April 15--Will I now concede that my bold New Year's prediction -- the Republican Party will be in such disarray after a fractious primary season that convention delegates will nominate U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin for president -- was wrong?
Ryan, the Speaker of the House and 2012 vice presidential candidate, called a news conference Tuesday to dispel just such speculation and could hardly have been more definitive: "Let me be clear: I do not want nor will I accept the nomination of our party," he said. "I should not be considered. Period. End of story."
But think about it. Ryan's rejection was exactly what a secretly hopeful noncandidate almost has to say under the circumstances. If he has any hope of emerging from the mid-July convention in Cleveland with the support of disgruntled backers of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich -- the actual remaining candidates -- he has to appear to have been a supremely reluctant compromise choice, one who virtually had to be dragged to the podium to give his acceptance speech.
If he appears to have been campaigning for the appointment or otherwise undermining the declared candidates in any way, the bitter, disappointed factions will be far less likely to unify behind him.
And, as many have pointed out, Ryan played the "I'm not interested" card very deftly in October when insiders were begging him to run for speaker. He demurred, deflected and denied until at last his colleagues all but begged him to take the job, at which point he played the "well ... if you insist" card that I usually play when offered a second helping of birthday cake.
On the other hand, Ryan's statement also was exactly what someone would say if he wanted to preserve his long-term presidential ambitions by keeping as far away as possible from what's shaping up to be a train-wreck presidential season for Republicans.
Either way, he had to say it. And I continue to find all other predictions just as unimaginable.
Send the debate audiences home!
It's not true that "The Maury Show" is suing the Democratic Party for its unauthorized use of the program's signature rambunctious studio audience during Thursday night's New York presidential primary debate between Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
But it should be. The debate crowd cheered, jeered, hooted, hollered and laughed just like the frenzied fans of host Maury Povich's daily syndicated circus of family dysfunction. The crowd was even more rowdy than audiences at recent GOP debates.
Not to get too prissy on you, but political debates at this level, with this much at stake, ought to be as dignified as possible. And if there must be an audience, it should be seen and not heard, permitted to applaud once at the beginning of the event and once at the end.
The point of these exchanges is not to show who can best play to a crowd that's stocked with various supporters, but who can best communicate his or her ideas to the undecided or wavering voters out there in TV land; who can best articulate a vision for the future, parry arguments and respond to difficult challenges.
Transcript-gate
Speaking of difficult challenges, Clinton has repeatedly and conspicuously failed to answer the call for her to release the transcripts of the three speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs for which she was paid a total of $675,000.
CNN debate co-moderator Dana Bash tried again Thursday night: "If there's nothing in those speeches that you think would change voters' minds, why not just release the transcripts and put this whole issue to bed?" Bash asked.
Clinton first responded as though she hadn't understood the question: "When I was in public service serving as the senator from New York, I did stand up to the banks," she said. "I'm not saying that Sen. Sanders did something untoward when he voted to deregulate swaps and derivatives, but the fact is he did."
When Bash pressed the point, Clinton called the demand for transcripts "a new expectation" of presidential candidates and changed the subject to Sanders' failure to release his tax returns.
"We're going to get to the tax returns later," Bash said. "But just to put a button on this, you're running now for the Democratic nomination, and it is your Democratic opponent and many Democratic voters who want to see those transcripts."
"Let's set the same standard for everybody," Clinton said. "When everybody does it, OK, I will do it."
Ugh. This issue has been festering since early February when Clinton responded with a wan "I'll look into it" when Sanders asked her for those transcripts during a debate in Durham, N.H., and her answers have become more stubborn and evasive.
At this point, the fair-minded observer -- even one who, like me, thinks Clinton is the Democrats' best bet in November -- has to assume that the speeches were so unctuous, so fawning and so flattering to the Wall Street titans that publishing them would damage her campaign far more than it's being damaged by how guilty and evasive she appears every time the subject of the transcripts comes up.
Make that nine
To the article in Wednesday's Tribune headlined "Kids and cellphones: 8 rules to live by" by freelance writer David Hopkins, I would add a rule that my wife and I failed to follow with our kids -- now young adults -- but wish we had:
No private passwords to phones or other electronic devices or to any websites or social media sites until you're 18. We won't often be up in your business, but we reserve the right.
Make the rule early. Enforce it consistently. Thank me later.
Re: Tweets
Voted funniest tweet this week by readers in the U.S. and 13 other countries was "I saw an ad for burial plots and I thought, 'That's the last thing I need,'" by @JohnLyonTweets.
