Trump's Platform

Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics. Among other things, it discusses the state of the parties. The state of the GOP is not good.

Megan Messerly, Natalie Allison, and Irie Sentner at Politico:

The committee was largely deferential to the Trump campaign’s recommendations, receiving and adopting the proposed platform by lunchtime on Monday in a vote of 84 to 18. Trump called in to the meeting and addressed the delegates by phone. A platform committee member granted anonymity to speak candidly about the proceedings said “euphoric consensus” contributed to the quick approval.

Unlike the party’s platform passed in 2016, the text does not include a 20-week federal limit on abortions or call for states to pass the Human Life Amendment, which proposes to amend the Constitution to say that life begins at conception. The text instead says that states are “free to pass laws protecting” the rights granted in the 14th Amendment.

“After 51 years, because of us, that power has been given to the States and to a vote of the People,” the language states. “We will oppose Late Term Abortion, while supporting mothers and policies that advance Prenatal Care, access to Birth Control, and IVF (fertility treatments).”

The heading for that section of the proposed platform says that Republicans will “Protect and Defend a Vote of the People, from within the States, on the Issue of Life.”

Trump didn’t just edit the platform language, but wrote some parts of the 15-page draft himself, according to a person with knowledge of his involvement. The new proposed platform is significantly shorter than the party’s current one.

Representatives from Trump’s campaign walked around the room with a “vote yes” sign as voice votes were being held, and a motion by a top anti-abortion leader to hold roll call votes failed, according to a person attending the meeting. Debate was limited to one minute per speaker. One RNC member who was present inquired about why staff of the Trump campaign and RNC were taking photographs of delegates as they voted.

Trump's influence is evident in the weird use of capital letters:

In 2016, President Donald J. Trump was elected as an unapologetic Champion of the American People. He reignited the American Spirit and called on us to renew our National Pride. His Policies spurred Historic Economic Growth, Job Creation, and a Resurgence of American Manufacturing. President Trump and the Republican Party led America out of the pessimism induced by decades of failed leadership, showing us that the American People want Greatness for our Country again

 

 

McConnell v. a Half-Century of GOP History on Puerto Rican Statehood

In Defying the Odds, we discuss state and congressional politics as well as the presidential race.   The update 
-- recently published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.

Baily Vogt at The Washington Times:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he is happy to be the “grim reaper when it comes to the Democrat’s socialist agenda,” including blocking measures that would grant Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood.

“They plan to make the District of Columbia a state — that’d give them two new Democratic senators — Puerto Rico a state, that would give them two more new Democratic senators. And as a former Supreme Court clerk yourself, you’ve surely noticed that they plan to expand the Supreme Court,” the Kentucky Republican said on Fox News Channel’s “The Ingraham Angle,” addressing growing calls from 2020 Democrats to add additional members to the high court. 

“This is full bore socialism on the march in the House. And yeah, as long as I’m the majority leader of the Senate, none of that stuff is going anywhere,” he said.

As far as Puerto Rico is concerned, he is blocking his own party's position and accusing it of "full bore socialism."  The GOP has officially supported Puerto Rican statehood in every platform in the past half-century.

• 2016: We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state. We further recognize the historic significance of the 2012 local referendum in which a 54 percent majority voted to end Puerto Rico's current status as a U.S. territory, and 61 percent chose statehood over options for sovereign nationhood. We support the federally sponsored political status referendum authorized and funded by an Act of Congress in 2014 to ascertain the aspirations of the people of Puerto Rico. Once the 2012 local vote for statehood is ratified, Congress should approve an enabling act with terms for Puerto Rico's future admission as the 51st state of the Union.
• 2012: We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state if they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a State, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government.
• 2008: We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government.
• 2004: We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the Constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the United States government.
• 2000: We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a State, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the United States government.
• 1996: We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We endorse initiatives of the congressional Republican leadership to provide for Puerto Rico's smooth transition to statehood if its citizens choose to alter their current status, or to set them on their own path to become an independent nation.
• 1992: The Republican Party supports the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign State after they freely so determine.
• 1988: Puerto Rico has been a territory of the United States since 1898. The Republican Party vigorously supports the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted into the Union as a fully sovereign State after they freely so determine. Therefore, we support the establishment of a presidential task force to prepare the necessary legislation to ensure that the people of Puerto Rico have the opportunity to exercise at the earliest possible date their right to apply for admission into the Union. We also pledge that a decision of the people of Puerto Rico in favor of statehood will be implemented through an admission bill that would provide for a smooth fiscal transition, recognize the concept of a multi-cultural society for its citizens, and ensure the right to retain their Spanish language and traditions.
• 1984: The Republican Party reaffirms its support of the right of Puerto Rico to be admitted into the Union after it freely so determines, through the passage of an admission bill which will provide for a smooth fiscal transition, recognize the concept of a multicultural society for its citizens, and secure the opportunity to retain their Spanish language and traditions.
• 1980: Puerto Rico has been a territory of the United States since 1898. The Republican Party vigorously supports the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted into the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We believe that the statehood alternative is the only logical solution to the problem of inequality of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico within the framework of the federal Constitution, with full recognition within the concept of a multicultural society of the citizens' right to retain their Spanish language and traditions. Therefore we pledge to support the enactment of the necessary legislation to allow the people of Puerto Rico to exercise their right to apply for admission into the Union at the earliest possible date after the presidential election of 1980. We also pledge that such decision of the people of Puerto Rico will be implemented through the approval of an admission bill. This bill will provide for the Island's smooth transition from its territorial fiscal system to that of a member of the Union. This enactment will enable the new state of Puerto Rico to stand economically on an equal footing with the rest of the states and to assume gradually its fiscal responsibilities as a state.
• 1976: The principle of self-determination also governs our positions on Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia as it has in past platforms. We again support statehood for Puerto Rico, if that is the people's choice in a referendum, with full recognition within the concept of a multicultural society of the citizens' right to retain their Spanish language and traditions; and support giving the District of Columbia voting representation in the United States Senate and House of Representatives and full home rule over those matters that are purely local.
• 1972: The Republican Party adheres to the principle of self-determination for Puerto Rico. We will welcome and support statehood for Puerto Rico if that status should be the free choice of its people in a referendum vote.
• 1968: We will support the efforts of the Puerto Rican people to achieve statehood when they freely request such status by a general election, and we share the hopes and aspirations of the people of the Virgin Islands who will be closely consulted on proposed gubernatorial appointments.

Grizzly Steppe: How Russia Helped Trump

The Russians wanted Trump to win.

A report from DHS and the FBI:

This Joint Analysis Report (JAR) is the result of analytic efforts between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities. The U.S. Government is referring to this malicious cyber activity by RIS as GRIZZLY STEPPE.

Previous JARs have not attributed malicious cyber activity to specific countries or threat actors. However, public attribution of these activities to RIS is supported by technical indicators from the U.S. Intelligence Community, DHS, FBI, the private sector, and other entities. This determination expands upon the Joint Statement released October 7, 2016, from the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security.

Without using the D-word, it discusses the hacking of the Democrats:

The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a U.S. political party. The first actor group, known as Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) 29, entered into the party’s systems in summer 2015, while the second, known as APT28, entered in spring 2016.

Josh Marshall writes at TPM:

Say you're Trump.

You have nothing to do with this. You know nothing about it. But think about all the crooks and gamers and sleazeballs around your campaign. There's Manafort, Stone, Page ... all their associates, not to mention your business associates with ties to Russian organized crime. (Stone publicly said he had some sort of a backchannel to Wikileaks.)

If you're Trump, how confident are you that a real investigation wouldn't turn up anything weird? Probably not very.

In July, Josh Rogin reported at the Washington Post:

The Trump campaign worked behind the scenes last week to make sure the new Republican platform won’t call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces, contradicting the view of almost all Republican foreign policy leaders in Washington.

Throughout the campaign, Trump has been dismissive of calls for supporting the Ukraine government as it fights an ongoing Russian-led intervention. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, worked as a lobbyist for the Russian-backed former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych for more than a decade.

Still, Republican delegates at last week’s national security committee platform meeting in Cleveland were surprised when the Trump campaign orchestrated a set of events to make sure that the GOP would not pledge to give Ukraine the weapons it has been asking for from the United States.

Sanders Lost the Nomination and Won the Party

Jill Lawrence writes at USA Today:

Bernie Sanders is a winner. His supporters don’t think so, since he’s not the Democratic presidential nominee. But believe me, they are having a bully convention, compliments of a party their candidate has never fully embraced.

... 

It's true that the platform ratified Monday does not call for a ban on fracking or reject the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, both top Sanders priorities. Yet Clinton is now opposed to the TPP, a deal she helped negotiate. And Sen. Tim Kaine may have set a flip-flop record, jumping from TPP backer to "falls short" a day after joining the ticket.

Beyond that, the Sanders effect is obvious throughout the platform. It calls for a $15-an-hour minimum wage, abolition of the death penalty and a path to marijuana legalization — all positions that go further than Clinton’s. It is emphatic about expanding Social Security and fighting any and all cuts. It suggests a new Glass-Steagall Act to stop banks from taking risks with the deposits people entrust to them.

Under pressure from Sanders, who called for free college for all, Clinton is proposing free tuition at in-state public colleges and universities for more than 80% of American families. In other responses to him, she recently came out for more investment in community health centers, a public health insurance option in some states, and allowing people over 55 to join the government’s Medicare health plan for seniors.

Democrats Head Left

William Galston writes at The Wall Street Journal:

The party that Hillary Clinton will lead into battle this fall is not Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party. In important respects it is not even Barack Obama’s Democratic Party. It is a party animated by the frustrations of the Obama years and reshaped by waves of economic and social activism.

Not surprisingly, the document endorses a range of Hillary Clinton’s campaign proposals ...

Neither is it surprising that the draft incorporates some of Bernie Sanders’s key proposals—most notably, a $15 per hour minimum wage—and that it doesn’t take sides on issues that divided the party, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and a broad tax on financial transactions, where neither side would give way.

In other respects, however, the draft is truly remarkable—for example, its near-silence on economic growth. The uninformed reader would not learn that the pace of recovery from the Great Recession has been anemic by postwar standards, or that productivity gains have slowed to a crawl over the past five years, or that firms have been reluctant to invest in new productive capacity. Rather, the platform draft’s core narrative is inequality, the injustice that inequality entails, and the need to rectify it through redistribution.

Day Two of the Democratic Convention

Bill Clinton gave a bravura performance at the Democratic convention, but the day had not gone well before then. Conn Carroll reports:

When convention chair and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa moved to put “God” and Jerusalem back into the party platform, the Democratic delegates loudly booed. It took three voice votes before Villaraigosa just gave up and just gaveled the motion through. Here is how the event played in the press:

• CNN‘s John King: “This Is Keystone Cops”

• NBC News’ Chuck Todd: “How Do You Mess Up God And Jerusalem Politics In 2012? … That Was A BAD Fumble.”

• CBS: “Democrats Fumble Major Israel Issue, Put Jerusalem As Capital In Platform”

Later on CNN, after Wasserman Schultz told Brianna Keilar that “There wasn’t any discord” over the platform, Anderson Cooper turned to his panel of analysts and said, “I mean, that’s an alternate universe.”

Yes, one would have to be living in an alternative universe to think this convention was going well for Obama.

Ron Paul Sorta Suspends

At The Washington Post, Jonathan Bernstein comments on Ron Paul's decision not to campaign in primaries anymore:

Rep. Ron Paul is sort of, in a sense, ramping down his presidential campaign; he’s not going to campaign anymore in the states that still haven’t held primaries or first-stage caucuses, although he’ll continue to fight for delegates where the rules allow for contested caucuses and conventions.

Dave Weigel suspects that the timing may be related to coming primaries in Paul’s Texas and his son Rep. Rand Paul’s Kentucky; contesting and getting clobbered in those states might be an embarrassment for the libertarian crusader. Could be, but I think it’s more straightforward. With the media no longer paying any attention to the primaries, there’s really not much of a point in maximizing vote share. Suppose that hard campaigning could lift the Paul vote from 5 percent to 20 percent; how exactly does that do him any good if no one is paying attention?
...
My best guess? Ron Paul pushes for votes on a few platform issues, and settles for platform committee losses on most of them but gets one or two minor victories, with something about the Fed probably the most likely. After that, his delegates then behave themselves in Florida but do wind up trying to generate some favorable publicity for him (and Rand Paul) without doing anything to harm Mitt Romney. And since reporters will be looking for stories, they’ll succeed, at least to some extent.

Keep an eye on the platform.  A number of Romney delegates may be sympathetic to Paul's position on the Fed and other issues.  In 1988 and 1992, by way of comparison, a number of delegates committed to George H.W. Bush were actually supporters of the Christian right.  The Bush campaign had to keep a close watch on the platform committee lest it provide ammunition to the Democrats.  The Romney campaign would be wise to do likewise.