Housekeeping: In the very near future -- like, now -- The Campaign Spot will stop being updated and you'll see my blogging over in NRO's The Corner. We had debated this move for a few years, and it makes sense, particularly with campaign coverage heating up, to bring 2016-related blog posts to the Corner instead of making readers click through twice on a menu to get from Campaign Spot from the NRO home page. The good folks running the ship here at National Review are also now calling me "senior political correspondent" . . . because that's what you call a political correspondent who gets old. The Morning Jolt will remain the same, my articles at NRO will remain the same, Three Martini Lunch will remain the same. The Kerry Spot began back in May 16, 2004. It's been a spectacular eleven-year run, and not really much of a "goodbye"; similar gig, different office. Really? We Can Pencil It In Already? Clinton-Castro 2016? If you were a clear-thinking Democrat, this is the sort of news that would make you burst into tears of despair: Hillary Clinton's campaign is likely to choose Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Julián Castro or another Hispanic politician to be her running mate, former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros said in an interview that will air Sunday. "What I am hearing in Washington, including from people in Hillary Clinton's campaign, is that the first person on their lists is Julián Castro, the . . . Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, who use[d] to be the Mayor of San Antonio," he said in an interview with Univision's "Al Punto." "They don't have a second option, because he is the superior candidate considering his record, personality, demeanor and Latin heritage." "I think there is a very high possibility that Hillary Clinton may choose Julián Castro," he said." A one-option veep list? That Democratic bench isn't just thin, it's anorexic. And do Democrats really want to put the 40-year-old Castro a heartbeat away from the presidency? If this pans out, we'll get to watch Democrats and the media insisting that Castro's time as mayor of San Antonio and two years at HUD represented some sort of American policy renaissance and an era of bold leadership. Back in 2012, when Castro was giving the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, I pointed out that San Antonio hadn't gotten much better on his watch, particularly in the areas he claimed to emphasize, education and crime. By 2014, as he was joining HUD, his record as mayor included a few more local political scandals and a barely-budging poverty rate, even as the area economy soared from the shale boom. Castro left San Antonio in roughly the same shape as it was before he became mayor – and yet somehow became one of the Democratic party's biggest stars and, if Cisneros is right, the only serious option to be Hillary's running mate. As I summarized last year: Castro leveraged his rise-from-humble-roots narrative and the occasional wacky joke into national press coverage that most senators and governors would envy — major national-magazine profiles, a TED talk, an appearance on Meet the Press, a six-figure memoir deal. It's fair to wonder whether Castro would get the same attention if he were not a member of a demographic increasingly important for national politics. Cisneros's appearing on the ticket would demonstrate that identity politics is to Democrats like that old quote about winning is to sports coaches: It's not everything, it's the only thing. Come On. Stephanopoulos Didn't Realize What He Was Doing? I have to respectfully dissent from Howard Kurtz's assessment of Stephanopoulos: We all make mistakes, myself included, and how you handle those mistakes is crucial. Stephanopoulos didn't realize he couldn't be giving money to the family foundation of the guy he used to work for, whose wife is running for president, especially when he was covering the uproar over its tangled finances. But he also misjudged the negative reaction, and his initial statement apologized only for the lack of disclosure. A day later, he realized he had to apologize on camera, and for making the $75,000 donations as well. The former White House official also bowed out of ABC's Republican presidential debate (although his hand may have been forced by GOP demands to yank the debate from the network). Do we really think Stephanopoulos "didn't realize" how it would look for him to give money to the foundation of an old boss who he would be covering in the years to come? Or that he "didn't realize" how he would look having grilled Peter Schweizer once the donations came to light? Isn't it more likely he just didn't care? Or he felt -- accurately -- that if and when his contributions were disclosed, his bosses would have his back and that if he ever lost his ABC News gig, he could just jump onto the Hillary campaign operation? At least 24 journalists had gone to work for the Obama administration by September 2013. Our Kevin Williamson calls for the obvious: It is impossible to see how Stephanopoulos could do his job with any integrity in an environment in which the Clintons and their foundation will be central to the political news for the foreseeable future. Certainly not after concealing his relationship with the foundation. ABC News owes it to itself to live up to at least the standards of a small-town weekly newspaper. It owes them a lot more than that, in fact, but it cannot deliver the goods with Stephanopoulos at the desk. We probably ought to bring a little more wariness to the whole allegedly-bright-public-figure-shows-terrible-lapse-in-judgment scandal response. A non-conservative major media figure said to me a while back, discussing Hillary's e-mail scandal, "I just don't understand how she could do something like this. She's so smart." I thought, but did not ask, "Well, what if she isn't?" I'm sure Hillary knows a lot; if you asked her about her trip to Burma or Nigeria she could probably go on at length about the figures she met, recite trade and economic statistics, review some of the recent history of the country, and so on. Book smarts, certainly. But in terms of good judgment . . . are we really sure Hillary is that "smart"? Was setting up the Foundation the way the Clintons did really smart? Was constantly interacting with people who wanted favors from the U.S. State Department smart? How about "what difference, at this point, does it make?" at the Benghazi hearing -- was that a smart response? Bringing up the video in the statement issued that night? Was the decision to use military force to depose Qaddafi "smart"? Was the whole "reset button" ceremony with the Russians smart? Maybe the word I'm looking for is "wise." Say, How's the Fight Against ISIS Going? Obama Said We Were Doing So Well President Obama, February 11, 2015: Today, as part of an international coalition of some 60 nations -- including Arab countries -- our men and women in uniform continue the fight against ISIL in Iraq and in Syria. More than 2,000 coalition airstrikes have pounded these terrorists. We're disrupting their command and control and supply lines, making it harder for them to move. We're destroying their fighting positions, their tanks, their vehicles, their barracks, their training camps, and the oil and gas facilities and infrastructure that fund their operations. We're taking out their commanders, their fighters, and their leaders. In Iraq, local forces have largely held the line and in some places have pushed ISIL back. In Syria, ISIL failed in its major push to take the town of Kobani, losing countless fighters in the process -- fighters who will never again threaten innocent civilians. And we've seen reports of sinking morale among ISIL fighters as they realize the futility of their cause. Now, make no mistake -- this is a difficult mission, and it will remain difficult for some time. It's going to take time to dislodge these terrorists, especially from urban areas. But our coalition is on the offensive, ISIL is on the defensive, and ISIL is going to lose. The news, today: The key Iraqi city of Ramadi fell to ISIS on Sunday after government security forces pulled out of a military base on the west side of the city, the mayor and a high-ranking security official said. The ISIS advances came after militants detonated a series of morning car bomb blasts, Mayor Dalaf al-Kubaisy and a high-ranking Iraqi security official said. The explosions forced Iraqi security forces and tribal fighters to retreat to the city's east, they said. Ramadi, the largest city in western Iraq, is situated just a few miles from an Iraqi army headquarters that ISIS blew up in March. There's some good news, no doubt: U.S. Special Operations forces killed a key ISIS commander during a daring raid in eastern Syria overnight Friday to Saturday -- securing intelligence on how the terror organization operates, communicates and earns money, U.S. government officials said. The ISIS commander, identified by his nom de guerre Abu Sayyaf, was killed in a heavy firefight after he resisted capture in the raid at al-Omar, U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said in a statement. If the coalition effort against ISIS were floundering, would the Obama administration ever tell us? Or would they just keep insisting "all is well" until the news cycle moved on? ADDENDA: Over on the pop-culture podcast, Mickey gets her long-awaited Kardashian segment; she plays the metaphorical defense attorney and I play the prosecutor. We also differ on the appropriate punishment for "Deflate-gate." We also ask whether it's worse for a favorite show to get canceled too early or to hang around one or two seasons too long, like watching an old, active friend age past their prime. | 
Comments
Post a Comment