Jan. 08--Tribune opinion writers Eric Zorn and Kristen McQueary have reconvened the Common Sense Caucus for a series of written conversations about the race for the White House.
To Kristen:
I hope you're sitting down, because I'd like to begin by defending Ted Cruz.
Despite the insinuations by his fellow Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump, Cruz, the U.S. senator from Texas whom I generally and otherwise consider a nasty piece of work, is fully eligible under the Constitution to become president.
In recent days, Trump has been reminding voters that Cruz was born in Canada, and that the Constitution requires that the president be a "natural-born citizen" of the United States. Thing is, Cruz's mother was a citizen -- born in Delaware, residing temporarily in Calgary at the time -- and so Cruz was automatically a U.S. citizen at birth, the only logical definition of "natural-born citizen."
To suggest otherwise -- that the founders slipped a booby trap into the Constitution to discourage pregnant women from foreign travel lest their offspring be denied the opportunity to become president -- is so absurd and unsupported by case law as to suggest that Trump is getting desperate.
Yes, recent polling averages show he has a 15-percentage-point lead over Cruz nationally and a 14-point lead over Florida Sen. Marco Rubio among voters in New Hampshire, site of the first primary on Feb. 9. But in the middle of last month, Cruz surged past Trump in Iowa, site of the Feb. 1 party caucuses, and maintains an average four-point lead.
Even though Iowa is a quirky state with a spotty record for picking GOP winners, Trump really doesn't want to lose there. He's in a three-way battle with Cruz and fading retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson to be the top "outsider" candidate, the favorite of hard-core social conservatives who, presumably, will end up pitted for the nomination against whoever turns out to be the top "insider" candidate, the favorite of the party establishment.
So stuff's starting to get real. Not only is Trump taking wild swings at Cruz, but also the trailing "insider" candidates are unleashing attack ads on one another in efforts to do well enough in the four contests in February to be in position to make a decisive showing in the primaries or caucuses on March 1, Super Tuesday.
The division between these factions seems particularly profound, as though this time there will be no kissing and making up at the Republican National Convention. As you look at the split in the GOP field, do you see anything worse than the usual quadrennial big-tent factional bickering? Do you see the seeds for a viable third-party run?
To Eric:
You are correct about the presidential race getting real -- real comical. I've never allowed myself to get caught up in the birther debate, whether aimed at Democrats or Republicans. Republican Sen. John McCain was born in Panama. President Barack Obama, a Democrat, was born in Hawaii. Trump was born in Queens with a silver spoon. May we move on?
Allow me to downgrade to less cerebral terrain. Did you see Trump's first television advertisement? PolitiFact deemed it "pants on fire" misleading due to a scene that appears to depict migrants flowing illegally across the U.S./Mexican border. In fact, it's footage from an Italian news network that showed migrants in 2014 crossing into Melilla from Morocco.
No big deal, Trump's campaign manager responded. Actually, he explained more vividly to a major news outlet: "No sh-- it's not the Mexican border, but that's what our country is going to look like. This was 1,000 percent on purpose."
More evidence that Trump, along with his campaign team, often sound like they're auditioning for the reality TV show "Jersey Shore." At one point in the ad, a nearly breathless male voice says Trump will ban Muslims from entering the U.S. "until we can figure out what's going on."
Did the writers nail down the script on a cocktail napkin? In a bar?
I didn't find the ad as offensive as I did laughable. The voice-over, the verbiage and the scenes felt more like a "Saturday Night Live" commercial spoof than a leading presidential contender's political ad debut. Actually, the product spoofs so expertly crafted by comedy writers at SNL -- my favorite, "Depends Legends" adult diapers -- are of higher quality. And impact.
Trump is finally starting to slip, at least in Iowa where evangelical voters are leaning toward Cruz. Cruz is not my pick either, but I trust he can produce substantive, serious campaign ads that appeal to grown-ups. Am I expecting too much?
To Kristen:
In light of all the impolitic and imprecise things Trump has gotten away with saying these last few months, getting caught taking liberties with stock footage will probably not prove his undoing.
But a strong challenge from Cruz might.
Trump's in a delicate position. He needs to erode Cruz's support without excessively alienating Cruz's supporters. Accordingly, his birther blather seems ill-advised, not just nonsensical. Needlessly poisonous. Self-disqualifying.
Will Cruz respond with "substantive, serious campaign ads" -- commercials rooted in fact and imbued with the politeness for which Canadian-born people are famous? I have my doubts.
The comical is going to get nasty. But not as nasty as the general election is likely to be, particularly if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Trump is already hammering her for having been an enabler of her husband's unwholesome and some say predatory extramarital escapades.
I admit to a queasiness at having to relive the alleged and real Clinton scandals of the 1990s -- overlooking what you can't defend is wearying. But because elections are famously about the future and not the past, my guess is that the voting public won't be swayed by retrospective indignation.
Or am I too high-minded? Will Bill Clinton's misbehavior be an issue for you?
To Eric:
Bill Clinton's behavior has always been an issue from the moment he, at a 1998 news conference, lied that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman," Monica Lewinsky. His serial affairs were one thing. Blatantly and repeatedly lying about it to the American public was another.
Does Hillary Clinton deserve any taint for the transgressions of her husband? I agree with GOP female leaders who say no. Nancy Dwight, former director of the National Republican Congressional Committee, told USA Today that Trump and other GOP candidates should soundly reject any conjecture that she was an "enabler" of her sex-addicted, lying husband.
"She was as aghast by her husband's behavior as the rest of us," Dwight said.
Bill Clinton in his lengthy memoir "My Life" -- yes, I read it -- admitted how he finally broke the truth of the Lewinsky affair to Hillary. He described her disgust at him, and herself, for believing his lies, and the pain it caused.
I say, enough about that chapter on the Clintons. Want to attack Hillary? There's plenty of legitimate, applicable material.
And let's not forget Trump's own admitted transgressions. He's the one seeking the presidency. He deserves that scrutiny. Lay off the former first lady.
Listen to Eric Zorn and Kristen McQueary every Friday on the WGN-plus podcast "The Mincing Rascals," available on iTunes.
Twitter @EricZorn
Twitter @StatehouseChick
Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @Trib_Ed_Board and on Facebook.
