Hillary Clinton for Mayor of New York City? Please!

by Jim Geraghty

The New York Times discusses rumors that Hillary Clinton could run for mayor of New York City later this year, and reports, “supporters of Mrs. Clinton and former members of her staff appear to have been happy to let the speculation spread from closed-door gatherings of donors and allies.” Columnist Frank Bruni concludes, “a Clinton mayoralty is genius. It’s revenge, redemption and a chance for New Yorkers to be rescued from [De Blasio’s] shortcomings all in one.”

Put me down as someone who would find a “Hillary for Mayor” campaign delicious. For starters, she would be the most scandal-plagued New York City mayoral candidate since… (stifled laughs) Anthony Weiner. I think she may have heard of him.

Republicans ought to cheer for a Hillary mayoral bid just for the way it will make Democrats uncomfortable. Deep down, a lot of Democrats clearly didn’t like the Clintons all that much, but felt they had to act like they did out of partisan loyalty, career ambition, fear of reprisal, etc. So the return of the Clinton Machine, after the Greatest Failure in Democratic Party history, might bring a lot of boos from Democrats, even in New York City. If she thinks she’s hated now, wait until she parachutes in to try to claim the mayor’s office as a consolation prize, and knock out a serious progressive. Sanders-minded Democrats will detest her with a fiery passion.

If you’re cynical enough to think that the primary product of the Clinton Foundation was selling access to the Clintons and their future goodwill and sympathetic ears, you have to figure the Foundation staff would love this idea. The “Chelsea Clinton should run for Congress” rumors started just days after the election. Right now all the foundation can offer is time with a rapidly-aging former president and the biggest loser in the party’s history, the woman who fumbled away a sure thing to the most unpopular GOP rival ever. At least access to a future mayor might keep some donations going.

View Comments

“Globalism”

by Ramesh Ponnuru

Response To...

Trump Slogans, Operative and Inoperative

“What’s globalism, by the way?” asks Jay. I can imagine a definition for the word that would make it useful. It could denote the view that borders and sovereignty are outdated, or that we should have a global government over national ones, or that we should regard ourselves as having no greater obligations to fellow citizens than to foreigners. When I come across the word, though, its chief function seems to be to blur the distinction between such fringe views and the view that putting 35 percent tariffs on imports is a bad idea.

View Comments

O’s Adieu

by Jay Nordlinger

President Obama has written a farewell letter to the American people. Asked to comment on it, I read it. I found it pretty unremarkable: It is an apologia pro vita sua. Obama’s defense of himself and his tenure. It is full of spin, as such things are. In fact, it probably contains more spin than most documents of its kind.

Remember when John Edwards had the theme of Two Americas? I thought of it when reading Obama’s letter. He has one view of today’s America — America after eight years of O — and this view is probably shared by half the country, give or take. The other half think it’s nuts.

Obama’s letter can be read as a warm-up for his memoirs. It also reads like a State of the Union address, encompassing eight years. In any event, it is dull. It’s an expression of Obamite boilerplate and spin. And yet there are noteworthy lines within it, and I will note a few of them.

Like many presidents, Obama takes credit for positive things that happened during his time in office — no matter what. He says, “Our dependence on foreign oil has been cut by more than half.”

Yes, oil and gas have undergone a “renaissance” in America. That is the phrase of Harold Hamm, the Oklahoma oilman (and modern-day Horatio Alger figure). He talks of “the American renaissance in oil and gas.”

Obama and his party stood in the way of this renaissance. It happened despite them, not because of them. One state, North Dakota, had an oil boom, because this state is largely in private hands, not federal. I could explain why. (Has to do with the perceived homeliness of North Dakota.)

North Dakota was able to take advantage of a magnificent new marriage: fracking, which is an old technique, and horizontal drilling, which is a relatively new one. This marriage meant a bonanza.

In 2012, I wrote a report from North Dakota — a fascinating environment — and, since I am in promotional mode, I will mention that the report appears in a new collection, Digging In. (“Drilling In”?)

End of plugola — for now.

In his letter, Obama writes that, when he took office, “nearly 180,000 American troops were serving in harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Those troops have been drawn down, to be sure. But you are entitled to ask, How has Iraq fared? Did our gains, achieved at such terrible cost, stick? How is Afghanistan faring?

Those are things that a president might address, in a summing up.

This letter contains a striking sentence — a radical one, a utopian one, one that comes straight from campus. Discussing economic matters, Obama writes, “We’ve actually begun the long task of reversing inequality.”

I don’t mean to make too much of this, but: In a free society, there will be economic inequality. You can’t have freedom without it. Unfree societies have inequality too, as a ruling few lord it over the many. But in a free society, prosperity overall is maximized. Do away with inequality, and you will have to do away with freedom, too.

It is — I heard this phrase for several months running — a binary choice.

If there is news in Obama’s letter, it is this: “Through diplomacy, we shut down Iran’s nuclear weapons program.” Really? As they say on Twitter, “Big if true.” If Iran has indeed shut down its nuclear-weapons program, we should celebrate in the streets. And I would award Obama two, three, thirty Nobel Peace Prizes.

I wonder whether the president meant to go as far as he did in his letter.

In my memory, every president, on leaving office — or on leaving life — says that America’s best days are ahead. Obama says this too, in the final sentence of his letter. This surprised me a bit, and pleasantly.

View Comments

Mass Shooting at Fort Lauderdale Airport

by David French

A lone gunman has apparently opened fire in the baggage claim area of Fort Lauderdale airport. At first the reports were of nine wounded, then one dead, then three. The toll keeps rising:

Authorities say five people were killed and eight were wounded after a lone suspect opened fire at the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, international airport.

The Broward County Sheriff’s Office tweeted the information following Friday afternoon’s shooting.

Broward County Mayor Barbara Sharief told CNN that authorities “have an active crime scene investigation involving terminal 2.”

News stations showed video of medics taking care of a bleeding victim outside the airport. Helicopters hovering over the scene showed hundreds of people standing on the tarmac as an ambulance drove by and numerous law enforcement officers, including tactical units, rushed to the scene.

A suspect is reportedly in custody, but we’re still in the “mass confusion” stage of early reporting. And tweets and reports are still showing people running away:

There is no word yet of the motive or identity of the attacker. As always, take early reports with a grain of salt. In chaotic situations, first reporting is often wrong reporting. We’ll post updates as the facts develop.

Update 1: Authorities are investigating reports of more shots fired:

Update 2: Senator Bill Nelson identified the shooter as Esteban Santiago and said he was carrying a military ID. It seems unusual that a senator would ID the suspect, so I’m taking this news with a dose of skepticism, for now. There is still no word regarding motive. 

Update 3: First reports on how the shooter attacked:

Update 4: Multiple sources are now confirming that the shooter was Esteban Santiago. Here’s what we know about him so far:

Santiago was born in New Jersey, according to NBC News, and was a member of the U.S. Army National guard.

Santiago lived in Anchorage, Alaska from 2014 to 2016. Alaska court records show a criminal record there for minor traffic infractions including operating a vehicle without insurance and a broken taillight. Records also show his landlord evicted him for non-payment of rent in February 2015.

In January 2016, Santiago was charged with two misdemeanor crimes: one count of fourth-degree assault and another for damage of property over $50. According to a spokesperson from the Anchorage Police department the incident was related to domestic violence.

The case was resolved in March when Santiago entered into a deferred prosecution agreement, an alternative to adjudication where a state prosecutor dismissed the charges in exchange for Esteban’s completion of requirements that are unknown.

Update 5: I don’t know what to make of this, but it certainly is bizarre:

 

View Comments

Trump Slogans, Operative and Inoperative

by Jay Nordlinger

Any campaign worth its salt has a slogan or two, and the Trump campaign had more than most. There was #MAGA, of course — “Make America Great Again.” It appeared on the hat. And “Lock Her Up.” I recall that General Flynn had a hard time leading a chant of that one. And “America First.”

This last one — borrowed from Charles Lindbergh and Pat Buchanan — was always pitted against “globalism.” What’s “globalism,” by the way? Have the president-elect and his camp ever defined it? Trade? Alliances? Immigration? Engagement with the world?

And then there was “Drain the Swamp.”

When he was Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski gave an interview to Steve Bannon. In due course, Lewandowski would leave the campaign and Bannon would join it. During their interview, Lewandowski discussed what he called “the ruling class in Washington, D.C. — the party bosses, the K Street crowd, the lobbyists who control all these politicians.”

He said, “What you have is a series of people who’ve made a very, very good living by controlling politicians through their donations and making sure they get the legislation done,” etc. “And those days are coming to an end.”

After the election, something curious happened. Lewandowski told Fox News that “Drain the Swamp” was no longer so important. In fact, it was “probably somewhere down at the bottom” of the incoming administration’s priorities. For his part, Newt Gingrich told NPR that Trump was no longer interested in “Drain the Swamp.” He was through with the slogan, if not the concept. “I’m told he now just disclaims that,” said Gingrich.

Not so fast. Trump himself took to Twitter to correct his troops: “Someone incorrectly stated that the phrase ‘DRAIN THE SWAMP’ was no longer being used by me. Actually, we will always be trying to DTS.”

Along with an old colleague from the campaign, Corey Lewandowski is setting up shop a block from the White House. The next four years, or eight, may turn out to be pretty good for the “swamp.”

At one of Trump’s post-election rallies, the crowd started to chant “Lock Her Up.” Old habits — whipped-up habits — die hard. Trump said, “No, no. That plays great before the election. Now we don’t care, right?”

Ponder those words: “That plays great before the election.” In some ways, Trump is a non-politician, even an anti-politician. It is a key part of his appeal. But rarely will you hear a politician make a statement so openly cynical.

View Comments

A Suggestion for Reading Trump’s Tweets

by David French

Response To...

Stop Studying Trump's Tweets Like ...

I’d like to wholeheartedly endorse Jim Geraghty’s post. He’s right — “not every Trump tweet needs to dominate the news cycle for a day.” Indeed, I think there’s a framework for understanding and evaluating which tweets to take seriously and which to note and discard. By this point it’s pretty darn clear that not every tweet signifies a new action or policy.

For example, people got very upset over Trump tweeting, “The United States must greatly expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes,” but expanding nuclear capacity requires an immense financial and technical investment. It requires strategic reviews, plans, designs, and appropriations. Let’s wait and debate Trump’s new nuclear policy until, well, a new policy emerges.

Similarly, there was much hand-wringing over his tweet about flag-burning. News flash: POTUS can’t ban flag-burning. You can’t strip citizenship with a tweet. That takes legislation. That takes reversing Supreme Court precedent. So far, in the real world, his tweet has been little more than a flag-burning stimulus act, with left-wing protesters more than happy to torch Old Glory just to show they’re not afraid. 

There are times when the tweet is the action or reflects the action. If Trump attacks someone on Twitter, that’s a meaningful action because of the immediate real-world effect. If he announces a policy change that’s within his power to make, that reflects an action. So does announcing presidential appointments. As for everything else, I’d suggest a healthy dose of skepticism and perhaps a side portion of indifference.

Moreover, skepticism and indifference send a signal to allies and adversaries that they should also wait and see what Trump does before they react too much to what Trump says. Imagine if the next provocative tweet is greeted less with headlines and more with shrugs.

I’m not endorsing the way Trump tweets, and he doesn’t care if anyone does. By now, we know he’s going to do what he wants. But we can certainly decide how we react. He’ll be president in less than two weeks, and presidents have to take actions. Let those actions speak louder than his tweeted words.  

 

View Comments

A Look at the December Jobs Report

by Robert Stein

While job growth continues to look like a plow horse, wage growth is starting to look like a thoroughbred. Payrolls grew a moderate 156,000 in December. But, like we mentioned last month, payrolls were revised up for November, north of 200,000 versus an original report of 178,000. Look for another upward revision, this time to December, one month from now.

Civilian employment, an alternative measure of jobs that includes small-business start-ups, rose a modest 63,000 in December. In the past year, payrolls are up 180,000/month while civilian employment is up 182,000/month. Look for similar gains in 2017.

The best news in today’s report, though, was on wages, which increased 0.4 percent in December and are up 2.9 percent from a year ago, the fastest growth so far in the economic expansion. Combined with data on the number of hours worked, total wages, which exclude fringe benefits and irregular bonuses/commissions, were up 0.6 percent in December and are up 4 percent versus a year ago, more than enough to outpace inflation. This will help keep the Federal Reserve on track for raising rates three times this year, like its “dot plot” suggested in December.

Although the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.7 percent in December, that follows a large decline to 4.6 percent in November. Overall, the jobless rate dropped 0.3 points in 2016 and we expect a similar gradual drop in 2017, as the labor force continues to grow. The labor force grew 1.8 million in 2016, the largest gain for any calendar year in the past decade.

Some analysts may claim most of the job gains in December were part time. But the data on full-time/part-time work are very volatile from month to month. In the past seven years (since December 2009), part-time jobs are up 416,000 while full-times jobs are up 13.7 million.

Other analysts will point out that the number of people not in the labor force (neither working nor looking for work) hit a new record high in December. But this was true in the 1990s and 2000s expansions as well, due to population growth. Now we have retiring Baby Boomers as well, who are also driving this trend.

The labor market is a still far cry from where it would be with a better set of policies, but it looks like some of these policies are on the way.

View Comments

Speaking of Repeal and Replace

by Rich Lowry
Here is our editorial today on how to go about repealing Obamacare:

On health care, congressional Republicans should listen to Donald Trump. The president-elect may not be chock-full of ideas about health-care policy, but he has the right political instincts. He has said that Obamacare should be replaced, that its beneficiaries should not simply be stripped of coverage, and that people with pre-existing conditions should be protected. It is possible and desirable to devise legislation that meets these objectives. Trump has also warned congressional Republicans to be careful — and he is right about that, too, because their current course does not look likely to accomplish the repeal of Obamacare or its replacement by something better….

The core of a conservative replacement of Obamacare — a replacement that is simultaneously a repeal — would be the end of the federal government’s role as chief regulator of health insurance and the restoration of the states to that position. Simplify the tax credits, pare them back if possible, and allow them to be used for any insurance policy that meets these two conditions: The policy meets the approval of state regulators, and people who maintain coverage can continue to buy such coverage at the same price if they get sick. People would have much more freedom to buy the coverage that meets their specifications rather than those of Washington regulators; they would have the means to buy basic coverage; and they would have the incentive to do it as well (since maintaining coverage would protect them in the event they got sick).
 
The mandate to buy insurance — a mandate that came into existence in order to counter the side effects of Obamacare’s onerous regulations — should simultaneously be abolished. And most people on Medicaid should be given the option to cash out their benefits and buy insurance on the regular, private market.
 
Too many congressional Republicans think that conservatives will take a quick but phony win on health care. We disagree. A real win is worth the time and effort.

View Comments