Trump Deserves to be Taken Seriously After Surviving Round One: Michael Goodwin, New York Post, Sept. 27, 2016 — Her smile betrayed Hillary Clinton.
Beyond Partisanship: Editorial, Jerusalem Post, Sept. 26, 2016 — While in New York, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with the presidential candidates of both major parties.
Sizing Up the Next Commander-in-Chief: Robert M. Gates, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 16, 2016 — You wouldn’t know it from the presidential campaigns, but the first serious crisis to face our new president most likely will be international.
The Construct of the White Working-Class Zombies: Victor Davis Hanson, National Review, Sept. 26, 2016 — One of the strangest transformations in the era of Obama has been the overt and often gratuitous stereotyping of so-called white people…
Trump Vs. Clinton: First Debate Highlights (Video): Breaking Israel News, Sept. 27, 2016
No Wobbles, Tantrums or Knockouts on a Relatively Good Night for Trump: David Horovitz, Times of Israel, Sept. 27, 2016
Study Shows US Jewish Votes Could Play Decisive Role in Swing States: Penny Schwartz, Times of Israel, Sept. 23, 2016
If Hillary Loses, Democrats Face a Long Time in Exile: Michael Barone, New York Post, Sept. 23, 2016
TRUMP DESERVES TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY
Michael Goodwin
New York Post, Sept. 27, 2016
Her smile betrayed Hillary Clinton. It was too long, too frequent and obviously planned. It was a silent statement that she, the mature adult on the stage, was showing the stoic forbearance of a saint against an unruly child. But the unruly child didn’t cooperate with her plan. Donald Trump was a brawler from start to finish and played very rough, but was never wild, and was nowhere near the monster she needed him to be. Maybe now she will take him seriously. She’d better if she wants to be president.
Going into the first debate, Trump had to step over a very low bar. All he had to do was reassure voters that he was neither a lunatic nor an idiot, and could control his temper for 90 minutes. He cleared the bar, delivering a series of passionate moments on issues of substance, such as trade, jobs and taxes in the first few minutes. And while he regressed into an old habit of wandering into rhetorical dead ends, interrupting, making faces and talking too much about his business, he never lost his cool in a way that would have been a disaster.
Clinton faced several key challenges, too. One, given her health issues, was to avoid a coughing fit or show any signs of physical distress. A second was to display her preparation and vast library of knowledge without getting lost in the weeds, and a third was to get under Trump’s skin. Check, check and check. Mission accomplished.
Yet while both candidates achieved most of what they had to, the result isn’t equal. A slugfest standoff, which is what America witnessed last night, is much better for Trump than it is for Clinton. She is the de facto incumbent and his merely surviving benefits him as the challenger. He wobbled at times and was not as orderly in his preparation, but proved he could take her best punches on the big stage. It wasn’t his best night, but it was good enough.
If that sounds as though the Republican nominee is being graded on a curve to win the most powerful and important office in the world, don’t blame Trump. Blame Clinton and her media handmaidens. Their synchronized effort to demonize Trump and paint him as being temperamentally unfit to be president is not working. They set the bar too low by defining Trump as way outside the lines of normal political discourse, and therefore an unacceptable alternative to her. Tens of millions of Americans don’t agree. Moreover, the strategy also gives Trump a challenge he could handle and control over his own destiny. For last night at least, he beat the Clinton juggernaut at their own game.
Chalk the mistake up to Clinton arrogance. As it did with Bernie Sanders, who almost grabbed the Democratic nomination from her, Clinton’s team never took Trump seriously. They assumed that general-election voters wouldn’t, either. Even more amazing, they apparently still believe that if only they keep describing him as unqualified, the public will get on board and the Trump candidacy will collapse. Just the other day, Clinton asked union supporters, “Why aren’t I 50 points ahead?,” suggesting she still doesn’t understand why the race is even competitive, let alone a dead heat.
At the same time, her own problems — an image of being dishonest and untrustworthy — are not things she can fix or control. Her only hope is that Trump would come off as too risky for most voters, and the smile would be her way of saying, “I told you so.” He still might cooperate, but not last night. He flirted with danger, yet did not get tripped up or make any huge mistakes. No surprise, she did benefit from the decisions of moderator Lester Holt. He asked only one brief question about her email scandal without mentioning the FBI investigation, and never raised the family foundation scandals.
Fairness dictated Holt should have pressed Clinton more, especially because he asked Trump about two hot-button issues: the Obama birther issue in the context of race, and why he hadn’t released his personal income taxes. But even that imbalance ultimately might serve Trump. The test was survival, and media bias is fuel for his movement. So even after an unfair fight, he lives to fight another day. We’ll know in a few days whether undecided voters were moved in either direction, but my guess is that the race still will be close when the second debate comes around in 12 days.
Editorial
Jerusalem Post, Sept. 26, 2016
While in New York, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with the presidential candidates of both major parties. To his credit, Netanyahu managed to maintain a statesmanlike neutrality that reflects America’s broad, non-partisan support for Israel. The prime minister was less successful at doing this in the previous presidential elections, during which he was perceived as favoring Mitt Romney over Barack Obama.
In the months that remain until the November presidential election, Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders should strive to maintain their neutrality. The ties between Israel and the US are too strong and profound to turn support for Israel into a partisan issue. Israel is an American ally in the most profound meaning of the word, and this should be reflected in our diplomacy. Regardless of which party receives a mandate from the American people to enter the White House, relations with the US will remain strong. That is apparent from the statements made by both candidates, but it is also self-evident from the very nature of the alliance between the US and Israel. In every significant way Israel and America are allies.
Ideologically speaking, Israel shares America’s values. Though they developed differently, the democratic institutions of both countries are informed by many of the same ideals. The founding fathers of both countries were influenced by the Bible’s skeptical and ambiguous approach to absolutism and the divine right of kings and its insistence on the basic dignity of every human being as made in the image of God.
Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are protected in both countries even in the most extreme of cases. In Israel, Arab Israeli parliamentarians speaking in the Knesset are permitted to voice radically anti-Zionist positions; Israeli policies on the West Bank are regularly and publicly attacked; even the most high-ranking officials are not immune to muckraking. In America, the right to express the most distasteful opinions – from Holocaust denial to white supremacism to radical criticism of US policies abroad – is zealously defended.
Tactically, Israel identifies with and promotes the US’s global vision of promoting freedom. Israel’s army is formidable and completely loyal to its democratically elected governments. The Jewish state helps to secure America’s borders and its interests and protects the lives of Americans – not just in the Middle East but elsewhere. Economically, Israel’s dynamic hi-tech industry – tightly related to its defense sector – develops both civilian and military technologies that have helped upgrade American capabilities. And Israel helps stimulate the US economy through trade, technological innovation and job creation.
Israel is the only Middle Eastern state never to oppose America on major international issues. Unlike other true US allies such as European states, Israel is one of the few countries aligned with the US that not only has the will but also the wherewithal to aid the US when necessary. Though Israel is a tiny country, the IDF is said to be larger than the French and British armies combined. Throughout the decades since its creation, Israel has been in constant conflict with its neighbors, which has forced it to maintain a superbly trained and equipped military that is capable of mobilizing within a few hours. Both candidates understand this as do the vast majority of Americans, regardless of their party affiliation.
Foreign policy “realists” have attempted to argue that the US’s open support for Israel is detrimental to American interests. If America were to reduce its exposure to Muslim criticism of Israel by limiting its ties with the Jewish state, it would be beneficial to US interests, they say. But these realists – who see themselves as driven solely by rational considerations – forget that this line of thinking leads to increasingly larger concessions and compromises on the sorts of basic values shared by the US and Israel. For just as the US’s close ties with Israel anger Islamists, so does America’s defense of gender equality, its defense of the freedom of speech, its support for religious freedom…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
SIZING UP THE NEXT COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF
Robert M. Gates
Wall Street Journal, Sept. 16, 2016
You wouldn’t know it from the presidential campaigns, but the first serious crisis to face our new president most likely will be international. The list of possibilities is long—longer than it was eight years ago. Here is the world the new president will inherit at noon on January 20—a range of challenges for which neither candidate has offered new strategies or paths forward.
Every aspect of our relationship with China is becoming more challenging. In addition to Chinese cyberspying and theft of intellectual property, many American businesses in China are encountering an increasingly hostile environment. China’s nationalist determination unilaterally to assert sovereignty over disputed waters and islands in the East and South China Seas is steadily increasing the risk of military confrontation.
Most worrying, given their historic bad blood, escalation of a confrontation between China and Japan could be very dangerous. As a treaty partner of Japan, we would be obligated to help Tokyo. China intends to challenge the U.S. for regional dominance in East Asia over the long term, but the new president could quickly face a Chinese military challenge over disputed islands and freedom of navigation. Dealing effectively with China requires a president with strategic acumen and vision, nuance, deft diplomatic and political skill, and sound instincts on when to challenge, when to stay silent and when to compromise or partner.
On this most complex challenge, neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump has said or done much to give anyone confidence. All we really know is Mr. Trump’s intention to launch a trade war with a country holding over $1 trillion in U.S. debt and the largest market for many U.S. companies; and Mrs. Clinton’s opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which she helped to craft and the failure of which would hand China an easy political and economic win.
Then there is Vladimir Putin’s Russia, now routinely challenging the U.S. and its allies. How to count the ways. There was the armed seizure of Ukraine’s Crimea; Moscow’s military support of the separatist movement in eastern Ukraine; overt and covert intimidation of the Baltic states; the dispatch of fighter and bomber aircraft to avert the defeat of Syria’s Assad; sales of sophisticated weaponry to Iran.
There is Russia’s luring the U.S. secretary of state into believing that a cease-fire in Syria is just around the corner—if only the U.S. would do more, or less, depending on the issue; the cyberattacks on the U.S., including possible attempts to influence the U.S. presidential election; and covert efforts to aggravate division and weakness with the European Union and inside European countries. And there is the dangerously close buzzing of U.S. Navy ships in the Baltic Sea and close encounters with U.S. military aircraft in international airspace.
The only thing longer than the list of hostile Russian actions abroad is the list of repressive actions inside Russia to stifle dissent and strengthen Mr. Putin’s security services-run state. Mr. Putin will continue to behave aggressively until confronted and stopped. No one in the West wants a return to the Cold War, so the challenge is to confront and stop Mr. Putin’s aggressions while pursuing cooperation on international challenges that can only be addressed successfully if Russia is at the table—from terrorism to climate change, from the Syrian conflict to nuclear nonproliferation and arms control. Again, neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Trump has expressed any views on how they would deal with Mr. Putin (although Mr. Trump’s expressions of admiration for the man and his authoritarian regime are naive and irresponsible).
North Korea and Iran are sworn enemies of the U.S. North Korean potentate Kim Jong Un is building more nuclear weapons for his arsenal even as he develops ballistic missiles that now, or very soon, can reach all of our allies (and U.S. military forces) in Asia. During the first term of the next president these missiles will be able to reach the U.S. mainland.
On his good days, Kim Jong Un appears to outsiders as a cartoonish megalomaniac; on his bad days, he seems to yearn for a Gotterdammerung finale in which a perishing North Korea takes a lot of Asians and Americans with it. Or is he simply continuing to pursue a strategy designed to preserve his rule and North Korea’s independence through nuclear blackmail? The new U.S. president could face an early North Korean provocation against the South, the Japanese or us, and for sure will be confronted by a long-term strategic nuclear threat to our allies and to America.
Regarding Iran, whatever value Mr. Obama’s nuclear agreement has brought, the deal has led to no decrease in Iran’s aggressive meddling in the Middle East nor any lessening of its hostility to the U.S. Iranian naval challenges to U.S. warship operations in the Persian Gulf have nearly doubled over the last year. Iran will do all it can to embarrass the U.S.—such as allowing Russian planes to use Iranian airfields to attack the Syrian opposition and testing ballistic missiles—even as it strives to eject us from the entire region. Our new president had best be prepared for an early test of U.S. resolve in the Persian Gulf and Iran’s continuing regional subversion.
While Mrs. Clinton gave a speech on Iran over a year ago, she has since offered no inkling of her views and has said little about North Korea. Mr. Trump has said nary a word on the challenge posed by either country. Both candidates have spelled out how they would deal with ISIS, and terrorism more broadly, but their approach in essence sounds like what President Obama is doing now—with more ideological fervor and some additional starch. Neither has addressed what the broader U.S. strategy should be toward a Middle East in flames, from Syria to Iraq to Libya, and where Gulf Arab states worry about their own stability amid growing doubts they can rely on the U.S.; both Egypt and Turkey are ruled by increasingly authoritarian strongmen; and an Israeli-Palestinian conflict further from resolution than ever.
Mr. Trump has suggested we should walk away from the region and hope for the best. This is a dangerous approach oblivious to the reality that what happens in the Middle East doesn’t stay in the Middle East. Mrs. Clinton has ruled out putting U.S. ground troops in Iraq and Syria “ever again.” That is a politically driven categorical declaration of a sort no president (or candidate) should make, and it raises the question whether she would pull out the 5,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq. She has expressed no new ideas to deal with the boiling caldron that is today’s Middle East…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
THE CONSTRUCT OF THE WHITE WORKING-CLASS ZOMBIES
Victor Davis Hanson
National Review, Sept. 26, 2016
One of the strangest transformations in the era of Obama has been the overt and often gratuitous stereotyping of so-called white people — most often the white working classes who have become constructed into veritable unthinking and unrecognizable zombies. For progressives especially these were not the sympathetic old foundation of the Democratic party, who were once romanticized as the “people” pitted against the industrialists and the bluestockings, but rather have become monstrous caricatures of all sorts of incorrect race/class/and gender behavior and speech.
Stranger still, this disparagement was concurrent to the release of a variety of recent studies that have shown that the white working class has been “losing ground” in far more dramatic terms than have other ethnic groups, especially in key areas such as health and life expectancy. Such news might once have earned liberal sympathies rather than derision. Odder still, the so-called one percenters — that includes high percentages of whites, who have benefited from globalization and changes in the U.S. economy — are often precisely those who damn the less fortunate for supposedly enjoying racially based privileges that are largely confined to themselves.
Obama himself had long ago made popular the idea that there are not individual white people, good and bad, lazy and industrious, but more generally a collective Borg of racist and culpable “white people.” Or, as he characterized his own “effective” tricks over clueless whites in his admittedly fictional memoir Dreams from My Father, “it was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: [White] People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.”
The president himself repeatedly amplified this emphasis on clueless retrograde whites during his two presidential campaigns, which in toto can be fairly characterized as a refutation of his earlier admirable 2004 speech at the Democratic convention (‘There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America”).
Indeed, on a number of occasions during the 2008 campaign, Obama reverted to the “white men” tropes earlier found in Dreams from My Father and commonly heard in Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity Church. In Obama’s much heralded March 2008 apologia (“A More Perfect Union”) for intimacy with the racist Reverend Wright, he drew a moral equivalence between the racist firebrand Wright and his own grandmother, who had sacrificed to send him to prep school (“I can no more disown him [Wright] than I can my white grandmother”).
When later he was called on equating Wright’s racism with his clueless grandmother’s supposed racist fears of being alone on a street with young African-American males (in the manner that progressives such as Jesse Jackson, Mark Cuban, and Lena Dunham have similarly confessed), Obama further dismissed her with the curt remark that “she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, you know, there’s a reaction that’s been bred in our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that’s just the nature of race in our society.” In a public reading of Dreams From My Father in Cambridge, Mass., in September 1995, a young Obama emulated his prejudicial grandmother’s supposedly nerdy white accent.
“Typical” (along with “they” and “them”) is a favorite stereotyping adjective of Obama’s and reappeared recently during his Laos trip, when he blasted Americans as racist: “Typically, when people feel stressed, they turn on others who don’t look like them.” That invoked memories of his clinger speech eight years earlier. After losing the Pennsylvania primary, Obama generalized the white working classes as mindless zombies of a xenophobic and racist sort who had not supported his candidacy: “And it’s not surprising, then. They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
In repeatedly emphasizing “they” and “them,” Obama sought to reinvent the country into two groups — one, a noble if not long-suffering ascendant coalition of various aware racial minorities, aided by largely sympathetic but naïve and condescending well-meaning whites. The other half were the “lazy” Americans who in times of economic stress “typically” revealed their innate ignorance through racism and nativism…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
Trump Vs. Clinton: First Debate Highlights (Video): Breaking Israel News, Sept. 27, 2016—Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton face off in the first of three major debates which both hope will tip the scales in their favor.
No Wobbles, Tantrums or Knockouts on a Relatively Good Night for Trump: David Horovitz, Times of Israel, Sept. 27, 2016—It may have been primetime American TV, but the first Hillary Clinton-Donald Trump presidential debate came at an awkward time for Israel, getting underway at 4 in the morning. And for those here who stayed or got up, there was nary a reference to us to lift our tired, pre-dawn spirits — no direct mention of Israel, and just a single Trump namecheck of our prime minister.
Study Shows US Jewish Votes Could Play Decisive Role in Swing States: Penny Schwartz, Times of Israel, Sept. 23, 2016—A new study, touted as the first-ever state-by-state, county-by-county Jewish population estimate, shows how the Jewish vote could play a crucial role in key battleground states.
If Hillary Loses, Democrats Face a Long Time in Exile: Michael Barone, New York Post, Sept. 23, 2016—There’s been lots of speculation about the fate of the Republican Party if (as most of the prognosticators expect and hope) Donald Trump loses. There’s been less speculation, though recent polling suggests it may be in order, about the fate of the Democratic Party if Hillary Clinton loses.
