We begin today’s roundup with John Nichols at The Nation writing about the water crisis in Flint, Michigan:
If all the destructive and anti-democratic policies of all the Republican governors elected in the 2010 wave election, none have been so destructive and so anti-democratic as Michigan Governor Rick Snyder’s use of the power of the state to appoint “emergency managers” who have been empowered to override the will of the voters in Michigan’s major cities.
The governor wanted to have his say in the municipal affairs of Michigan’s cities, and he got it.
Now, however, the governor’s combination of power-grab politics and austerity economics has gone horribly awry for the people of the Flint, one of the cities that was placed under emergency management (from 2011 to 2015) and then under the oversight of a so-calledReceivership Transition Advisory Board. The crisis has led to an intervention by President Obama and high-profile calls for official inquiries, criminal investigations, and the governor’s resignation.
“There are no excuses. The governor long ago knew about the lead in Flint’s water. He did nothing. As a result, hundreds of children were poisoned. Thousands may have been exposed to potential brain damage from lead. Gov. Snyder should resign,” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said on Saturday, while former secretary of state Hillary Clinton closed Sunday night’s Democratic debate by ripping Snyder as a governor who “acted as though he didn’t really care.”
The New York Times editors, who write about deregulating corporate America:
This week a bipartisan group of senators — four Republicans, three Democrats and one independent — is expected to introduce legislation that would slow and complicate the already laborious process by which federal regulations are issued and enforced.
The winners would be big banks and big businesses. The losers would be ordinary Americans who would be deprived of timely and effective protection from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other bank regulators, as well as from agencies that oversee consumer product safety, nuclear safety, investor safeguards, workplace rights and a host of other issues and activities. These agencies are supposed to work independently, with Congress providing oversight. Under the legislation, however, Congress would actively interfere in the rule-making process.
Katie Zezima at The Washington Post lists the myriad things Ted Cruz wants to ban, abolish or change in federal government:
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Cruz's stump speech includes mention of abolishing "The C.F.P.B and the alphabet soup of regulators." Last year he introduced a bill to get rid of the agency, which was created after the 2008 financial crisis.
Education Department
Another standard line from Cruz: "U.S. Department of Education, which should be abolished." Cruz is a states' rights guy -- he wrote his college thesis on the 10th Amendment -- and wants to give control of schools to states or localities. He also would return block-grant funding to the states. But, he says, first things first: Before abolishing the Education Department, he would instruct it to get rid of the Common Core educational standards, a line that often elicits loud cheers from audiences.
Energy Department
Cruz has said the country needs an "energy renaissance." He introduced a bill that would get rid of the president's authority to restrict exports of coal, natural gas, petroleum and other products, as well as oil and gas from the outer continental shelf, and repeal limitations of oil exports. The Energy Department is one of five agencies Cruz wants to close.
From the right, David Brooks pleads with Republicans to reign in the extremes and form a “center-right movement,”, but he fails to appreciate that the extreme now forms the very base of the Republican Party:
The Tea Party, Ted Cruz’s natural vehicle, has 17 percent popular support, according to Gallup. The idea that most women, independents or mainstream order-craving suburbanites would back a guy who declares his admiration for Vladimir Putin is a mirage. The idea that the G.O.P. can march into the 21st century intentionally alienating every person of color is borderline insane.
Worse is the prospect that one of them might somehow win. Very few presidents are so terrible that they genuinely endanger their own nation, but Trump and Cruz would go there and beyond. Trump is a solipsistic branding genius whose “policies” have no contact with Planet Earth and who would be incapable of organizing a coalition, domestic or foreign.
Cruz would be as universally off-putting as he has been in all his workplaces. He’s always been good at tearing things down but incompetent when it comes to putting things together.
Over at The Week, Ryan Cooper analyzes Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, including mistakes she made which have led to a narrative that Bernie Sanders has some momentum in the race:
Though he is surely still a long shot, that Sanders has even gotten within striking distance of the nomination is literally astonishing. I no longer trust my own judgments as to what is politically likely (or anyone else's for that matter), but I think it's fair to say such an outcome was at least as improbable as Donald Trump's thus-far overwhelming dominance in the Republican primary.
I can only conclude that Hillary Clinton has the biggest glass jaw in politics. [...] the deck was firmly stacked against the Sanders campaign. But what he does have, in spades, is credibility. He's been saying the same things for pretty much his entire career. [...]
Regardless, whether its her or the Clintons' legendarily poor choice in personal hangers-on (we've got them to thank for Rahm Emanuel, Dick Morris, and Mark Penn), this is political malpractice — and might actually backfire. Sanders has been raising tons of money off these attacks. And the more she attacks cherished liberal goals, the more liberals and leftists will be willing to roll the dice on someone who at least won't betray them at the first available opportunity.
Steve Benen details how Marco Rubio is echoing Donald Trump on the campaign trail:
Looking at this in the larger context, it’s a reminder that in many respects Trump has already won: he rose to the top of the polls, and his success forced his most competitive rivals to follow his lead. Rubio spent months resisting such a shift, deliberately – and at times, explicitly – telling voters Trump was wrong.
But as is usually the case with Rubio, the senator decided following was vastly easier than leading, and more likely to advance his ambitions, so principles be damned.
And who knows, maybe it’ll work for the Floridian. While the optimistic, 2015 message propelled Rubio into third place, maybe Trump-esque doom will propel the senator higher.
David Wasserman says to be beware of primary calendar that may benefit Cruz and Trump:
The GOP’s primary calendar is surprisingly front-loaded with states friendly to insurgents like Trump and Cruz. But because of Republican National Committee rules, all but one of these states will award their delegates on a proportional basis, intentionally making it difficult for any one candidate to build a durable or commanding lead.
Instead, Florida and Ohio, which tend to support more conventional Republicans, are likelier to shape the race’s destiny than Iowa or South Carolina. That’s because they will award a whopping 99 and 72 delegates, respectively, in huge winner-take-all primaries on March 15.
On a final note, Paul Waldman analyzes the charge that President Obama is a divisive president:
Yet if you spend some time investigating what evidence Republicans offer when they call Obama divisive, what you find is not actually evidence at all, but their own skewed interpretations of events. "He says 'It's my way or the highway' on legislation!", they charge — although he doesn't actually say that. It's just that he has a different legislative agenda than they do. "He crammed ObamaCare down our throats!" — this is a sentence that has been written and spoken a thousand times (just Google it for yourself). Back on Planet Earth, the Affordable Care Act spent over a year going through endless hearings, floor speeches, and debates, and in the end passed the House and Senate and was signed by the president, which you may recall is how a bill becomes a law.
Here's the truth: You might like Barack Obama or you might not; you might think he has been a good president or a bad one. But the idea that blame for the political divisions we confront lies solely or even primarily at his door is positively deranged.