Who would you pick if you had to spend the day with one of the presidential candidates?

I'd rather say no to the whole thing, but let's assume you have to choose. I realize that all of them would be either boring or annoying and some would be both.

"Biggest loser on merits: Kasich. He’s done. He came across angry, condescending, and unprincipled."

"By the end of the debate he came across as the drunk, obnoxious uncle everyone wishes hadn’t accepted the invitation to Thanksgiving dinner."

Writes Jonah Goldberg (who goes on to call Jeb the biggest loser politically and to rank the various winners).

I've got to agree about Kasich, whom I think I probably should favor, just on the merits (though not much). He is so annoying.

The truth is, I don't like anyone who's running for President in either party. Watching these debates has become a chore. Following the news. I don't like them. I have no one to root for. And I'm pretty sure Hillary will win in the end. It's quite unpleasant. The worst election season to have to witness since I first started watching... which was in 1960.

"The fourth Republican presidential debate will be Tuesday, November 10th, live from the Milwaukee Theatre in Milwaukee, Wisconsin."

"The venue has a loaded history: On October 14, 1912, candidate Teddy Roosevelt was shot in the chest by an assassin outside of a Milwaukee hotel. Instead of heading to the hospital, he continued to the Milwaukee Auditorium (now the Milwaukee Theatre) to deliver a 90-minute campaign speech. In front of a horrified audience and with the bullet lodged in his rib, he pulled out a bloodied 50-page speech with bullet holes in it from his coat pocket and declared, 'It takes more than that to kill a bull moose.'"

From "Everything you need to know about Tuesday's Republican debates."

I didn't even know there was already another Republican debate about to happen. After that, we'll have to wait a whole other month and 5 days before we get to see the guys and 1 woman all standing in the same place. We'll be seeing them every damned day, but we'll have to wait for another full array of lined-up lecterns.

"Thirteen Republican presidential campaigns had started the week in a kind of solidarity, brainstorming ideas to make the cable news debates more fair."

"They ended the week in pathos and disarray, after Fox Business announced that two candidates would be shunted from prime time to an 'undercard' debate, and two mainstays of the undercard debate would not make it to the Nov. 10 forum at all."

Writes WaPo's David Weigel, after the news that Christie and Huckabee got reseated at the kids table and Graham and Pataki are excluded altogether.

"Good. You just can't run for president based on a fantasy that there's only one issue that matters."

"In the real world, there's no way around the fact that the president has to deal with multiple issues every day, and the people won't accept a president who doesn't take the whole job seriously."

Says my son John, commenting on the news that Lawrence Lessig has dropped out of the presidential race. The reason Lessig gives is not, however, that people won't accept a candidate with a single-issue campaign, but that he never became well-known enough, and he blames the Democratic Party for excluding him from the debates.

But I wouldn't criticize the Party for failing to open up the debates for the purpose of helping advocates of single issues. And my reason is precisely what John is talking about: I don't take this person seriously as a real candidate.

When Jeb — giving a sword to Rubio — talked about a made-up Chinese character he called "Chang" — a "mystical warrior" who "has never let me down."

From a WaPo article — by Sean Sullivan, Manuel Roig-Franzia and David A. Fahrenthold — called "The 17-year story behind Marco Rubio’s cut-down of Jeb Bush":

By 2005, the two men were close enough that when Rubio gave an emotional speech after winning the race to be Florida’s House speaker... [Jeb] honored Rubio with a gift: a sword, which he said belonged to a great “conservative warrior” named Chang.

“Chang is somebody who believes in conservative principles, believes in entrepreneurial capitalism, believes in moral values that underpin a free society... Chang, this mystical warrior, has never let me down.”

This gesture was even stranger than it sounds. It appears that “Chang” was not a real person but something from a Bush family in-joke about Chinese Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek (“Unleash Chiang!”). Now, Jeb — whose ­father was once the U.S. envoy to Beijing — had garbled the story into something about a mystical warrior with a sword.

The sword “really meant something to Jeb,” a longtime friend and colleague of both men said. “He thought it was Marco who would continue his legacy.”

So Jeb gave Rubio a sword and later Rubio performed a (metaphorical) "cut-down." With 3 writers on that WaPo story, couldn't they at least have figured out where Jeb got the sword?

I suspect re-gifting. Somebody gave somebody in the Bush family a sword. H.W. Bush served as an envoy in China. I suppose that over the years, the Bushes have gotten many gifts they don't love or need. Stuck with a sword... until you can stick somebody else with it.

What went into the decision to give the new speaker of the Florida house a sword? Normally, the speaker wields a gavel, a symbol of calling a diverse, noisy group to order, so that the many can proceed with the business of the whole. Why supplant the gavel with a sword, a symbol of violence and divisiveness. You literally divide with a sword. But in Jeb's mind, that seemed like the right message.

Now add to that the invention of a Chinese character. Nothing Chinese was going on. It was about the Florida legislature. And Chinese culture was appropriated for the occasion... why? Some stereotype about warriors? About "mysticism"? Or is it just something internal to the Bush family, within which it's (apparently) a running joke to say "Unleash Chiang!" Did Jeb imagine that the sword ritual was initiating young Marco into the Bush family secret society?

That question made me look up Skull and Bones, the Yale secret society to which George H.W. and George W. Bush belonged. But Jeb Bush didn't go to Yale. He went to the University of Texas, and he didn't even join a fraternity. He'd met his future wife during a trip to Mexico when he was 17, and that affected his approach to college:

When his friends decided to rush fraternities, Bush stayed behind — he wasn’t interested in dates or parties, [best friend Rob] Kerr said. It took him less than three years to graduate magna cum laude with a degree in Latin American studies.

“He had a very good ability to study really intently while other people were goofing off,” Kerr said. “He was probably more studious than the rest of us.”

After a few years of constant phone calls and occasional visits, Jeb, 21, married Columba, 20, at the UT-Austin University Catholic Center in 1974.

Those 3 WaPo writers — Sean Sullivan, Manuel Roig-Franzia and David A. Fahrenthold — offered to explain the 17-year story of Jeb and Marco, but they never say anything deep about the human personality. I just want to make up a coherent story of the man who made up a fake story about the mystical Chinese warrior as he gave a sword to Marco Rubio:

The warrior Chang stands in for the elder Bush who fought in the war and went to China. The younger man, Rubio, stands in for the younger brother, George W. Bush, who, like the father, went to Yale and performed whatever those secret rituals were, while the studious older brother buried himself in books at the state university, earnestly striving to marry the girl he fell in love with when he was 17. The callow brother surged past him and acquired the mystical power over the American soul that is the presidency, and now another man is surging ahead.

The sword was passed.
CORRECTION: This post originally had George as the younger brother and Jeb as the older brother. Jeb may have seemed more mature, but he is, of course, younger.

AND: Reading this post, Meade inferred that the 3 WaPo writers got this story from Rubio, who has a motive to make Jeb sound bad. Did Jeb really "garble" the Bush family story? Was it an "in-joke" or meaningful references to Chiang Kai-shek? Did Bush, handing over the sword, really talk about an invented character named "Chang," or was he saying "Chiang"? Chiang Kai-shek was a warrior, and Chiang Kai-shek could be said to be "conservative" and even "mystical." The Wikipedia article on Chiang Kai-shek identifies him with The New Life Movement, which "was based upon Confucianism, mixed with Christianity, nationalism and authoritarianism":

Chiang Kai-shek used the Confucian and Methodist notion of self-cultivation and correct living for the Movement; to this end it prescribed proper etiquette on every aspect of daily lives. Some of its many measures included: opposition to littering and spitting on the floor; opposition to opium use; opposition to conspicuous consumption; rejection of vice entertainments in favor of artistic and athletic pursuits; promotion of courteous behavior; and promotion of flag salutes. Among its more unusual campaigns was its promotion of bathing with cold water: Chiang Kai-shek pointed out the (supposed) Japanese habit of washing their faces with cold water as a sign of their military strength, and expected the Chinese to be able to do the same if not better.

"All but Rubio, Cruz, Trump and Carson should drop out."

Said Bob Schrum, one of 14 pundits asked by Politico after last night's debate to say who should drop out. Schrum's a Democratic strategist, but that doesn't necessarily make him wrong. I think 4 is cutting it too close, especially since one of them is Carson, and he hasn't taken much heat yet. I think 6 is the better number, and I'd definitely leave in Christie, who's been in the background lately but really stepped forward last night. I liked his former-prosecutor parries.

Ah, I see from the transcript, it was Fake Louis CK (Jim Cramer) who brought up the former prosecutor business.
Click for more »

Live-blogging the big GOP debate.

1. Watch along with me. Comment. I'll just be expanding this numbered list of insights. What do we expect? Fireworks? Boredom? Somebody — Kasich?? — making a showy play for attention?

2. My son John is live-blogging too. I recommend that.

3. These CNBC commentators are horrible. Do they even know they're on television? Talking over each other, desperate, contentless. Ugh! They talk like they're drunk.

4. Biggest weakness? Kasich leads off by not answering the question at all, forthrightly refusing. Huckabee denies having weakness, or... he plays by the rules. Jeb says he's impatient. Rubio says he's not sure it's a weakness, but he's optimistic. Trump says he's "too trusting" and if people let him down, he never forgives. Carson says his weakness is not seeing himself in the position of President (until people convinced him). Fiorina says she was told she doesn't smile enough (and she smiles). Cruz says his biggest weakness is he's passionate, he's a fighter, and he's not the guy you want to have a beer with, but he's the one to drive you home. Christie points out the weaknesses of the Democrats. And Rand Paul complains about the budget deal, and he's beginning tomorrow to filibuster it.

5. Trump is asked if his campaign is a cartoon, and he says that's not a very nice question.

6. Carly wants the tax code reduced to 3 pages (from 73,000). The moderators are interrupting and arguing way too much.

7. Big cheer for Rubio's criticism of the Sun Sentinel for being biased in favor of Democrats. Jeb gets on Rubio for missing Senate votes, and Rubio catches him for hypocrisy.

8. Cruz launches into a criticism of the questions the moderators have asked so far. It's a vivid indictment and it gets a big cheer. This interchange ends in near chaos. Cruz really tried to intimidate the moderators.

9. This debate is so stressful and ugly. The moderators are so disrespectful and the candidates are all yelling. Almost all. Carson will never yell.

10. The audience (at the University of Colorado in Boulder) showed tremendous support for Ben Carson. It cheered wildly when he attacked the questioners for criticizing his "vetting process" because he didn't prevent a webpage from using a photograph of him.

11. Trump goes on about those terrible super PACs. And Rubio says: "The Democrats have the greatest super PAC. It's called the mainstream media." That gets a big cheer from the audience.

12. Subsidies are "a bunch of crap," says Carson.

13. Christie is highly critical of the moderators: "Even in New Jersey, what you're doing is rude."

14. Rand Paul wants "a government so small you can barely see it."

15. "In your heart of hearts, you can't wait to hear a debate between Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina," says Carly Fiorina.

16. Ben Carson thanks the audience for being so attentive.

17. Trump will make good deals for America because he made the deal that got the debate reduced from 3 hours to 2.

18. Who did best? Maybe Christie. Maybe Cruz.

19. Did anyone even mention Ronald Reagan tonight? What happened? That was weird. 

"But the question people keep asking... is why that consolidation [behind Rubio] isn’t happening already."

"If Rubio is actually the front-runner" — once you look beyond the not-really-real Trump and Carson — "shouldn’t a few more big donors be drifting from Jeb’s camp into his? Shouldn’t a few more debate-watching voters be saying to themselves, and then to pollsters: The Donald is fun and I admire Carson, but let’s get real: I’m going to vote Rubio? I think they will. I predict they will."

Writes Ross Douthat, saying something close to what I've been blogging (here and here) and then ending his column with something I haven't blogged but have been saying around the house: "But in the event they don’t, I’m guessing that Mitt Romney is still ready to serve."

Donald Trump activates the anti-Seventh-Day-Adventist prejudice against Ben Carson.

Here's how he slipped in the dagger:

I love Iowa. And, look, I don't have to say it, I'm Presbyterian. Can you believe it? Nobody believes I'm Presbyterian. I'm Presbyterian. I'm Presbyterian. I'm Presbyterian. Boy, that's down the middle of the road folks, in all fairness. I mean, Seventh-day Adventist, I don't know about. I just don't know about.

Religious prejudice is wrong... we all, most of us, know that, don't we? Or do we? We know it some or most of the time, except when we need to set it aside, such as when we choose a President, and it's got to be somebody we can trust with the nuclear button and everything else. It can't be a weirdo. We'll leave you alone as you pursue you metaphysical whimsy and even treat you with care and kindness. But for a President? Trump knows what the "folks" need: right down the middle of the road.

"I'm Presbyterian. I'm Presbyterian. I'm Presbyterian. I'm Presbyterian." 4 times he had to say it. Because "Nobody believes I'm Presbyterian."

Nobody believes.

"They’re like Grumpycat... It’s like the Twilight Zone..."

Obama attacks Republicans with pop-culture references.

How Trump reacts to the polls that show Carson ahead in Iowa.

"I love Iowa and I honestly think those polls are wrong.... Let me give you the bad news.... The biggest headline yesterday... 'Trump Falls to 2nd Place in Iowa Behind Ben Carson. We Informed Carson But He Was Sleeping.' Ben Carson is leading Iowa supposedly. Ben Carson is super low energy. We need tremendous energy... I don’t believe those polls, by the way, because both of those pollsters don’t like me... They made it seem like the greatest defeat in history... All day long, ugh my head."

From "Trump tees off on Carson, pollsters at Miami golf club rally/The businessman decries Iowa poll results on his home turf at Trump National Doral, calling the property a model for the country" at Politico.

Trump does have "tremendous energy," and you can see how he uses it. I wondered what it would be like to have a President who processes and talks about the news like this. When he doesn't like something, will he refuse to believe it and accuse the bearers of bad news of bias?

And it's hard to imagine just how much he hates this bad news about the polls. He's continually bragged about how he's way up in all the polls. And he famously said: "I'm not a masochist. If I was dropping in the polls where I saw that I wasn't going to win, why would I continue?" And after successfully mocking Jeb Bush as low energy and just as the Bush campaign is crashing, Trump's triumph is ruined by the "super low energy" Carson beating him in the polls, wrecking his favorite brag, forcing him into the beta whine "I don’t believe those polls, by the way, because both of those pollsters don’t like me."

"Jeb Bush on Friday ordered a wholesale restructuring of his struggling campaign after suffering miserably in the polls despite massive spending and a deep donor network."

Politico reports today.

Although campaign officials insisted they're still in strong shape, the cuts — combined with Bush's stagnant poll numbers — suggest otherwise.... While there were signs the campaign faced trouble, Bush's team didn't know the depths of its problems until it got to look at the other campaigns' finance reports.... Aside from Donald Trump, Bush also has the highest burn rate, spending 86 percent of what he raised last quarter....

Among establishment donors, Bush has fought hard to stave off Rubio, whose superior abilities on the stump and comparatively lean campaign operation have impressed kingmakers like Sheldon Adelson and others. Another Bush donor, the CEO of a large financial firm, said the campaign is in fact scared of Rubio and rightly so. “Marco is a very real and very dangerous candidate in this race,” the donor said.

Hey, I said it yesterday: "It's time for Jeb Bush to withdraw and endorse Marco Rubio." Don't fight him. Help him. It's too late and too dire for anything else. Now's your chance to help the moderate GOP cause. Fighting Rubio is not the answer! Be practical and realistic.

The surgin' surgeon.

"Carson Surges Past Trump in Latest Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll."

It's time for Jeb Bush to withdraw and endorse Marco Rubio.

You may think it's a little early for this, but as Joe Biden said yesterday, it's already late. Look at the Real Clear Politics summary of the polls:



Trump dominates, but only with less than one third. Carson does well. The others are struggling to make much of a showing, but somebody needs to emerge as the political mainstream candidate, and I think that person will be Rubio, sooner or later. Jeb Bush should figure that out and do something to help now, when it would be most helpful. Jeb's candidacy has failed. Not completely, not yet, but he hasn't built his poll numbers, he's lost ground, and his self-presentation has been weak. I like his mild manner, but it's "low energy," as Trump puts it, and, as I'd put it, just not competitive and forceful enough to gain ground in this field. Rubio, by contrast, has some combative heft.

Biden showed how to make a beautiful, graceful exit, and Jeb can do even better, because Hillary didn't need Biden's endorsement. She only needed him to get out of the way, and now she's gloriously in the lead and on track for the nomination. Oh? Do you think she might commit suicide at today's Benghazi hearing? Don't make me laugh. I'm laughing like this:



Jeb can do better than Biden, because he can embrace and throw his full support to Rubio when Rubio needs it to get traction for the hard climb to the nomination. Do it now, Jeb, when it matters so much.

ADDED: In fact, every GOP candidate who is not Trump or Carson should look around right now and figure out who, other than himself, he should support. (That includes Fiorina. I'm just using the masculine pronoun for the singular. Old-school grammar.)

Stand by for Biden. UPDATE: He won't run.

He's about to say something in the Rose Garden.

On CNN, they're indicating that he's going to say he's not running... because the President and other senior officials are there.

ADDED: He says the time window has closed, and it's too late to mount a campaign.

MORE: With Obama standing next to him, Biden says that Democrats should not only "protect" Obama's record, they should "run" on that record. Do I see the door left open a crack? If Hillary doesn't straighten up and run on Barack Obama's record, Biden might have to get in.

AND: Why is he making a campaign speech?

Did Jake Tapper "destroy" Jeb Bush with the question how can we blame Hillary for Benghazi if we can't blame George W. Bush for 9/11?

If you think Jeb is disastrous here, I'd say you're averse to his style and manner of speech — not just on this issue, but on everything. It's not that different from what bugged some people about his brother and that was mocked in his father. There's something modest and mild that reads to me as an expression of good character, but I know that's not how everyone sees it and the question Republicans face is who they want making their argument that they deserve the power of the presidency. I can see fretting about whether Jeb can step up and get the message across.

ADDED: Something I said in the comments: "There is so much more Jeb could have said making the distinction. He just doesn't have a go-for-the-jugular instinct. His deer-in-the-headlights moment was very similar to Mitt Romney's disastrous self-restraint in the second debate with Obama. I think that moment is indicative of a conscience, but it wrecked Romney's momentum and began his journey to electoral defeat."

"Yes, the debate was comfortable to Democrats concerned about their front-runner, but it should also have been worrisome to Democrats concerned about their bench."

"'The fact she did well should surprise no one,' a Biden activist told me. 'If she didn’t do well against those guys, then God help our party.” If something serious were to happen to Clinton — self-inflicted or not — the party would be entering a presidential race on favorable terrain but with a substantial talent problem. Martin O’Malley presented no rationale for a campaign; Jim Webb sounded bitter and bizarre; Lincoln Chafee at times appeared confused why he was even onstage. Sanders electrified his core supporters but didn’t suggest any newfound ability to sell his far-left platform to the general public. In a scenario where a Clinton campaign implodes, Democrats will again be desperate for a new candidate and will again review the options. Al Gore’s name will be floated. 'Al Gore is doing nothing,' said a Democrat who sits on a board with him. Same with John Kerry. 'John has not given the slightest indication he would do this,' Bob Shrum, who ran Kerry’s 2004 campaign, told me. What will be real is Biden."

From "We Are Already Months Into the Biden Campaign," by Gabriel Sherman in New York Magazine. 

If we don't get Joe Biden, there won't be one candidate who's running on Barack Obama's record.

8 years ago, Obama ran on "CHANGE," which is what we expect from the candidate from the party that hasn't held the presidency, but now, is the argument to be "CHANGE," once again, including from every candidate in Obama's own party?

Last night, on "60 Minutes," Steve Kroft confronted Obama with the stark fact: "Right now, there's nobody on either side of the aisle that is exactly running on your record." And the NYT has an article "A Likely Debate Highlight: Democrats’ Distance From Obama":

In the seven years since Mr. Obama entered the White House on a wave of excitement, Democrats have developed a complicated relationship with their standard-bearer. And that is especially true for those running for their party’s nomination.

Mr. Obama’s legacy and how much a Democratic successor should embrace it will hover over the debate... Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders promise different approaches from Mr. Obama’s, as much in style as in substance.....

Shouldn't there be a voice saying Obama's been good, we need more of the same? Whether you believe we need more of the same or not, don't you think that should be one of the options for voters and one of the positions taken in the debate? I think there are plenty of Americans who'd like a way to say that Obama has been a success. How sad — for some, at least — to see our President abandoned, run away from! Or at least, isn't it ridiculous, every 4 or 8 years, to hear a new set of imperfect individuals claiming that they've got something different and it's going to be better than the reality we just experienced?

When was the last President who got support from his party's follow-on candidate? John McCain ran away from George W. Bush, and Al Gore distanced himself from Bill Clinton. You have to go back to 1988 to find a candidate who reinforced his party's President.

I'd like to see Joe Biden enter the race with the focused message that Obama has been good, and I am offering America not change, but continuity. Otherwise, it's a grim 15 months we face, with a President getting torn down from all sides. I'm not saying I want a continuation of Obama, only that I want one voice in the debate arguing for the continuation. We need that and we deserve to hear that, not merely, within the President's party, Hillary and Bernie fighting to get better distance between themselves and our President.

Run, Joe!

"Do you think if you ran again — could run again and did run again — you would be elected?" "I do."

President Obama answers Steve Kroft immediately and in 2 short words... just now on "60 Minutes."

And he's right.