NANCY: RICHTER – The Most Married Couple; FELZENBERG – Nancy
GOP: LIMBAUGH – Rule 40; YORK – Trump flip-flop-flip; GERAGHTY – Ted’s Bush years; ERICKSON – Rubio for VP.
LEADS: WILLIAMSON – Capital matters; HAYES – No Trump; ZITO – Healer Ryan.
HILLARY : WSJ – More email; SCHOFFSTALL – Hillary pays self; HELDERMAN & HAMBURGER – 104 classified; SHANE & BECKER – New Libya.
NANCY . . .
Greg Richter, Newsmax: “George Will: Reagans ‘Most Married Couple I Ever Met’”
“Conservative columnist George Will became choked up on Sunday as he related the relationship between Nancy and Ronald Reagan following the death of Nancy Reagan on Sunday at age 94. “You have a political party. You have legislative caucus. Most of all, you have your spouse,” Will said Sunday on Fox News Channel. “They were the most married couple I ever met.”
“The pair would sit together in a room and Ronald Reagan would write love notes to his wife across the room, Will said. “He once wrote five words that I think is fair to say changed our lives and then the world: ‘And then along came Nancy,'” Will said. ‘It gave him center to his life.’ “Ronald Reagan was famously friendly, but much of it was to keep people at bay, Will said. ‘I think he had one friend, and he married her.’” http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/george-will-nancy-reagan-restore-elegance/2016/03/06/id/717727/
Alvin Felzenberg, Weekly Standard: “Nancy Reagan, 1921-2016”
“Actor James Stewart once speculated that had Ronald Reagan met Nancy Davis before he married Jane Wyman, Reagan never would have gone into politics. “She would have seen to it that he got all the best parts … won three or four Oscars and been a real star.” That was his way of saying that, but for Nancy Reagan, Ronald Reagan would never have become president. Once in the job, she made sure he became a great one.
“The Reagans forged one of the most successful partnerships in all of history. In many ways they were opposite sides of the same coin. “My life did not begin until I met Ronnie,” Nancy Reagan once said. “I cannot imagine life without her,” Reagan said of his wife. Many politicians are in the habit of using the word “we” to describe their campaigns or administrations. When Ronald Reagan used it, those who knew him best knew that he was primarily thinking of himself and Nancy.
“The son of an alcoholic father and a strong-willed mother (not all that different from the woman he married) Ronald Reagan learned to hide his emotions, avoid direct confrontations, and divert his eyes from the unpleasant. “I lived in a world of pretend,” he said of his childhood. Nancy, the daughter of a divorced actress, spent much of her childhood in the homes of various relatives. She knew little of a stable family life until she was eight years old and her mother married a successful Chicago surgeon, who adopted her.
“It is little wonder that the instant the two first met, when Nancy called upon the president of the Screen Actors Guild to seek his help in refuting accusations that she had Communist sympathies, they became inseparable. Both brought to their marriage a sense of caring and stability that had been wanting in their lives.
Ronald Reagan’s sunny disposition and genial nature caused him to look for and see only the best in people. Nancy stood guard against bad apples, self-promoters, and incompetents. She was also willing to take the heat for a president who was said to have glided through the controversies of his administration in a suit of Teflon. It was this aspect of her that prevented many of her contemporaries and historians, operating with the benefit of hindsight, from recognizing her true value and from appreciating her true contributions to her husband’s administration. . .”
“Trump defeated Cruz in the Louisiana primary by 41 percent to 38 percent and in the Kentucky caucuses by 36 percent to 32 percent, according to the Associated Press. Cruz prevailed in caucuses in Kansas by 48 percent to 23 percent and in Maine by 46 percent to 33 percent. Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Ohio Governor John Kasich finished third or fourth in the states, prompting Trump to call for Rubio to drop out of the race.”
GOP . . .
Rush Limbaugh: “Rule 40”
“. . . I want to clue you in to something that, if this goes forth, and if all this it looks like it may be possible, you are going to have to become familiar with convention rule 40. There are many interpretations and variations of rule 40. For example, it’s not just a candidate has to get 1,237 and if nobody does, it’s wide open. Even at that point, even if nobody gets 1,237, you still have to have won a majority of eight states to be eligible to win the nomination. Did you know that?
“However, rule 40 can be changed the day before the convention by the Republican Party. And there is a party convention meeting in April, and if it looks like whatever eventuality is gonna happen, they can easily change that eight states to two. They could change it to four in order to make everybody eligible. Let’s say they want Rubio and Rubio does not win a majority of delegates in eight states. This is not the 20% threshold we’re talking about. We’re talking about a majority. If he doesn’t, then there’s no way that even if Trump doesn’t get to 1,237, there’s no way that Rubio would be eligible, according to rule 40.
“However, they can change rule 40 the day before the convention. That’s also in the rule! Rule 40 basically says what it says today, and has the provision that they can rewrite it and say whatever they want it to say the day of the convention or the day before. (interruption) Well, it’s their convention, Snerdley. It’s the Republican Party’s convention. They can write whatever rules they want. And they have given themselves all kinds of outs and latitude and leeway to write new rules whenever they need them. . .”
Byron York, Washington Examiner: “Confusion follows Trump flip-flop on key immigration issue”
“. . . In Detroit, Fox News’ Megyn Kelly pointed out that Trump’s campaign website has a strong statement against increasing the number of H-1Bs, saying it would “decimate American workers,” and yet in one debate Trump spoke favorably of the program. “So, which is it?” Kelly asked.
“I’m changing,” Trump said. “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,’ Trump continued, ‘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.
“‘So you are abandoning the position on your website?’ asked Kelly.
“‘I’m changing it,’ Trump said, ‘and I’m softening the position because we have to have talented people in this country.’ . . .”
“It would be hard to imagine a quicker or more complete flip-flop. . .”
Jim Geraghty, NRO: “Ted Cruz: The Bush Years”
“. . . While Cruz’s time in the Senate is best known for fiery speeches and high-profile gestures like his 21-hour filibuster, in his earlier time in Washington he demonstrated a wonkish eye for detail and an eagerness to take on powerful industry groups that he saw as stifling competition. Though his efforts ultimately succeeded on a much smaller scale than he’d initially envisioned, they demonstrated a relentless focus on repealing or preventing the passage of laws that he felt needlessly regulated the marketplace. If this early period of Cruz’s career is any guide, a Cruz presidency would feature a sustained push to roll back federal regulations, one where outcomes are measured carefully but where success may be less black-and-white than Cruz’s public comments since his election to the Senate might suggest. . .”
“. . . Rolling back regulations has been a perennial promise of GOP presidential candidates for a generation. Every Republican presidential hopeful says he’ll cut red tape; very few make it a top priority once they’re in office. Cruz faces a steep climb to the nomination and the presidency. But if he can defy the odds and claim the White House, he’ll bring a level of hands-on experience with the regulatory state — and a proven zeal for cutting it down to size — that few, if any, of his predecessors could match.” http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416074/ted-cruz-bush-years-jim-geraghty
Erick Erickson, The Resurgent: “President Rubio is Not Going to Happen. Vice President Rubio Can and Should.’
“The results of last night’s elections make clear two things. First, Donald Trump can be stopped by winning primaries and caucuses. Ted Cruz won more delegates than Trump yesterday, beating Trump in two surprises: Kansas and Maine. Both states saw their governors oppose Cruz. Kansas’s governor went with Rubio and Maine’s with Trump.
“Second, it is not possible for Marco Rubio to stop Donald Trump. Rubio is struggling to keep his second place standing in Florida and that is not guaranteed. He has one only one state and that was predictable and uncontested by the other candidates. Cruz is around 70 delegates behind Donald Trump while Rubio, after last night, trails by more than 250.
“President Rubio is not going to happen.
“Marco Rubio’s temptation may be now to walk away. But Marco Rubio does not need to walk away. Ted Cruz and the nation need Marco Rubio.
“John Kasich has shown every ambition to be Donald Trump’s Vice Presidential pick. Kasich has blocked punches against Trump, held his own fire, and even praised Trump at a time everyone else is fighting him.
“Cruz needs Rubio in an alliance. Like Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush uniting the GOP in 1980, a Cruz-Rubio alliance would unite the GOP now. Cruz supporters who dislike Rubio would begrudgingly embrace Rubio. Rubio supporters who disdain Cruz would begrudgingly support Cruz because of Marco Rubio.
“Together they keep the wings of the Republican Party from splitting. . .”
LEADS . . .
Kevin Williamson, NRO: “Capital Matters”
“. . .In 1950, Detroit’s population was 1.8 million. Since then, all the people to the left of that decimal point — and a goodly chunk to the right of it — did the rational thing and exercised their right of exit, leaving Detroit behind. They are gone, they are better off for having left, and they are not coming back. “Detroit is a big city, or at least the ruins of a big city, but it is economically in much the same situation as the poorest parts of Appalachia: Even if you were inclined to open a factory there and create some jobs in the process, you’d have to bring in workers to fill them. The people in Vance, Ala., like the people in Stuttgart, know that putting Mercedes-Benz automobiles together requires a great deal of high-skill work. The people building Toyotas in Texas know the same thing. Nobody is moving to Detroit, because there are no jobs to be had; good jobs aren’t coming to Detroit, because there aren’t enough good workers to be had. The best you’re going to see in Detroit is Shinola workers shoving Swiss-watch movements into Chinese cases and stamping them “Made in Detroit.” Sentimentality is a form of capital, too, when it can be used for marketing purposes. “But we’re going to have to do better than that.
“Detroit is a city in which only one in five black men graduates from high school on time — in a city that is 83 percent African American. You think Google is going to move its headquarters there, or invest in a major facility? Tesla? Apple? Does that sound like a place you would invest in? “You can call it a chicken-and-egg problem — given its current economic straits, Detroit isn’t going to be doing much to produce world-class workers, or world-class anything — but the fact is that the chicken has been dead for decades, a series of corrupt mayors and officials stole most of the eggs, and the ones that are left are rotten. And despite the best efforts of the city’s spasmodic reformers, the city is ruled by the same party, the same people, and the same poisonous politics that created the mess it is in in the first place. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432396/detroit-economic-disaster-manufacturing-dead-capital
Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard: “No Trump”
“Why I can’t support him.
“. . .Christie’s campaign slogan was ‘telling it like it is.’ He lost largely because Donald Trump has overwhelmingly won the support of voters who want a candidate to ‘tell it like it is.’ And both men took to the stage on the biggest night of the primary season and tried to trick voters into believing something that isn’t true.
“In this case, it’s not just that what they’re saying isn’t true. It’s aggressively, spectacularly false. Arguably, the single biggest story of the 2016 presidential contest has been how Trump’s candidacy has divided the Republican party. Exit polls from several states that held contests earlier that day added to the constellation of datapoints: In Tennessee, 42 percent of respondents said they’d be dissatisfied if Trump were the nominee; in Georgia, it was 45 percent; in Arkansas, 50 percent; and in Virginia, 53 percent.
“Trump won all these states. But roughly half of the GOP primary voters in each oppose him.
This is what political division looks like. Trump’s claim to be a unifier is not just specious, it’s absurd.
This casual dishonesty is a feature of his campaign. And it’s one of many reasons so many Republicans and conservatives oppose Trump and will never support his candidacy.
“I’m one of them.”
Salena Zito, RCP: “Speaker Ryan Tries to Heal Fractured GOP in Contentious Year”
“. . . ‘What I have learned since taking the job is that sometimes, there are moments where conservatism has become disfigured, and as a conservative and as a leader in the Republican Party, I have an obligation to make sure that that does not continue,’ Ryan said.
“It’s not a role he envisioned for himself.
“‘I don’t see an alternative — otherwise, we could easily be defined as being for something that we are not, as being someone we are not,’ he said.
“Ryan twice has countered Donald Trump — to say that banning all non-citizen Muslims from entering the United States is wrong, and to declare unequivocally that the ‘Party of Lincoln’ is no friend of white supremacy.
“‘We don’t believe in religious tests,’ Ryan said. “We believe in the First Amendment freedom of religion.
“‘We are against prejudice and bigotry in all of it forms and all of its manifestations, whether it is the people or the groups … and we want to make sure that people know that.’
“Ryan brings a national perspective to his role, having been Mitt Romney’s running mate in their failed 2012 campaign against President Obama.
“One of his biggest surprises was learning, a week after taking the speaker’s job, that he will preside over the party’s nominating convention in Cleveland in July. . .”
HILLARY . . .
WSJ: “Clinton’s Email Jeopardy”
“Aides shouldn’t take the fall for her self-serving actions.
“Hillary Clinton’s Super Tuesday victory gives her a clear path to the Democratic presidential nomination, but Bernie Sanders has never been her biggest obstacle to the White House. Her real liability is an email scandal that has put her in legal jeopardy.
“Camp Clinton is arguing that the State Department’s Monday release of the final batch of emails ends the controversy over her private server. Yet that release is merely the end of one judicially mandated exercise overseen by a bureaucracy friendly to the former Secretary of State. The real action is in the courts, the FBI and Justice Department.
“But even the friendly State Department review has been damaging. Of 30,000 emails Mrs. Clinton turned over to State, we now know that 2,093 were classified as “confidential” or “secret.” Another 22 were classified “top secret”—and State withheld their contents from public release. Mrs. Clinton keeps claiming these were “retroactively” classified, but that’s been vigorously disputed by intelligence community members, who note that at least some of the top-secret emails refer to intelligence projects classified from the beginning.
“The latest release provides fresh evidence that Mrs. Clinton knew her server held national secrets. . .”
Joe Schoffstall, Free Beacon: “Hillary Declared $250,000 in In-Kind Contributions on FEC Report”
“. . . In November 2015, when transactions resumed to Clinton, she pulled in a total of $32,811 from two separate payments. In December, another $56,514 was made to her name. In January 2016, $88,878 more was given. All told, payroll and benefits transactions to Clinton have totaled $254,447 since the launch of her campaign.
“Moreover, some of these payments were shown to overlap with money given to Clinton Executive Services Corp., the private company set up by Hillary that oversaw the use of her private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.
“For example, on December 12, 2015, $42,032 was given to Clinton, but this sum was transmitted to the corporation, according to a memo. A total of $98,588 in payroll payments to Clinton did not overlap with the corporation. These payments were made on April 14, 2015 and January 29, 2016.
“No other candidate running for president recorded payments to themselves, FEC files show. Donald Trump reimbursed $410,000 to himself and other Trump entities for payroll expenses, rent, hotel, and restaurant bills in December, according to reports.
“While it is legal for candidates to pay themselves from campaign funds, the rule was established and intended for candidates who are not well off and quit their jobs to run for political office.
“Bill and Hillary Clinton are estimated to be worth over $100 million dollars combined, with Hillary’s net worth estimated around $30 million and Bill’s estimated around $80 million, according to previous reviews of financial disclosure reports. . .”
Rosalind Helderman & Tom Hamburger, WaPo: “Clinton, on her private server, wrote 104 emails the government says are classified”
“Hillary Clinton wrote 104 emails that she sent using her private server while secretary of state that the government has since said contain classified information, according to a new Washington Post analysis of Clinton’s publicly released correspondence.
“The finding is the first accounting of the Democratic presidential front-runner’s personal role in placing information now considered sensitive into insecure email during her State Department tenure. Clinton’s authorship of dozens of emails now considered classified could complicate her efforts to argue that she never put government secrets at risk.
“In roughly three-quarters of those cases, officials have determined that material Clinton herself wrote in the body of email messages is classified. Clinton sometimes initiated the conversations but more often replied to aides or other officials with brief reactions to ongoing discussions. . .”
Scott Shane & Jo Becker, NY Times: “A New Libya, with ‘Very Little Time Left’”
“The fall of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi seemed to vindicate Hillary Clinton. Then militias refused to disarm, neighbors fanned a civil war, and the Islamic State found refuge.
“. . . The first news reports of Colonel Qaddafi’s capture and killing in October 2011 reached the secretary of state in Kabul, Afghanistan, where she had just sat down for a televised interview. “Wow!” she said, looking at an aide’s BlackBerry before cautiously noting that the report had not yet been confirmed. But Hillary Clinton seemed impatient for a conclusion to the multinational military intervention she had done so much to organize, and in a rare unguarded moment, she dropped her reserve.
“We came, we saw, he died!” she exclaimed.
“Two days before, Mrs. Clinton had taken a triumphal tour of the Libyan capital, Tripoli, and for weeks top aides had been circulating a “ticktock” that described her starring role in the events that had led to this moment. The timeline, her top policy aide, Jake Sullivan, wrote, demonstrated Mrs. Clinton’s “leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country’s Libya policy from start to finish.” The memo’s language put her at the center of everything: ‘HRC announces … HRC directs … HRC travels … HRC engages,’ it read.
“It was a brag sheet for a cabinet member eyeing a presidential race, and the Clinton team’s eagerness to claim credit for her prompted eye-rolling at the White House and the Pentagon. Some joked that to hear her aides tell it, she had practically called in the airstrikes herself.
“But there were plenty of signs that the triumph would be short-lived, that the vacuum left by Colonel Qaddafi’s death invited violence and division. . .”