Why should anyone trust Donald Trump not to sell out on immigration control if he’s elected? Good question! One reason is he’s so heavily invested in the issue — it’s been the rocket fuel of his rise — that he couldn’t reverse course without losing much of his support overnight.  But I think there’s a concrete, realpolitik underpinning for this calculation. It’s this: Trump has no institutional base of support. Democrats hate him. The Republican party apparatus hates him. Lots of elected Republicans hate him. That means, if as president he infuriates the ordinary voters who support him, he’ll be at risk of more than just upside down poll numbers. He’ll be at risk of impeachment — more so than just about any potential president you can think of.

What if Trump takes the oath of office and declares:

“I’ve evolved. I think building a wall on our Southern Border isn’t a good idea. I mainly brought it up just to get people’s attention.”

A firestorm ensues. Voters who liked Trump are hanging him in effigy; those who disliked Trump are saying, “We told you so.” Who’d support Trump if someone in Congress pushed for an impeachment vote?**  House Republicans terrified of being “Cantored.” No. Democrats? Maybe some Democrats — but they are hardly Trump’s friends, and not just because of immigration. They’d have to worry about the new president compensating for his flip-flop by placating the right on a host of other issues (including Supreme Court nominations). Plus they’ll have just spent four months arguing Trump is unfit for office. This would be a chance to get him out, perhaps with William Henry Harrisonesque efficiency.

It only takes a House majority to impeach, remember ( and subject the president to a Senate trial). Nancy Pelosi would have Trump’s fate in her hands — and in exchange for saving him, she might demand concessions that would only make Republicans more eager to be rid of this interloper.

It would be a hell of a negotiation — one presidents who do have institutional backing*** don’t have to worry about.

Easier just to build the wall.

P.S.: Given the heightened impeachment threat, if I were Trump I’d make sure my vice-presidential pick was someone Democrats in the House (and half the Republicans) would really not want to see become president.

__________

**– Is revealing that you’ve won the presidency on false pretenses a “high crime [or] misdemeanor”? Doesn’t seem a crazy idea to me. A deception of that magnitude would arguably be more damaging to the Republic than, say,  perjury in a civil deposition.  In any case, the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is effectively up to the House, no? Which means Trump would have to worry about it.

***– Wouldn’t Cruz be subject to the same threat? I doubt it. a) If he won, it would be because the GOP establishment rallied behind him; b) Cruz’s supporters can’t possibly have as high expectations of him, on immigration, as Trump’s supporters have of Trump. The requisite intensity of outrage would be lacking — as it would be if Trump reversed himself on a less salient promise, such as his pledge to repeal Obamacare.

The Pecker Solution: Commentators who say Paul Ryan can’t steal the GOP nomination in Cleveland point to the intensity of feeling among Cruz and Trump supporters — any attempt to wrest away the prize would be seen as unfair and undemocratic, splitting the party, etc. But commentators too often lack a robust paranoid imagination. What about this scenario: Trump fails to win on the first ballot. Pre-planted establishment delegates quickly abandon him. Cruz takes the lead by the third ballot. But suddenly something appears that makes a Cruz choice impossible–something that forces him out of the race as surely as if he’d been vaporized by a laser from space. The convention has no choice but to turn to a new face … Cue Ryan, who has been transparently plotting for just such an eventuality.

What might that vaporizing something be? One obvious possibility currently lurks in the undernews: the (unproven, and very possibly untrue) Cruz adultery scandal being promoted by (among other places) the National Enquirer. Conservatives suspect the liberal MSM is slow-walking its inquiries into this seedy allegation until the general election, at which point (if Cruz is on the ticket) the muck will descend on him. But what if it’s the GOP Establishment that is holding back on the story– holding back until the convention, when a clean takeout of Cruz will open the door for Ryan (something that wouldn’ have been the case during the campaign, or during the first ballot, when a campaign-ending Cruz scandal would simply usher in Trump). Seedy sex scandals have broken during conventions before.  Just thinking out loud here.

Never underestimate the undernews. …

Just a Thought — Robots vs. La Raza: As robotization takes hold (as in Amazon’s warehouses) and machines start to perform low-skilled jobs a) it will become increasingly obvious — from the masses of unemployed — that American doesn’t really need more unskilled immigrant labor; and b) employers like Amazon will have less incentive to lobby for that unskilled immigrant labor. They have their robots, after all. Upshot: Time is maybe not on the side of Rep. Gutierrez and the La Raza-centered lobby for unimpeded immigration of less skilled workers from Latin America and elsewhere.  The coming amnesty/borders debate could be their last shot ….

JPod for the Defense: John Podhoretz has posted a civil, sophisticated, heartfelt response to Nicholas Confessore’s recent NYT piece–a piece that claims GOP elites ignored the complaints of many blue collar Republican voters to stick with an “economic program still centered on tax cuts for the affluent and the curtailing of popular entitlements.” Some points:

— Podhoretz’s piece is titled “Trump’s Rise Was NOT Predictable.”

I’m pretty sure no one but the smart and wild and nutsy Roger Stone saw the revolutionary potential of Donald Trump specifically.

But of course Confessore doesn’t argue Trump’s rise was predictable. He argues the GOP elite ignored the concerns of lots of Republicans, and then Trump–out of the blue, maybe– took advantage of that.

— Podhoretz realizes this and then claims Trump is succeeding not because a) he addresses those concerns but because b) “he has become the personal representative of some of the worst qualities in the American body politic is still suspect.” Evidence for b) is not offered. Podhoretz instead concentrates on knocking down a) — the idea that Trump addressed ignored concerns .

— On trade, Podhoretz says no “Republican official poring over polling” after 2012 would conclude trade was a big issue. That doesn’t necessarily mean it wasn’t a big issue.. It might mean GOP officials (and Podhoretz) should spend less time poring over polling and more time listening to voters (like some of the voters Confessore describes). Certainly Trump seems to have revealed a more widespead GOP hostility to free trade than many expected — perhaps because he gives voters permission to declare concerns they were previously reluctant to reveal to pollsters. Or perhaps because the polllsters’ questions were (as they are on immigration) designed to produce particular (in this case, pro-free-trade) results.

— On entitlements, Podhoretz agrees that middle class voters think they’ve earned Social Security retirement benefits. He suggests the best way to help them would be to reduce the regressive payroll tax. But of course the GOP elite didn’t focus on reductions the payroll tax. It persisted in pursuing Paul Ryan’s think-tanky plans to privatize Social Security and voucherize Medicare, plans that, whatever their fiscal benefits, added more market driven uncertainty into the lives of Americans already stressed out by market-driven uncertainty.  If that wasn’t obvious to the GOP elites watching the Tea Party rallies of 2010 (“Hands off my Medicare”) it was obvious to others!

— On immigration, Podhoretz flips his argument, Nathan Thurm style: Of course the GOP elite knew their base hated “comprehensive immigration reform”! (“Oh, how they knew.”) But the elite was convinced it had to be passed to appease the growing Latino vote, at least in presidential elections. If they then 1) pretended to everyone — including the press– that amnesty was more popular than it really was in order to 2) con the base into letting it sneak through, hey, they were only being hard-nosed realists! The trouble is they were trying to push through a particular kind of immigration reform — amnesty first, enforcement later — that had failed to stop illegal immigration flows before and (perhaps for that reason) was demanded by Congressional Democrats. If they’d stood up to the Democrats — harnessing some of that GOP grassroots anger they knew was out there! — they could eventually have cut a different sort of deal, one that guaranteed enforcement as a precondition for any discussion of legalization, but that did offer eventual legalization to immigration-oriented Latino voters. Why didn’t they do that? ** Answer: Because Amnesty First reform wasn’t just a practical sop to an ethnic voting bloc. It’s what the GOP business elite actually wanted — i.e., a steady flow of eager, wage-restraining workers for the foreseeable future.*** Maybe this is also the reason why the allegedly hard-nosed elite actually believed all the polls ginned up by Latino activist groups (most prominently an outfit called Latino Decisions) designed to show that they really had to cave on immigration fast or else their party was doomed.

— None of these (Podhoretz’s) points refute the idea that the elites ignored what Trump revealed to be the concerns of huge numbers of Republicans (even if they are only 40% of the party****).  At best, Podhoretz excuses or justifies that failure: They didn’t know! Their polls didn’t tell them! They knew and ignored the damn voters for a good reason!

OK. But that’s what they did. And now they are paying democracy’s price. Which is Confessore’s point.

Update:  Josh Green tweets– “Hogwash [that] GOP didn’t know trade was in issue. Exploited it for elections, ignored once in power: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-11-17/china-bashing-on-the-campaign-”

__________

**– Podhoretz says Republican elites have now “abandoned the Gang of Eight approach.” This will be news to Paul Ryan. It is, alas, BS. If Podhoretz mistakes an election-year policy paper from Ted Cruz for the long-term GOP elite position, he’s more naive than the editor of Commentary, or even The Nation, should be.

***– “We need labor and we need votes”– Pollster Kellyanne Conway, quoted by Confessore on how GOP donors explained their resistance to her 2014 suggestion that they seize on voter anger about immigration.

****– … which they aren’t, since a lot of the GOP opposition to Trump comes from voters who don’t like Trump for his personal qualities, not voters who don’t think he’s addressing their concerns.

I question the “many”: Who, exactly, are the “many” pundits the Wall Street Journal ed board attacking in this oracular graf?

The irony is that many of the same pundits now demanding that Mr. Ryan become their sword against Mr. Trump also praised the New Yorker last summer for his challenge to GOP orthodoxy. These former Trump apologists claimed the GOP should absorb his rage against the status quo. Instead of income-tax rate cuts, get behind family-friendly tax credits. Make peace with the entitlement state. Restrict trade and immigration allegedly to lift blue-collar wages. Alas for these would-be king-makers, Mr. Trump doesn’t take much advice.

I can think of one suspect who fits the bill — Ross Douthat. Is there anyone else? Let me know — I don’t claim to have full coverage of this corner of the Commentariat. (Remember, they have to be a) Reformocons who b) praised Trump early on and c) now demand Paul Ryan assault him.) Wouldn’t it be simpler — and more honest — for the Journal’s ideologists to just name names? If these wayward comrades actually exist, they need time to pack for Siberia. …

NYT quotes anti-Trump conspirator Erick Erickson on the possibility of Rick Perry running as a third party candidate:

“He would win Texas and at least obstruct Trump.”

But it’s better than that for Erickson’s conspirators, no? If Perry runs as an independent and wins Texas’ 38 electoral votes, that could throw the whole election into the House, where the GOP’s majority in a majority of state delegations could then pick Perry as President, (even if he’d only won that one state). The Constitution says the House can choose from among the top three. Why think small, conspirators! … P.S.: An obvious initial problem–this gambit only works if the remaining non-Texas electoral votes are split fairly evenly, so neither Trump nor Clinton win a majority.  That means the Ericksonian third party would have to not field its candidate in states it might want Trump to win, lest they steal Trump votes, throw the states to Hillary and give her a majority. The anti-Trumpers might even have to root or campaign for Trump in those states. … I’m sure there are other complications. … P.P.S.: Why not eliminate the middleman and nominate Erickson? He is surely a beloved figure on the right. Right? … Hello? …

Update: Yes, if the electoral vote was close enough — i.e. virtually tied — the “House Decides” scenario could also be triggered by faithless electors who held the balance of power and decided to vote for a third candidate, any third candidate, even if this person had won zero electoral votes.  Don’t think the #NeverTrumpers won’t try this if the winner of a near-tie is Trump. They’re hooked on anti-majoritiarianism now, as Byron York notes. …

Backfill: CNBC’s Jake Novak reached the same conclusion last Friday, though he thinks the third party candidate would have to win two states, not just Texas. (Why?) [via Taranto, whose objections to this insane plan seem non-dispositive]

Here’s Trump’s troubling answer at last night’s debate.

KELLY: Mr. Trump, your campaign website to this day argues that more visas for highly skilled workers would, quote, “decimate American workers”. However, at the CNBC debate, you spoke enthusiastically in favor of these visas. So, which is it?

TRUMP: I’m changing. I’m changing. We need highly skilled people in this country, and if we can’t do it, we’ll get them in. But, and we do need in Silicon Valley, we absolutely have to have.

So, we do need highly skilled, and one of the biggest problems we have is people go to the best colleges. They’ll go to Harvard, they’ll go to Stanford, they’ll go to Wharton, as soon as they’re finished they’ll get shoved out. They want to stay in this country. They want to stay here desperately, they’re not able to stay here. For that purpose, we absolutely have to be able to keep the brain power in this country.

(APPLAUSE)

KELLY: So you abandoning the position on your website…

TRUMP: … I’m changing it, and I’m softening the position because we have to have talented people in this country.

And here’s the near-instantaneous clarification put out by his campaign.

I suppose he’s made sense of it now — he was only talking about workers higher skilled than H-1Bs.  Megyn Kelly never says “H-1B.” It’s true that the closer you get to Einstein-level skills, the more plausible the benefits of immigration.

Still, if that’s all Trump was saying, it’s not inconsistent with his website.  So why did he say “I’m changing,” and that he’s “softened” his positions?

He gives the impression that someone’s lobbied him, and that somebody isn’t Jeff Sessions.

At some point in this sort of controversy it’s not enough to clarify the point on his web site or in a press release. Trump’s got a great immigration adviser, Stephen Miller — but you want to hear it from the candidate himself, as a demonstration that he actually believes it and understands it.

For those who believe in immigration control, we’re in the middle of a sort of a harmonic convergence of paranoia about Trump. There’s

— Last night’s “softening.”

— Last night’s defense of bringing in less-skilled foreign guest workers for “seasonal’ jobs.

— The alleged secret off-the-record NYT tape, which editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal helpfully distributed to the paper’s reporters, in which Trump supposedly makes undetermined admissions of flexibility on immigration.

— Trump’s statement on Hannity that “everything’s negotiable” (except building the Wall).

— The emergence of Newt Gingrich, a proponent of the bogus Krieble touchback plan, as a possible player in Trump’s administration.

— Trumps stunning statement, at the debate, that his differences with Rubio on the issue were a matter of “degree” — and his seeming to approve Rubio’s “Gang of 8” amnesty efforts as “a little give and take and a little negotiation.”

–The general infrequency with which Trump makes the wage-boosting argument against mass immigration (as opposed to, say, the drug-interdiction argument for the Wall).

Is Trump really pivoting this early into a bland general election mode? Does he think that would help even in a general election? Who is he listening to? Is he appealing to donors now that he has to raise some money? Does he take his supporters (on immigration) for granted? Does he realize that weakening his positions now deprives him of the mandate he needs, come negotiatin’ time?  Are we supposed to trust him implicitly just because, early in the campaign, he flouted PC and said some Mexican illegal immigrants were “rapists”? If he sells out on this issue, what other …

Whoa, steady, Mickey! Don’t get carried away. Maybe this really is just paranoia, feeding on itself. Unskilled immigration is more damaging than skilled immigration, because it lowers the wages of American workers at  the very bottom. And even if Trump is soft on skilled guestworkers, as he seems to be, I still think he’s likely to give us border security (the Wall, E-Verify, etc.) — more likely than the slippery Cruz, who is in turn better than everyone else left in the race.

And security is the first order of business. Unless we control who comes in, debates about levels of immigration are pointless, because illegals will come in anyway. If Trump can achieve that control — and how does he not build the Wall? — then we can debate about the numbers of visas.

.@RichLowry Someone forgot to tell Mitt that “shining city on a hill” is now a meaningless cliche … politico.com/magazine/story…

Debate: Cruz said he’ll “fight against granting citizenship to those here illegally.” A tell he’ll still go 4 non-citizenship legalization.

Debate: Cruz said he’ll “fight against granting citizenship to those here illegally.” A tell he’ll still go 4 non-citizenship legalization.

Re: Iraq–Doesn’t anyone make the argument that W eventually won a tenuous semi-victory & Obama threw it away? twitter.com/ByronYork/stat…

A campaign about “nothing”: It seems the chances that Marco Rubio’s ‘secure the border first’ position isn’t fake aren’t as bad as I thought. They’re worse. As previously noted, on the stump Rubio says that “nothing” will happen, in his scheme, until the border is “secure”. It sounds like nothing means nothing — no “temporary” or “provisional” or “probationary” legalization, no work permits, etc. for the current illegal population. But wait …. Ed Martin’s excellent compendium of Rubio immigration deception notes that Rubio has used the “nothing” phrase before–when defending the Gang of 8 amnesty bill to Rush Limbaugh:

The seminal moment of [Rubio’s] media tour occurred early, on Rush Limbaugh’s show. He declared: “if there is not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else will happen unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place, I won’t support it.” [E.A.]

Hmm. The Gang of 8 bill did feature–prominently– a near immediate “provisional” mass legalization (including work permits) before enforcement mechanisms were in place, and Rubio supported the bill. So we have a reaonably good idea what “nothing,” in Rubio’s hands, means. It means the Gang of 8.  It may rule out a permanent resolution of the path to citizenship question until the border is “secure” (whatever that word means). But it doesn’t rule out Gang-of-8-style insta-legalization on some theoretically impermanent basis. And that’s all it would take for the La Raza & Co to start its inevitable campaign to knock out the new enforcement mechanisms. since everyone would know “provisional” amnesty will not in practice be overturned.

Turns out “nothing” doesn’t mean “nothing.” It’s just one of the words Rubio uses to con the GOP base.

Marco and the K St. Restoration: I went to see Marco Rubio’s town hall this afternoon in Salem, New Hampshire. It was only a few miles from my hotel–I really had no excuse. I wanted to find out: Was Rubio really as slick and insubstantial  in this setting as John Edwards? Answer: No. He’s slicker. He’s slicker, in part, because he at least seems a bit spontaneous,** with a slightly goofy, human quality. I admit this is hard to judge seeing him once — maybe he always lets his 8-year-old son sit on his stool during his stump speech. But it’s hard to deny the appeal.

When it comes to substance, Rubio draws on an inventory of well-prepared rhetorical modules, with just enough policy to sound sophisticated, that can be inserted where necessary to handle, say, the how-would-you-handle-ISIS question (Sunni ground army!) or disability benefits (get rid of phony claims!). There’s not much sacrifice involved in any of Rubio’s proposals — even avoiding budget apocalypse, which he claims to be very concerned about, is just a matter of raising the retirement age and slowing benefit hikes for the well-off.  Nothing that hasn’t been floating around Washington for years. There’s a heavy emphasis on electability. Big, difficult questions (like robots taking everyone’s jobs) are ignored. Tellingly, however, Rubio has added a Trump Module, where he alludes to anger at stagnant wages.

He’s got an immigration module too. It ignores Rubio’s “Gang of 8” amnesty push while adopting what seems to be an Enforcement First framework, in which “nothing” happens, amnesty-wise, until the border is “secure.” Everything depends on what “nothing” and “secure” mean, of course. But those crucial seams are effectively buried. Rubio prefaces all this with a digression on ISIS, and how it’s changed the immigration debate: Because our top priority has to be to “keep ISIS out of this country.” It’s an absurd, transparent attempt to put off confronting the Gang of 8 and the effects of a low-skilled influx on living standards. But the audience loves it. The ISIS digression gets the biggest applause of the day.

All of this is mildly terrifying. If Rubio’s a “robot,” as many have charged, he’s a sophisticated new model robot with simulated humanistic elements and a charm algorithm. And if he still seems insubstantial–which he does–it’s a higher level of insubstantial than you expect: You don’t get the impression he’s actually thought through these problems, but he knows his modules. He’s the ideal choice for Student Body President of America, the best band at Band Camp. And–as those who remember Gary Hart’s 1984 post-Iowa surge know–that may be good enough for Rubio to do very, very, well in New Hampshire, unless someone rudely interrupts him.

Why isn’t that someone Trump? Trump’s been attacking Ted Cruz lately, and leaving Rubio alone. Why? Cruz isn’t going to win New Hampshire. Rubio has a chance–certainly a chance to come so close he’s proclaimed the winner by the press. And Cruz isn’t going to destroy the nascent, effective populist insurgency that anti-amnesty activists and trade skeptics, led by Sen. Jeff Sessions, have built over the past three year–and that Trump is demonstrating has substantial, intense support among voters of both parties. Rubio will. Electing Rubio, after killing the Gang of 8 bill, is like marching against the Vietnam War in the 60s and winding up with Richard Nixon running things.

This is a more difficult case to make than, say, arguing against Jeb Bush. Bush is explicit about his support for mass immigration and amnesty. Rubio has now effectively wormed his way into a position where championing mass immigration and amnesty would involve breaking what seems to be an explicit policy pledge. But anyone who has followed Rubio knows that’s exactly what he’ll do. a) He’s done it before, having opposed amnesty when seeking his Senate seat only to become its front man on arriving in Washington; b) He dissembled when necessary to push the Gang of 8 bill, why not dissemble now? c) The GOP establishment thinks that’s exaclty what he’ll do; d) His retreat from the Gang of 8 has been grudging and weaselly, always giving as little ground as he thinks he can get away with until he discovers he has to give a little more; e) He still hasn’t repudiated the bill, let alone apologized for it; and most important, f) actually achieving an Enforcement First solution would mean standing up to the Democrats, who will demand quick legalization, and the bulk of the GOP Congressional caucus, who will be happy to settle for a fig-leaf of enforcement they can try to sell their voters (not unlike the fig leaf added to the Gang of 8 by the for-show-only Corker-Hoeven “double the border patrol” amendment). The current flash mob of GOP representatives streaming into Rubio’s camp suggests they recognize him as someone who won’t make their lives difficult — when that’s exactly what is required.

Rubio’s not going to drive Jeff Sessions from the capital. But you can count on the combination of President Rubio and Speaker Ryan to quickly pass an amnesty bill that (like the Gang of 8) contains only the most chimerical guarantees of new enforcement measures. You can also expect them to promote and defend trade, including “trade in services” that involves foreign workers performing those services on American soil. And what about the Sessionsesque suggestion that immigration levels actually be lowered? “We have a better chance of discovering time travel than getting Rubio-Ryan to take up [an] immigration-reduction bill,” one Senate immigration advisor told me. Corporate lobbyists will be in the saddle, and the promising Sessions movement will have effectively been defeated — probably permanently, given how mass immigration creates ethnic lobbies for more mass immigration. Historians will get tenure trying to explain how this happened so suddenly. Was it similar to what happened to the Bimetalists? Maybe Trump can become a columnist for the Washington Examiner. Dave Brat will be a trivia question.

In short, for the Sessions movment–and a particular vision of America, in which even unskilled, non-bright citizens can work a full day and earn a respectable living–Marco Rubio is a state-of-the art K-Street kill shot, a sudden existential threat. We may have only a few days to recognize this.

____

** — There was a snowstorm in the forecast yesterday. After some lame joking by Rubio about how he was not responsible for the weather, an audience member suggested it was Trump’s fault. “Make America Snow Again,” Rubio giggled. If that was pre-planned, then I really am a total patsy in the hands of stage managers.

Like many others, I’m not sure the latest Trump vs. FOX fight is quite over. (One obvious way to grease a face-saving deal is for Fox to agree to give a few millionin profits to a veterans’ charity.)  But here’s my framework for thinking about it.

1. Fox isn’t a “news network” like other news networks. Never has been. The left is right about this. If the Obama White House calls CBS and says it doesn’t like commentator X, CBS will politely tell the White House to f— off. If a Bush White House (or, one suspects, a Rubio White House) calls Roger Ailes and says it doesn’t like pundit X, pundit X is likely to disappear from Fox.**

2. Fox favors immigration amnesty. Not uniformly, of course. But do you think it was an accident when every Fox primetime anchor, including Hannity, came out for amnesty after the 2012 election? See here for more of this argument. Since Trump is in the process of wrecking the GOP elite’s plans for amnesty, you wouldn’t expect Fox to be friendly to him.

3. In the first GOP debate, back in August, Fox appeared to make an executive decision to take Trump out. The tell wasn’t in Megyn Kelly’s questions, which were in-bounds, but the post-debate Fox spin, featuring bizarre repeated predictions that Trump was of course now finished.

4. Trump then picked a fairly nasty fight with Kelly, with Ailes basically backing down, embarrassing her. She has ample reason for animus against Trump. I leave it to viewers of her show to decide if she has given effect to that animus over the past months. Many kausfiles commenters seem to think she has, but others say no.

5. You ordinarily don’t want a candidate to be able to create a conflict of interest simply by attacking a journalist and then claiming the journalist is hostile. But Trump’s not guilty of “bootstrapping” because Fox started it (see point 3).

6. Whether or not Trump’s right to try to bounce Kelly at this late date–and the choice of debate moderators is often the subject of intense negotiations, at least in 2-person races– the statement Fox put out when he threatened to not show up was so juvenile and mocking that it, in itself, is proof of over-the-line bias on Fox’s part.

7. Trump doesn’t have to show up. But — even if he has a legitimate beef — is that prudent? I don’t know. I suppose it partly depends on what his “internals” say about the state of play in Iowa. In his online Twitter query today (about whether he should join the debate) I voted “yes.”

8. Even if a Trump boycott hurts Trump, it’s also likely to hurt Fox, a network that now has a deadening hold on conservative punditry because it is basically the only avenue of upward advancement. If Trump drives a wedge between Murdoch’s network and the GOP base — more accurately, deepens the division he’s already created — it could attract a competitor to try to steal that base away. Remember when the U.S. team didn’t show up at the Moscow Olympics? It drove the point home to ordinary Russians that yes, we were angry and serious about opposing Soviet expansionism. Likewise, if Trump doesn’t show up and wins the election anyway, in the teeth of Fox’s taunts, it will dramatically make the point that Fox isn’t as essential to non-Democrats as it once was. In the long run, that could be more important than whatever effect the debate confrontation has on the Iowa results.

__________

** — Some commenters note that CBS has become a little incestuous. Maybe not the best example! But I stick with the distinction: Even when Obama White House national security aide Ben Rhodes is talking to his brother, CBS News president David Rhodes, about obstreperous reporter Sharyl Attkisson, I bet the conversation is couched in conventional journalistic terms (e.g., hypothetically, ‘She got it wrong’) and not mutual-cause terms (e.g., hypothetically, ‘She’s not helpful’). More here. …

Eight (8) theories on the heavily advertised embrace of Trump over Cruz by the disembodied GOP “establishment”:

1. They actually want to kill off Trump. The Establishment  is not stupid. It knows voters hate it. Its embrace of Trump could be the kiss of death. Problem: Too obvious.

2. They actually want to kill off Cruz: They despise Cruz both on characterological and institutional grounds, as described here and here. They are not faking their preference for Trump. Problem: Are they dumb enough to think they have the power to derail Cruz in this political climate?

3. They actually want to kill off Rubio to promote Jeb!: By seeming to embrace Trump, they’re signalling they no longer have faith in former favorite Marco Rubio’s viability, as MSNBC’s Chris Hayes tweeted. But the Trump embrace is a fake! Once Rubio and Cruz have been derailed, the Establishment lane will be wide open for Jeb!, who’ll win in a head-to-head with Trump. Problem: Will Beltway pissing on Cruz really be interpreted as a devastating dis of Rubio? Seems a little hot takey.  [Indeed, Hayes’ tweet may have been a joke.] And who, exactly, cares if the DC Establishment loses faith in Rubio? Some funders, maybe. Not voters, you’d think.

4. They’re actually trying to help McConnell: Even if they don’t think they can derail Cruz, they’ll get points with the Senate Majority Leader for trying to discipline an obnoxious freshman who caused him trouble and called him a liar. And if you’re a K St. lobbyist it may be more important to get Sen. McConnell on your side than to get your first choice into the White House.

5. It’s all about immigration. They’re actually still trying to pass amnesty: They realize the best way to get a legalization bill isn’t to elect an amnesty supporter like Rubio and then ram it through with the help of the MSM — that opportunity has passed, thanks to voters. No, their best hope now is to let the voters elect a vocal opponent of legalization (Trump) and then “coach” him into accepting legalization. Problem: Wishful thinking? Trump seems heavily invested in immigration control. Maybe there is an “Enforcement First” deal that could be cut, with Trump bludgeoning Dems into going along. But the GOP Establishment has never embraced it before.

6. They just want to win: They recognize Trump’s ability to reach out to new groups of general election voters, including African Americans. Problem: Why didn’t they realize this seven months ago?

7. They’re just bowing to the inevitable: Lobbyists are adaptive. Like it or not, Trump is going to win. Maybe if they curry favor with him now …  Problem: Still seems a little early for this. There’ll be plenty of time after New Hampshire or South Carolina.

8. They are patriots: After careful thought, they’ve concluded that whatever his chances, Trump will make a better president. Problem: Yeah, right.

I favor #5, of course, which is why I stuck it in. You? …

Oblivious Rich Dept.: I’m anti-anti-Trump, but this anti-Trump blog item’s kind of brilliant. Better than anything in the National Review‘s recent stunt issue. And … kicker … it’s written by someone who works at the National Review.  … It’s almost as if the big boys don’t notice the little people!

Don’t Mourn, Cantorize! RIch Lowry notes that nobody running for the GOP nomination has a perfect record on controlling immigration:

Worth reiterating: outside of Jeff sessions, the only way we get politicians on the right side on immig is to make them flip-flop. 1/2

— Rich Lowry (@RichLowry) January 12, 2016

Cruz has flip-flopped but from pretty good starting pt; rubio has flip-flopped but not enough for my taste; Jeb needs to flip-flop 2/2

— Rich Lowry (@RichLowry) January 12, 2016

But pushing pols into the right policies before an election is only part, and maybe not the most important part, of actually getting those policies in place. On immigration, especially, tough campaign position papers are likely to be pulped once the election’s over and the predictable process of caving to corporate and ethnic interest group pressure (technically known as “selling out”) begins.

The best way to ensure against a post-election sellout is to deter it through fear — specifically, by brutally punishing those who have reneged on their promises in the past. What finally put an end to the 2013-2014 amnesty push? Answer: The humiliating defeat of Eric Cantor, which terrified GOP Congressmen who might otherwise have been tempted to slip one by their constitutents.

That means a top priority for immigration-controllers in 2016 — maybe the top priority — has to be  the defeat of Marco Rubio. Rubio got elected by opposing amnesty. But once in office he became chief salesman for a thinly-veiled amnesty bill and tried to sell it to Republicans, in part by lying about it. If he‘s not punished, who will be? Other GOP pols will see that there are no lasting consequences for moving over to join Ryan and Rove on immigration, and they’ll start making that journey as surely as impoverished peasants in Latin America journey north when they see there are no consequences to entering the U.S. illegally.

Even if Rubio abandons his current fudge attempts on the issue** and eventually arrives at a precisely correct, Jeff-Sessions-approved immigration position in the primaries, it’s still more important that he be punished, or else all the exquisitely crafted policy promises and flip-flops in the direction of border control — Rubio’s, but also Cruz’s and maybe even Trump’s — will be as worthless as the promises of “secure borders” made by the Gang of 8.

______

**–On “Meet the Press” Sunday Rubio continued his attempt to suggest he has an “Enforcement First” position, without actually quite saying it: “[W]e are not going to be able to do anything on people that are illegally until we first prove to people that illegal immigration is under control and America is safe.” Key fudge: Does “proving to people” that illegal immigration is under control mean actually putting measures (a border wall, E-Verify, visa overstay prevention) in place, or just convincing enough people that these measures are in the process of being put in place  at some point in the future– i.e., that the bills theoretically requiring them “have been passed”? If it’s the latter, Rubio’s still embracing the Gang of 8’s “Amnesty First” approach (and the enforcement measures are likely to be blocked once the amnesty happens). But again, even if Rubio eventually stops fudging and happily lands on the right spot, it’s more important to punish him. We don’t let bank robbers off if they return the money the week before their trial.

It’s odd that WaPo put out it’s story on Marco Rubio’s coke-dealing brother in law on New Year’s Eve. It’s odder that the story focuses on Rubio’s recommendation of his convicted relative (Orlando Cicilia) for a post-prison real estate license — but doesn’t mention the destruction of records angle in Ann Bardach’s earlier Politico piece, which seems potentially more damaging to Rubio. From Bardach:

According to never-before-reported documents shown to Politico, federal case files related to Orlando Cicilia’s narcotics conviction were destroyed three days before the court acted on the Univision request for them in July 2011. A spokesperson for the federal courts said the documents were “destroyed in accordance with the record schedule,” and that it was just a coincidental “matter of timing” that Univision was pursuing the story.

P.S.: The most damaging angle, I think, is suggested in the following pregnant WaPo paragraph:

Rubio also declined to say whether he or his family received financial assistance from Cicilia, who was convicted in a high-profile 1989 trial of distributing $15 million worth of cocaine. The federal government seized Cicilia’s home; the money has never been found.

This is a Test: A successful, crystallizing piece by Ramesh Ponnuru argues that a tough stand on controlling immigration is now a defining issue for conservatives (and, more significantly, maybe for Republicans generally). You used to be able to run for president as a GOP while pushing amnesty, just as you used to be able to run as a GOP while defending abortion (or as a Dem while opposing abortion). No longer. Run as an amnesty man now and you are Jeb Bush. (Even Marco Rubio, an actual member of the Amnesty Gang of 8, is trying desperately to make voters forget that.)  

1) But I’m not sure immigration has become a defining issue for the reason Ponnuru gives — i.e. because it’s seen as a proxy for whether Candidate X is conservative on a range of other issues. Maybe it’s become a defining issue because (in itself)  it’s an issue voters care about! Was there ever any passion for amnesty among the mass of conservative (or even Republican) voters? It was mostly a push by business elites, donors, strategists and think tankers–now unmasked as that.

2) If immigration only ranks as the third or fourth most important issue in polls — behind “the economy” and terrrorism — how could it be a  “litmus test”? Maybe because the differences between the candidates on those other issues — the economy and terrorism — aren’t that great. On immigration they’re stark. Or maybe because voters have no easy way of assessing rival economic plans, but the can suss out an amnesty backer (e.g., if he or she uses the phrase “fix our broken immigration system” or “virtual fence”). Anyway, voters are allowed to have three or four litmus tests.

3) Here’s a big difference between the immigration litmus test and the abortion litmus test: When the line was drawn (in both parties) on abortion, the Dems wound up with a rough working majority on their side — something we were in the process of discovering in state legislatures when the Supreme Court short-circuited democracy in Roe. On immigration, if the line is drawn anywhere near where it now seems to be (e.g. no “amnesty first,” if at all, and no big increase in overall legal immigration levels) Republicans may find a majority on their side, while Dems wind up wishing they hadn’t made support for amnesty a litmus test for their candidates.

That is what we’re in the middle of finding out, anyway.

Not sure this is as far-fetched as Jeff Greenfield seems to think, alas:

If party elders were to meet behind closed doors and deliver the nomination to, say, House Speaker Paul Ryan, that would qualify as a “brokered” outcome …

1) Ryan’s running a self-promotional Speakership not unlike a national campaign; 2) Given his perceived betrayals of the Party’s base, he might not be looking at such long tenure as Speaker anyway; 3) Politics moves fast these days; 4) Ryan has plenty of seemingly infatuated cheerleaders in the press; 5) What if none of the establishment non-Trumps catches on — or one (e.g. Rubio) does catch on but is caught up in scandal (e.g. zip)? 6) Maybe there are no more party elders around to manipulate Republicans in back rooms in order to achieve their preferred outcome. But that sure seemed to be how Ryan became Speaker two months ago. … Bonus factor for Kf Premium customers: 7) It might be the only way for the GOP/K Street Establishment to get its precious immigration amnesty. …

Hope for Jeb! US military funds research into lab-grown testicles. [God, that is such a cheap shot-ed. I know! And he is doing God’s work, taking votes from Rubio]

But when line drawn on abortion, majority on Dems’ side. When immig. becomes partisan line, majority on GOP side? twitter.com/jimtankersley/…

That new Cruz ad fantasizing about lawyers, bankers & journalists crossing the Rio Grande is clever and correct (the debate on immigration would be very different if elite jobs were threatened).  It also seems likely to be an ineffective waste of money.

Who, exactly, is going to have their minds changed by this ad? Voters who are skeptical of mass immigration are probably already picking between Cruz and Trump. They may be not-so-subconsciously offended by the ad’s suggestion that the only reason for their skepticism is narrow economic self interest –i.e. their own jobs are threatened.

Voters who aren’t threatened — i.e. lawyers, bankers, businessmen, other well-paid professionals — may chuckle, while the ad (however erroneously) reinforces their complacency. After all, the scenario of briefcase toting professionals crossing the Rio Grande seems pretty farfetched. If that’s what it takes, they can breathe easy.

Meanwhile, voters of whatever occupation who just aren’t skeptical of mass immigration — surely a group Cruz should want to win over — may be offended by the suggestion that they’d change their principles mighty fast if personally faced with a hit to their wallets.

Wouldn’t a general patriotic pitch to protect American jobs and values, to keep an economy in which anyone willing to work a full day can make enough to live with dignity — a pitch everyone could freely sign on to — be more compelling than the fairly abstract Marxesque debater’s point about how we’re all slaves to our narrow economic interest?

PS: Cruz’s closing promise to build a “wall that works” sets off kausfiles’ proprietary Boob Bait Sellout Sensor. The phrase “wall that works” suggests a wall in itself won’t work, which is what opponents of a crude border barrier always say. (Are they really worried that it will work, as it has where it’s been built?)  In our current political reality, “a wall that works’  translates as “a high-tech ‘virtual wall’ that doesn’t work.”