How Many Times Can Paul Ryan Be Drafted into Jobs He Says He Doesn't Want?
Are we sure the Republican party would unite behind Paul Ryan as its presidential nominee? An interesting rumor, albeit only a rumor, and one quickly denied: Charles Koch is confident House Speaker Paul Ryan could emerge from the Republican National Convention as the party's nominee if Donald Trump comes up at least 100 delegates shy, he has told friends privately. Koch believes Ryan would be a "shoo-in" at a contested convention, should the campaign get to that point. . . . Mark Holden, general counsel for Koch Industries, told HuffPost the claim was "completely false." "Let me be clear, we never have advocated for a specific candidate in a presidential primary, and we have no plans to do so now," Holden said. Fascinatingly, according to Politico's Mike Allen, the Hillary Clinton camp doesn't find Ryan to be an easily-beatable rival: A well-wired Democrat close to the Clinton campaign told Daniel that a Paul Ryan nomination would be the "nightmare scenario" for Brooklyn because he would likely be stronger than Trump in states like Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin and Ohio. "He'd be starting politically with a clean slate and lacks the baggage of not getting attacked for months" like Trump and Cruz. "He's an attractive man, with an attractive . . . family." I'm a big Paul Ryan fan, but let's remember, in 2008, Barack Obama beat John McCain in Wisconsin, 56–42. Four years later, with Ryan as the vice-presidential nominee, Obama won . . . 52–45. Maybe that reflects a limited ability to influence the results from the running-mate spot. Or maybe Paul Ryan is more appealing among Republicans in his district and in Washington than statewide. (No one has polled Paul Ryan vs. Hillary Clinton since 2014.) This sounds a lot like putting the cart before the horse. In yesterday's Jolt, we saw Ted Cruz is maneuvering to have his fans attending the convention as delegates in states like Louisiana, Tennessee, North Dakota, and so on, in states where delegates are only bound on the first ballot. Cruz's second or third-ballot totals could be a lot higher than anyone expects right now. (Keep in mind, Trump's longtime associate Roger Stone is talking up "days of rage" and "protests at certain targeted hotels where delegations who are involved in the 'big steal' are staying" -- but, he adds, it will be "non-violent!") If we have an era of great cynicism in our politics, how does it sound to have Ryan insisting: Ryan: I do believe people put my name in this thing, and I say get my name out of that. This is, if you want to be president, you should go run for president. And that's just the way I see it. Hugh Hewitt: So you're not the fresh face that Karl Rove was talking about? Ryan: No, I'm not the fresh face. I'm not that person (laughing). I'd like to think my face is somewhat fresh, but I'm not for this conversation. I think you need to run for president if you're going to be president, and I'm not running for president. So period, end of story. Or to have RNC chairman Reince Priebus insisting . . . I think our candidate is someone who's running, okay? That's pretty obvious. But, number two, even if something like that were even remotely possible, that candidate would actually have to have a floor operation and an actual campaign going on with the delegates to make something like that possible. And Paul's not going to do that. So, my answer is no. But, clearly, there's a lot of information out there that people are spreading around to cause a lot of confusion. But I think that our candidate is someone who's running. If you have the two biggest leaders of the party saying, "X is not going to happen, there's no way X can happen, we're not trying to make X happen" -- and X is something as important as who the party's presidential nominee is -- and then X happens, you have a formula for the controlled demolition of all trust in those leaders. Trump's Border Wall for Money Trump offers the Washington Post a slightly more detailed look at his plan to bar money transfers from the United States to anywhere else in the world unless the person transferring the money can prove they're in the country legally. Unsurprisingly, the Post finds experts predicting the policy changes would be challenged in court. And there are ways for illegal immigrants, their families, and those who smuggle them to transfer money beyond legal avenues. As I noted last year, "tighter legal restrictions would likely spur immigrants to use hawala-like systems that rely on trusted networks of contacts on either side of the border, Bitcoin-style systems that operate outside the traditional financial network, or plain old smuggling of cash." There is a much simpler option, one already put in place by the state of Oklahoma, and perfectly legal: The state of Oklahoma charges a one percent fee on all personal wire transfers of cash to accounts outside the state. The state treats the fee as withholding from state income tax, so any Oklahoma resident who files taxes eventually gets the money back. Those in the country illegally obviously don't file state income taxes, so they never get the money back or have it credited against a state tax debt. The "wire transmitter fee" brought in $10.5 million in 2014, and $9.7 million the previous year. Wire-transfer companies in the state don't like the tax because it increases fees. Over in The Atlantic, Uri Friedman looks at the topic, citing my previous articles on the logistical challenges of building the wall. Neither Front-runner Wants to Reach Out to Supporters of Their Rivals For all of the challenges Donald Trump faces in uniting the party -- and the pretty clear sign that his idea of "unity" means everyone lining up behind him -- Noah Rothman points out that Hillary has the same philosophy towards Sanders voters. Clinton's decision not to back down from her passionate criticism of the Sanders campaign and to transition toward a critique of Sanders's voters is an extraordinary development. Surely, there is a bit of frustration in Clinton's tone, which is likely due to her aggravation with the long primary race she perhaps thought would be -- and by rights ought to be -- over by now. But it is also reflective of a calculation on her part, and it's likely an accurate one. Clinton does not need younger Democratic voters. The two circles in the Venn Diagram of the philosophy of the Sanders base and the philosophy of the Hillary base overlap much less than you might think: As FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver concluded, research suggests that young people are by far the most favorable toward the concept of socialism, but this same group contradicts itself insofar as it is not nearly as friendly toward the practice of wealth redistribution. So what gives? Silver identified a clue in that "Sanders's support now and Ron Paul's support four years ago are not all that different." The underlying messages of these two superficially divergent candidacies, central to which is a fundamental redefinition of American politics in both practice and purpose, are so similar that Sanders fans are even appropriating the Paul campaign's slogans and logos. "What's distinctive about both the Sanders and Ron Paul coalitions is that they consist mostly of people who do not feel fully at home in the two-party system but are not part of historically underprivileged groups," Silver wrote. That is the definition of a kind of parlor radical who deserves and receives little in the way of sympathy from the nation's more established institutional leaders. For her part, Clinton isn't even trying to display empathy toward the fanatical young Sanders voter. Ultimately, the Hillary wing and the Sanders wing might as well be separate parties. ADDENDA: Our Michael Walsh will be speaking at the Institute of World Politics tomorrow at 1:30 p.m., discussing "Behind Enemy Lines: The Adventures of an American Correspondent During the Cold War."  | 
Comments
Post a Comment