressional Republicans for self-embarrassment is inexhaustible. Most often it is the Republicans in the House who are the mischief-makers while their colleagues in the Senate, with some notable exceptions (see, Cruz, T.), offer a measure of maturity. In the case of the letter to Iran, however, it was the Senate Republicans who provided the “What were they thinking of?” moment. Continue reading
Last week was a busy one in Wobegon by the Potomac, so we thought we would settle for brief comments on the potpourri of happenings. Continue reading
Part II: Ukraine
In Part I of this blog, which dealt primarily with the Islamic State, we urged readers to take their own look at the National Security Strategy (NSS). In Part II, addressing Ukraine (and the Russian threat to Eastern Europe and the preparedness of NATO), we renew that suggestion although the portions of the document relating to the issues discussed here are relatively brief. Indeed, it is one of the most notable features of the NSS that Ukraine, the broader Russian threat and NATO are given surprisingly little attention.