We begin today's roundup with
Eugene Robinson:
It has dawned on the Republican presidential field that Donald Trump’s inevitable self-destruction might be, gulp, evitable. Waiting for the unlikely front-runner to beat himself is starting to look like a plan, as Trump might put it, for total losers.
So the other candidates are trying various strategies to seize the initiative. Thus far, nothing seems to work.
The worst idea is to try to out-Trump Trump. This is the approach Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker — who may be suffering the most from the Trump surge — is trying to take.
Robert Costa and Philip Rucker at The Washington Post:
Though flummoxed by Trump’s staying power and aghast at the coarse tone he has brought to the race, party elites said they have no plan to take him down. Donors feel powerless. Republican officials have little leverage. Candidates are skittish. Super PAC operatives say attack ads against him could backfire. And everyone agrees that the Trump factor in this chaotic multi-candidate field is so unpredictable that any move carries dangerous risks.
The non-Trump candidates are falling into three categories: Those who are emulating and befriending him in an effort to win over his supporters; those who are assailing his background or calling him out for his views and rhetoric; and those who prefer to stay silent, as if hunkering down in the basement to ride out the tornado.
The New York Times:
You could say the front-running Mr. Trump has put his opponents in a bind. Or you could say he has given them a gift: the opportunity to be specific in return about what they would do to fix the immigration mess. And to be forthright in rejecting his despicable proposals. Because his plan is so naked — in its scapegoating of immigrants, its barely subtextual racism, its immense cruelty in seeking to reduce millions of people to poverty and hopelessness — it gives his opponents the chance for a very clear moral decision. They can stand up for better values, and against the collective punishment of millions of innocent Americans-in-waiting.
But as Mr. Trump swells in the polls, his diminished opponents are following in his wake, like remoras on a shark. Several have shuffled onto the anti-birthright-citizenship bus, including Rick Santorum, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ben Carson and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey. Even Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who once fought for smart bipartisan immigration reform, wants to repeal birthright citizenship. As does Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, a birthright citizen himself. As for Mr. Trump’s other restrictionist proposals, several are firmly lodged again in the playbook of a Republican Party that briefly tried to reform itself after the Mitt Romney debacle. Some candidates are even willing to try to trump Mr. Trump in xenophobia: Mr. Carson is talking about using armed military drones at the border. That’s right — bombing Arizona.
Patti Solis Doyle on her family's history and birthright citizenship:
Pa didn't want his children to have to drop out of school like he did. So Pa traveled to Chicago twice (illegally) and was deported each time. When his work visa finally came through, he moved there for good. [...] Trump's "birthright citizenship" agenda -- still undefined -- could cut closer to home, however. Juny and I were born in the United States before our parents became citizens. My four other siblings earned their citizenship years after arriving. What would Trump do with us? There is a cost to stripping me and my brothers and sisters of our citizenship -- a cost to us, to Chicago and to the country.
Trump wants to "make America great again," and he believes that immigrants are weakening it. I disagree. America is great, and that has a lot to do with the fact it was built by people, like my father, who sacrificed to get here.
Mr. Trump, for all of your harsh rhetoric, I think you would have liked Pa, too.
I am not so sure, however, if Pa would have liked you.
Paul Waldman at The Week:
[T]hey're only responding to their electorate. Look, for instance, at this 2011 Pew Research Center poll, which made clear in its question that ending birthright citizenship would entail amending the Constitution. Thirty-nine percent of Americans overall said that's what we should do to make sure the children of unauthorized immigrants couldn't become citizens. Forty-seven percent of Republicans, and 57 percent of Tea Partiers, agreed.
So it may not be a clear majority of Republican voters, but it's plenty of them, and probably a majority of those committed enough to vote in the primaries. If the candidates are looking at the reception Donald Trump is getting for his anti-immigrant rhetoric and thinking they ought to get some of that action for themselves, that wouldn't be surprising. Within the next few days, polls testing this question will start being released, and I'd be shocked if at least some of them don't show a majority of Republicans supporting an end to birthright citizenship.
Matthew Dickinson looks at Clinton's trust numbers:
Consider the following results from this nationwide survey of voters. When asked, only 41 percent of those polled find Clinton "honest and trustworthy," while fully 54 percent do not. Among those who do not find Clinton trustworthy, fully 67 percent say they are voting for Clinton's opponent. The results seem to support the contention of political pundits that a candidate who is so widely mistrusted is unlikely to win the presidency. As one analyst puts it, "If you don't fundamentally trust someone or believe they are, at root, honest then how would you justify putting the controls of the country in their hands for at least four years?"
How indeed? Except that this data comes from 1996 presidential election exit poll – the one taken on the day of the election. That was the election, you will recall, in which the deeply mistrusted candidate Bill Clinton handily defeated his opponent and man of sterling character, World War II veteran Bob Dole, 49.2 percent to 40.7 percent. Nor are the 1996 results a fluke.
As I have discussed previously, studies by political scientists have revealed weak correlation between candidate traits and presidential election outcomes.
The Miami Herald writes about Carter's cancer diagnosis:
Traditionally, presidential maladies are for hiding. FDR and JFK fooled the American public, and others have done it even after leaving the White House. Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s was not officially known for years after he left office.
“I'm perfectly at ease with whatever comes," President Carter told a room full of reporters, as he detailed the size of the cancer spots found in his brain and how a section of his liver has been removed. “I’ve had an exciting, adventuresome and gratifying existence.” [...] For President Carter now, life goes on as planned, he said. He hopes to be in church this weekend, teaching Sunday school to children, just like any other weekend. Clearly, President Carter is looking forward, and Americans should look forward — in hope — with him.