Sunday, February 28, 2016


Transcript Read Chris Rock's 2016 Oscars opening monologue

Chris Rock L.A. Times

Man, I counted at least 15 black people on that montage. Hey! Well, I'm here at the Academy Awards, otherwise known as the White People's Choice Awards.
You realize, if they nominated hosts, I wouldn't even get this job.
You all be watching Neil Patrick Harris right now. But, here's the crazy thing. This is the wildest, craziest Oscars to ever host because we've all this controversy. No, no black nominees, you know? People are like, "Chris, you should boycott. Chris you should quit. You should quit!" How come it's only unemployed people that tell you to quit something?
No one with a job ever tells you to quit. I thought about quitting. I thought about it real hard, but I realized they're going to have the Oscars anyway. They're not going to cancel the Oscars because I quit. And the last thing I need is to lose another job to Kevin Hart. I don't need that. Kev right there! Kev makes movies fast. Every month. Porno stars don't make movies that fast.

Now the thing is, why we protesting? That's the big question. Why this Oscars? Why this Oscars, you know? It's the 88th Academy Awards. It's the 88th Academy Awards, which means this whole black nominees thing has happened at least 71 other times.
OK? You've got to figure that it happened in the '50s, in the '60s, you know? In the '60s, one of those years Sidney didn't put out a movie. I'm sure there wasn't no black nominees some of those years, say '62 or '63. And black people did not protest. Why? Because we had real things to protest at the time.

We had real things to protest! Too busy being raped and lynched to care about who won best cinematographer. You know, when your grandmother is swinging from the tree, it's really hard to care about best documentary foreign short. What happened this year? What happened? People went mad. Spike got mad. Sharpton got mad. Jada went mad. And Will went mad.

Everybody went mad, you know. It's quite like, Jada got mad? Jada says she's not coming. Protesting. I'm like, "Isn't she on a TV show?" Jada's gonna boycott the Oscars? Jada boycotting the Oscars is like me boycotting Rhianna's panties. I wasn't invited.

That's not an invitation I would turn down. But I understand. I'm not hating. I understand you're mad. Jada's mad her man Will was not nominated for "Concussion." I get it. I get it. Tell you truth, I get it. You get mad. Said it's not fair that Will was this good and didn't get nominated. You're right. It's also not fair that Will was paid $20 millionfor "Wild Wild West," OK?

This year, the Oscars, things are going to be a little different. Things going to be a little different at the Oscars. This year, in the In Memorium pacikage it's just going to be black people that were shot by the cops on their way to the movies.
Yes, yes, I said it all right. Hey, if you want black nominees every year, you need to just have black categories. That's what you need. You need to have black categories. You already do it with men and women. Think about it. There's no real reason for there to be a man and a woman category in acting. There's no reason. It's not track and field. You don't have to separate them. Robert De Niro has never said, I better slow this acting down so Meryl Streep can catch up. No. Not at all, man. If you want black people every year at the Oscars, just have black categories, like best black friend. That's right. And the winner for the 18th year in a row is Wanda Sykes. This is Wanda's 18th black Oscar.

But here's the real question. Everybody wants to know in the world, "Is Hollywood racist?" You've got to go at that the right way. Is it burning-cross racist? No. Is it fetch me some lemonade racist? Naw, naw naw. It's a different type of racist.

I remember one night I was at a fundraiser for President Obama. A lot of you were there. It's me and all of Hollywood. All of us there. There's about four black people there. Me. Let's see, Quincy Jones. Russell Simmons. Questlove. You know, the usual suspects, right? And every black actor that wasn't working. Needless to say, Kev Hart was not there.

So, at some point you get to take a picture with the president, you know. As they're setting up the picture, you get like a little moment with the president. I'm like, "Mr. President. You see all these writers and producers and actors, they don't hire black people. And they're the nicest white people on earth. They're liberals." Cheese!

Is Hollywood racist? You damn right Hollywood’s racist, but it ain't the racist that you’ve grown accustomed to. Hollywood is sorority racist. It’s like: “We like you Rhonda, but you’re not a Kappa.” That’s how Hollywood is, but things are changing. Things are changing. Yeah, we’ve got a black “Rocky” this year. Some people call it “Creed.” I call it "Black Rocky.” And that’s an unbelievable statement, because “Rocky” takes place in a world where white athletes are as good as black athletes. “Rocky’s” a science fiction movie. There are things that happen in “Star Wars” that are more believable than things that happen in “Rocky.”

We are here to honor actors. We are here to honor film. It’s a lot of snubs, but one of the biggest snubs no one is talking about. My favorite actor in the world is Paul Giamatti.... Think about what Paul Giamatti has done in the last couple of years. Last year, he’s in “12 Years a Slave.” Hates black people. This year, he’s in “Straight Outta Compton.” Loves black people. Last year he’s whipping Lupita. This year he’s crying at Eazy E’s funeral. Not that’s range. Ben Affleck can’t do that.

What I’m trying to say is it’s not about boycotting or anything. It’s just we want opportunity. We want the black actors to get the same opportunities as white actors. That’s it. And not just once. Leo gets a great part every year. All these guys get great parts all the time. But what about the black actors? Look at Jamie Foxx. Jamie Foxx is one of the best actors in the world. Jamie Foxx was so good in “Ray,” that they went to the hospital and unplugged the real Ray Charles. It’s like, “We don’t need two of these.”

No, man. Everything's not about race, man. Another big thing tonight is you’re not allowed to ask women what they’re wearing anymore. It’s a whole thing: “Ask her more.” You have to ask her more.” Well, you know, you ask the men more. Hey, everything's not sexism. Everything’s not racism. They ask the men more because the men are all wearing the same outfits, OK? Every guy in here is wearing the exact same thing. If George Clooney showed up with a lime green tux on and a swan coming out his ..., someone would go, “What you wearing George?”

And welcome to the 88th Academy Awards…

Saturday, February 27, 2016


The Unaccountable Death of Boris Nemtsov

BY JOSHUA YAFFA The New Yorker

In the absence of satisfactory answers about the murder of the opposition politician Boris Nemtsov, a year ago, ever-metastasizing conspiracy theories have taken hold.
On Saturday afternoon, friends and colleagues of Boris Nemtsov, joined by thousands of others, will march in Moscow, marking a year since the day Nemtsov was assassinated. Late in the evening on February 27th, 2015, Nemtsov was walking home across a bridge that spans the Moscow River, not far from the Kremlin and the bulbous domes of St. Basil’s Cathedral. The killer shot Nemtsov four times, from behind, as his girlfriend watched in terror.

Nemtsov, who was fifty-five years old, was once a precocious political talent, rising from provincial governor to become to become President Boris Yeltsin’s deputy prime minister. He never found his way in Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin, and left government when his party was voted out of parliament, in 2003. He became one of the more energetic and charismatic figures in the country’s beleaguered political opposition. He was handsome, with a lively mane of light brown hair that turned silver over the years, which he swept to the side in the style of a television news anchor.

His murder was a terrible blow to the opposition and an unwelcome jolt to the political élite. Gleb Pavlovsky, a former political adviser to Putin who has become a critic of the Kremlin, told me, when I spoke to him for a magazine piece earlier this month, that Putin was “obviously stunned” by Nemtsov’s murder. “As a political assassination, this is direct interference in the politics of the federal center, and, what’s more, right under Putin’s nose.”

Under Putin, investigations of such killings, of which there have been a dozen or more, have tended to be slow and inconclusive. But in the case of Nemtsov, Putin granted the F.S.B.—the country’s main security agency, of which Putin was once the director—unusually wide license to go after the killers. According to a report published earlier this week by the opposition paper Novaya Gazeta, the head of the F.S.B. presented Putin with the names of suspects on March 2nd, three days after the killing. In the following days, they arrested five people, all ethnic Chechens with apparent connections to Ramzan Kadyrov, the colorful and brutal ruler of Chechnya.

F.S.B. generals had long distrusted Kadyrov, whom Putin allows greater autonomy than any other regional official. Now the rivalry between Kadyrov and the security services had spilled into the open. “Nemtsov’s assassination seemed to have exhausted their patience,” Novaya Gazeta wrote.

According to government investigators, the triggerman was Zaur Dadaev, the former deputy commander of Sever (“North”), a Chechen special-forces unit that is under Kadyrov’s informal authority. At first, Dadaev confessed to the crime, as did others in custody—but all later recanted their testimony, saying they had been threatened and subject to torture. The transcripts of their interrogations contained striking details about Nemtsov: they knew the model and license-plate number of his Range Rover, the address of his apartment, and the location of his office.

One suspect, Anzor Gubashev, who was said to be the getaway driver, told investigators that, beginning in October, 2014, he came to believe that Nemtsov was “carrying out a policy against our state, supporting the West and defaming our government.” Gubashev mentioned Russia’s standoff with the West over Ukraine, and called Nemtsov an agent of the C.I.A. and Obama. “We don’t feel the least bit sorry that we took him out, because from the very beginning he was a Western prostitute, and was causing all sorts of chaos,” Gubashev said during interrogation.

Many of Nemtsov’s allies, including Vadim Prokhorov, a lawyer for Nemtsov’s family, say that the evidence points to a man named Ruslan Geremeyev, a high-ranking officer in Sever and a close friend of Dadaev’s. Geremeyev has deep connections to Kadyrov’s inner circle: he is the nephew of both Adam Delimkhanov, Kadyrov’s closest ally and purported enforcer, and Suleyman Geremeyev, a powerful Chechen politician. Other suspects in the case told investigators that Geremeyev spent time at the Moscow apartment where the assassins stayed during the weeks before the killing. The day after the murder, Dadaev and Geremeyev drove together to the Moscow Airport and boarded a flight to Chechnya, according to airport surveillance photos.

According to Prokhorov, investigators twice went to Alexander Bastrykin, a Putin loyalist who is the head of the country’s Investigative Committee, asking him to sign an indictment charging Geremeyev with involvement in the murder. Both times, Bastrykin refused. The investigators relayed the story to Prokhorov with a shrug, he recalled. “I guess the bosses know best,” one said.

Kadyrov’s name does not appear in the official investigation, but Olga Shorina, a longtime employee and confidante of Nemtsov’s, told me that investigators privately asked her whether Nemtsov had any conflicts with Kadyrov. The two met only once, in an episode recounted in Nemtsov’s book “Confessions of a Rebel.” At a meeting of Chechen political figures in Gudermes in 2003, Nemtsov gave a speech on the need for a consensus-based government in Chechnya and argued that the republic should not have a President. Afterward, Nemtsov wrote, Kadyrov, whose father was President at the time, came up to him and said, “You should be shot for saying such things.” Nemtsov took it as a joke—but Kadyrov’s father gave him a security detail for the rest of his visit to Chechnya. (Kadyrov has denied any involvement in the murder.)

In January, Bastrykin announced that the case had been “solved.” The final indictment identifies a man named Ruslan Mukhadinov as the organizer of the killing. Mukhadinov is a low-ranking officer in Dadaev and Geremeyev’s unit, who served as Geremeyev’s personal driver. Like his boss, Mukhadinov has effectively disappeared, and the indictment against him was issued in absentia. Case materials allege that Mukhadinov offered the killers a sum of fifteen million rubles, around two hundred thousand dollars, for carrying out the murder. He is also said to have provided the assassins with the apartment in Moscow and the murder weapon, a silenced 9-mm. pistol.

The indictment does not give any account of Mukhadinov’s motive or where he got the money to finance the operation. Prokhorov said that it’s inconceivable that Mukhadinov gave orders to Dadaev, an officer far above him in stature. “It’s clear that some other people were working through him.” Prokhorov said. But investigators, who have largely moved on to new cases, are no longer asking who those people were. “They are putting on the brakes,” Prokhorov told me.

In the absence of satisfactory answers, rich and ever-metastasizing conspiracy theories have taken hold among the opposition in Moscow. Perhaps Kadyrov thought that he would be pleasing the boss by removing an enemy. Or maybe the F.S.B. set up Kadyrov, to create a wedge between him and Putin. Maybe, and most terrifying at all, Putin knew all along. As Oliver Bullough, a journalist with deep experience in Chechnya, wrote in the Guardian last September: “What if Ramzan is murdering with impunity, and Putin does control him?”

On January 31st, Kadyrov posted on his Instagram account a video of Mikhail Kasyanov, a former Russian prime minister and now an opposition politician, edited to appear as if it had been shot through the scope of a sniper rifle. Was it a death threat or a joke in terrible taste? A week later, Chechen men attacked Kasyanov in a Moscow restaurant and smashed a cake in his face; it could have been a comical scene, if not for the threat of murder it carried.

On February 23rd, Ilya Yashin, a close friend and political ally of Nemtsov’s, released a report that outlines a number of well-known allegations against Kadyrov, from widespread corruption to involvement in a number of killings, including Nemtsov’s. For Yashin, Kadyrov shows the Putin system to be hollow, a false projection of strength that masks something much more dangerous. “It turns out Putin doesn’t control anyone in this country, it’s all bravado, all this talk that he’s created this machine, this vertical of power.”

A year later, the significance of Nemtsov’s assassination is still coming into focus. Shorina told me that it marked the moment when the state “stopped feeling shame, stopped trying to explain its actions, stopped trying to keep to the bounds of decency.” Although Nemtsov’s murder was not the only sign of Russia’s political degradation in the past year, it was the most dramatic: the killing, within sight of the Kremlin, of a person who, even in his opposition, was a member of the political establishment. And the state doesn’t appear all that able, or motivated, to do much about it.

Monday, February 22, 2016

Supreme Court Snub Is Ultimate Delegitimization Of First Black President

By LAUREN FOX Talking Point Memo

President Barack Obama said it best this week.

When it comes to who gets to appoint Supreme Court justices, the Constitution is pretty freaking clear.

"I'm amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there," Obama said.

But in the blatant declaration that Obama should not even put forward a new Supreme Court nominee to fill the vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia's death, Republicans are continuing to delegitimize a president that they have long sought to undercut. Many observers view the Supreme Court emerging drama in the Senate as the pinnacle of the drawn out, deep-seated and racially tinged effort to block America's first black president from leaving a lasting legacy on the country that elected him twice.

Obama's presidency has been marked repeatedly by moments where opponents have sought to define him as "other." As recently as September 2015, 43 percent of Republican voters still believed Obama was Muslim despite Obama's strong and consistent public affirmations of his Christian faith. Twenty percent of Americans still thought Obama had been born outside of the United States despite the fact that the president has publicly turned over his birth certificate identifying that he was born in Hawaii.

"Clearly, you have an element in the Republican Party who is very uncomfortable with diversity in this country," says Cornell Belcher, the president of Brilliant Corners Research & Strategies and a former pollster for both the Democratic National Committee and the Obama campaign.

Some congressional actions against Obama have been blatantly demeaning and disrespectful, from the time Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) screamed "you lie" in a visceral outburst at Obama as he delivered a health care address before Congress in 2009 or the time Rep. Steve King said in 2008 before Obama was even elected that that if Barack "Hussein" Obama won the White House, terrorists "would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11."

Earlier this month, the Senate and House budget committees broke with decades-old tradition and decided not to invite the president's budget director to testify before their respective committees about the president's budget, a move that one senior staffer to a Congressional Black Caucus member concluded came "from a dark place."

The Supreme Court fight has resurfaced uncomfortable and troubling questions about the nature of the opposition to Obama and the willingness of his opponents to defy norms and conventions that previous presidents were accorded.

"Reagan appointed someone to the court in his last year, LBJ did the same thing," says Michael Eric Dyson," a scholar and author of The Black Presidency: Barack Obama and the Politics of Race. "Why was it legitimate for those men in an earlier epoch, but not Barack Obama? How can we conclude anything but race?"

In the days since Scalia's death, Obama's foes have been notably candid about what is driving their opposition to him naming his third justice and tipping the balance of the court. It has nothing to do with whether the nominee is liberal or moderate, activist or restrained, temperamentally suited to the court, or even meets the basic qualifications associated with Supreme Court nominees. It's about Obama.

Curt Levey, the executive director of the conservative FreedomWorks Foundation told TPM that ”the very fact that people on our side feel very strongly that there shouldn’t be a hearing before we know the nominee is because it’s not really about the nominee. ... Frankly, the real objection here is to Obama.”

Hillary Clinton – in front of an audience in Harlem earlier in the week– very directly confronted the opposition to Obama naming the next justice, arguing that it fit with the pattern of delegitimization that has persisted throughout his presidency.

“Now the Republicans say they’ll reject anyone President Obama nominates, no matter how qualified. Some are even saying he doesn’t have the right to nominate anyone! As if somehow he’s not the real president," Clinton said. “That’s in keeping with what we’ve heard all along, isn’t it? Many Republicans talk in coded, racial language about takers and losers. They demonize President Obama and encourage the ugliest impulses of the paranoid fringe."

Observers note that opposition to Obama appointing a new justice is coming from two distinct places, both vested with deep racial undertones. On the one hand, this is part of a pattern to stop Obama as he seeks to leave a mark on the country and our collective history, changing the court majority from conservative to liberal. On the other hand, opposition to stop Obama from appointing a nominee comes from a desire to retain the status quo, the symbol of a white majority that is quickly shrinking in America.

"Why is Scalia so important? Why are they willing to do something no Senate has ever done, which is refuse not to review a constitutionally mandated candidate from the president? It is because of those many court cases where Scalia acted on purpose to protect white privilege," says Joe Feagin, a sociologist and professor at Texas A & M, who has studied the culture of racism for decades and is the author of more than 60 books. "Scalia has been a leader on the court for moving backwards on civil rights issues."

Scalia's leadership on the court represented more than just a fondness for constitutional originalism. Scalia played a major role in gutting the Voting Rights Act. In McCleskey v. Kemp, Scalia voted to uphold a death penalty system that had shown itself to penalize black Americans at greater rates than white Americans. It was Scalia who said in a hearing on affirmative action case Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin last year that "most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas."

"They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're -- that they're being pushed ahead in -- in classes that are too -- too fast for them," Scalia said during oral arguments.

Not every snub and bitter disagreement Congress has with Obama can be traced to an underlying racial animus. Darren Davis, a political science professor at Notre Dame, said he was reticent to categorize the Senate's opposition to Obama as racist. "Because I think race is already so polarizing," Davis said, "I think we have to exhaust those other possible explanations before we go racial."

Be it his signature health care law Republicans are still claiming they will roll back or his executive actions on immigration, which are caught up in a court battle, there is no doubt that Obama has been fought tooth and nail at every turn to carry out an agenda. But legitimately expecting a President to forgo his constitutional duties under Article 2 is raising eyebrows in a way that other snubs have not.

As Robert Draper chronicled in his book "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives," the effort to challenge Obama's office began immediately. On January 20, 2009, just hours after the president took his oath of office on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, House and Senate Republicans, including current House Speaker Paul Ryan and former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), gathered at the Caucus Room in Washington to brainstorm all of the ways they could make Obama a one-term president. Absent from the meeting was now-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, but he would say publicly in 2010 that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

"There is no question that there has been a collective effort from the very start to delegitimize the Obama presidency," Dyson says. "The far right wing has attempted to render it less than any other presidency. This has been layered by repugnant racial animus that seeks to deny not simply an opponent his or her due; it is the attempt to erase their place in history."

Is There Any Stopping Donald Trump?

 Frank Bruni NY TIMES

Over the last few months and even weeks, the question among many flabbergasted Republican traditionalists and incredulous political analysts was when the forces of gravity would catch up with Donald Trump and send him tumbling to earth.

It was going to happen. Of course it was going to happen. You just had to be patient. You just had to be strong.

But in the wake of his victories in New Hampshire and now South Carolina, the question is no longer “when.” It’s “if.” And the answer isn’t clear at all.

Consider this: From 1980 forward, no Republican presidential candidate has won both the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries and gone on to lose the party’s nomination.
And this: Over that same time period, only one Republican victor in South Carolina failed to become the nominee, and that was Newt Gingrich, in 2012. But Gingrich didn’t have Trump’s durable (and sizeable) lead in national polls. He didn’t dominate the race’s narrative and capture an exasperated electorate’s mood the way Trump has.

As it happens, Gingrich was on Fox News on Saturday night to discuss Trump’s latest triumph, and he didn’t say: “South Carolina? It’s a muggy, marshy, inconsequential tease. I bagged it four years ago and all it got me was this gig babbling in the wee hours about election returns.”

No, Gingrich marveled at what he made clear was “a huge night for Donald Trump.”

“Nobody should kid themselves,” he added.

Trump didn’t just win South Carolina, and he didn’t just win it by a margin of 10 points. He won it despite what looked, over recent days, like a concerted effort to lose it. He won it after what appeared to be one of the worst weeks that a candidate could have.

It began at the most recent debate, where he trashed the last Republican president, George W. Bush, and accused him of lying to the American people as he led them into war in Iraq. He sounded like a liberal Democrat. Republican primary voters, especially those in the South, aren’t typically receptive to that.

Over the next days, Trump sounded even more like a liberal Democrat, at least as described by Ted Cruz, who went after him relentlessly, armed with Trump’s own past statements in support of abortion rights and Planned Parenthood.

The week got messier from there. Trump picked a fight with the Pope. Trump picked a fight with Apple. It became evident that no personage or brand, no matter how beloved, was safe from his wrath. You had to wonder what or whom he’d go after next. Kittens? Betty Crocker? Betty White?

Then Trump spoke up for a key aspect of Obamacare before realizing what he’d done and assuring everyone that he deplored every aspect of Obamacare, which paled in comparison with Trumpcare, whatever that might turn out to be.

This prompted extensive commentary on Trump’s inconsistencies and a fresh round of murmuring about an imminent tumble.

But what we incredulous political analysts keep failing to take into account—what I was reminded of when I went to a Trump rally last week and listened hard to his supporters—is that the people voting for him aren’t evaluating him through any usual ideological lens. They’re not asking what kind of Republican he is. They’re not troubling themselves with whether the position he’s selling today matches the position he was selling yesterday or even what that old position was.

They want to try something utterly different—utterly disruptive, to use the locution du jour—and that leaves them, on the Republican side, with the options of Trump and Ben Carson. Trump has the fire.

One woman told me that she loves the idea of a billionaire who is funding his own candidacy and won’t be beholden to contributors and special interests. Wouldn’t that be refreshing? Couldn’t that be transformative? Why not give it a shot?

She’d also been to a Marco Rubio rally and was impressed: what a nice young man. But she’s not in the market for nice and young, not this time around.
Another woman told me that she craves a president who is fearless, really fearless, and that of all the candidates in the race, Trump seems the least bowed, the least cowed. She trusts him to fight. All he does is fight. And a fight is what’s in order.
A man who served in the Air Force and now works as a trucker told me that over several decades, through several presidents, the Veterans Administration has remained dysfunctional and his wages haven’t gone up. If he keeps voting the same way, for the same run-of-the-mill politicians, shouldn’t he expect more of the same? Trump isn’t the same.

Gingrich analyzed his appeal perfectly during that Fox News appearance. “It’s a very simple rule,” he said. “If you think Washington is so sick you want someone to kick over the kitchen table, then you like Donald Trump and you frankly don’t care about the details.”

In an exit poll of voters who participated in the Republican primary on Saturday, there was a near even split between those who said that the best preparation for the presidency was political experience and those who put more faith in someone from outside the political establishment. Rubio performed best with the former group, getting 38 percent of their votes. But Trump performed best with the latter group—and got 63 percent of theirs.

Going forward, Rubio is probably the bigger threat to Trump than Cruz, who won only 26 percent of South Carolina voters who identified themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians despite having campaigned as narrowly and fiercely as possible for their favor. More of them chose Trump, who got 34 percent of the evangelical vote, and plenty of them chose Rubio, who got 21 percent.

That potentially spells trouble for Cruz in the Southern states on Super Tuesday that he’d hoped to dominate. Rubio, meanwhile, is better positioned than Cruz to pick up former supporters of Jeb Bush, who ended his candidacy Saturday night, and to compete well in states outside the South.

And in the days and weeks to come, Rubio will get even more help and money than he has so far from Republican bigwigs who are desperate to see someone less truculent and divisive than Trump or Cruz burst into the lead. His South Carolina showing redeemed his New Hampshire embarrassment and renewed their faith.

But Rubio hasn’t notched a single victory yet. Trump has notched two, and whether they fully lived up to the advance polling is irrelevant. They’re victories, plural. They’re no fluke, no fad.

Naysayers can’t claim that he’s just a bad gaffe or an ugly revelation away from doom. There have already been gaffes aplenty—if you can call them gaffes. There have been revelations galore.

All Trump’s fans see is someone barreling forward without apology and with a largeness that makes them feel a little less small. They see a winner. And it’s no longer an illusion.

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Gravitational Waves Exist: The Inside Story of How Scientists Finally Found Them

BY NICOLA TWILLEY The New Yorker

A hundred years ago, Albert Einstein predicted the existence of moving ripples in space and time.

Just over a billion years ago, many millions of galaxies from here, a pair of black holes collided. They had been circling each other for aeons, in a sort of mating dance, gathering pace with each orbit, hurtling closer and closer. By the time they were a few hundred miles apart, they were whipping around at nearly the speed of light, releasing great shudders of gravitational energy. Space and time became distorted, like water at a rolling boil. In the fraction of a second that it took for the black holes to finally merge, they radiated a hundred times more energy than all the stars in the universe combined. They formed a new black hole, sixty-two times as heavy as our sun and almost as wide across as the state of Maine. As it smoothed itself out, assuming the shape of a slightly flattened sphere, a few last quivers of energy escaped. Then space and time became silent again.

The waves rippled outward in every direction, weakening as they went. On Earth, dinosaurs arose, evolved, and went extinct. The waves kept going. About fifty thousand years ago, they entered our own Milky Way galaxy, just as Homo sapiens were beginning to replace our Neanderthal cousins as the planet’s dominant species of ape. A hundred years ago, Albert Einstein, one of the more advanced members of the species, predicted the waves’ existence, inspiring decades of speculation and fruitless searching. Twenty-two years ago, construction began on an enormous detector, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO). Then, on September 14, 2015, at just before eleven in the morning, Central European Time, the waves reached Earth. Marco Drago, a thirty-two-year-old Italian postdoctoral student and a member of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration, was the first person to notice them. He was sitting in front of his computer at the Albert Einstein Institute, in Hannover, Germany, viewing the LIGO data remotely. The waves appeared on his screen as a compressed squiggle, but the most exquisite ears in the universe, attuned to vibrations of less than a trillionth of an inch, would have heard what astronomers call a chirp—a faint whooping from low to high. This morning, in a press conference in Washington, D.C., the LIGO team announced that the signal constitutes the first direct observation of gravitational waves.
THE CHIRP
What does a collision between two black holes look and sound like?
When Drago saw the signal, he was stunned. “It was difficult to understand what to do,” he told me. He informed a colleague, who had the presence of mind to call the LIGO operations room, in Livingston, Louisiana. Word began to circulate among the thousand or so scientists involved in the project. In California, David Reitze, the executive director of the LIGO Laboratory, saw his daughter off to school and went to his office, at Caltech, where he was greeted by a barrage of messages. “I don’t remember exactly what I said,” he told me. “It was along these lines: ‘Holy shit, what is this?’ ” Vicky Kalogera, a professor of physics and astronomy at Northwestern University, was in meetings all day, and didn’t hear the news until dinnertime. “My husband asked me to set the table,” she said. “I was completely ignoring him, skimming through all these weird e-mails and thinking, What is going on?” Rainer Weiss, the eighty-three-year-old physicist who first suggested building LIGO, in 1972, was on vacation in Maine. He logged on, saw the signal, and yelled “My God!” loudly enough that his wife and adult son came running.

The collaborators began the arduous process of double-, triple-, and quadruple-checking their data. “We’re saying that we made a measurement that is about a thousandth the diameter of a proton, that tells us about two black holes that merged over a billion years ago,” Reitze said. “That is a pretty extraordinary claim and it needs extraordinary evidence.” In the meantime, the LIGO scientists were sworn to absolute secrecy. As rumors of the finding spread, from late September through this week, media excitement spiked; there were rumblings about a Nobel Prize. But the collaborators gave anyone who asked about it an abbreviated version of the truth—that they were still analyzing data and had nothing to announce. Kalogera hadn’t even told her husband.

LIGO consists of two facilities, separated by nearly nineteen hundred miles—about a three-and-a-half-hour flight on a passenger jet, but a journey of less than ten ten-thousandths of a second for a gravitational wave. The detector in Livingston, Louisiana, sits on swampland east of Baton Rouge, surrounded by a commercial pine forest; the one in Hanford, Washington, is on the southwestern edge of the most contaminated nuclear site in the United States, amid desert sagebrush, tumbleweed, and decommissioned reactors. At both locations, a pair of concrete pipes some twelve feet tall stretch at right angles into the distance, so that from high above the facilities resemble carpenter’s squares. The pipes are so long—nearly two and a half miles—that they have to be raised from the ground by a yard at each end, to keep them lying flat as Earth curves beneath them.



LIGO is part of a larger effort to explore one of the more elusive implications of Einstein’s general theory of relativity. The theory, put simply, states that space and time curve in the presence of mass, and that this curvature produces the effect known as gravity. When two black holes orbit each other, they stretch and squeeze space-time like children running in circles on a trampoline, creating vibrations that travel to the very edge; these vibrations are gravitational waves. They pass through us all the time, from sources across the universe, but because gravity is so much weaker than the other fundamental forces of nature—electromagnetism, for instance, or the interactions that bind an atom together—we never sense them. Einstein thought it highly unlikely that they would ever be detected. He twice declared them nonexistent, reversing and then re-reversing his own prediction. A skeptical contemporary noted that the waves seemed to “propagate at the speed of thought.”

Nearly five decades passed before someone set about building an instrument to detect gravitational waves. The first person to try was an engineering professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, named Joe Weber. He called his device the resonant bar antenna. Weber believed that an aluminum cylinder could be made to work like a bell, amplifying the feeble strike of a gravitational wave. When a wave hit the cylinder, it would vibrate very slightly, and sensors around its circumference would translate the ringing into an electrical signal. To make sure he wasn’t detecting the vibrations of passing trucks or minor earthquakes, Weber developed several safeguards: he suspended his bars in a vacuum, and he ran two of them at a time, in separate locations—one on the campus of the University of Maryland, and one at Argonne National Laboratory, near Chicago. If both bars rang in the same way within a fraction of a second of each other, he concluded, the cause might be a gravitational wave.

In June of 1969, Weber announced that his bars had registered something. Physicists and the media were thrilled; the Times reported that “a new chapter in man’s observation of the universe has been opened.” Soon, Weber started reporting signals on a daily basis. But doubt spread as other laboratories built bars that failed to match his results. By 1974, many had concluded that Weber was mistaken. (He continued to claim new detections until his death, in 2000.)

Weber’s legacy shaped the field that he established. It created a poisonous perception that gravitational-wave hunters, as Weiss put it, are “all liars and not careful, and God knows what.” That perception was reinforced in 2014, when scientists at BICEP2, a telescope near the South Pole, detected what seemed to be gravitational radiation left over from the Big Bang; the signal was real, but it turned out to be a product of cosmic dust. Weber also left behind a group of researchers who were motivated by their inability to reproduce his results. Weiss, frustrated by the difficulty of teaching Weber’s work to his undergraduates at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, began designing what would become LIGO. “I couldn’t understand what Weber was up to,” he said in an oral history conducted by Caltech in 2000. “I didn’t think it was right. So I decided I would go at it myself.”


In the search for gravitational waves, “most of the action takes place on the phone,” Fred Raab, the head of LIGO’s Hanford site, told me. There are weekly meetings to discuss data and fortnightly meetings to discuss coördination between the two detectors, with collaborators in Australia, India, Germany, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. “When these people wake up in the middle of the night dreaming, they’re dreaming about the detector,” Raab said. “That’s how intimate they have to be with it,” he explained, to be able to make the fantastically complex instrument that Weiss conceived actually work.

Weiss’s detection method was altogether different from Weber’s. His first insight was to make the observatory “L”-shaped. Picture two people lying on the floor, their heads touching, their bodies forming a right angle. When a gravitational wave passes through them, one person will grow taller while the other shrinks; a moment later, the opposite will happen. As the wave expands space-time in one direction, it necessarily compresses it in the other. Weiss’s instrument would gauge the difference between these two fluctuating lengths, and it would do so on a gigantic scale, using miles of steel tubing. “I wasn’t going to be detecting anything on my tabletop,” he said.

To achieve the necessary precision of measurement, Weiss suggested using light as a ruler. He imagined putting a laser in the crook of the “L.” It would send a beam down the length of each tube, which a mirror at the other end would reflect back. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant, so as long as the tubes were cleared of air and other particles the beams would recombine at the crook in synchrony—unless a gravitational wave happened to pass through. In that case, the distance between the mirrors and the laser would change slightly. Since one beam would now be covering a shorter distance than its twin, they would no longer be in lockstep by the time they got back. The greater the mismatch, the stronger the wave. Such an instrument would need to be thousands of times more sensitive than any previous device, and it would require delicate tuning in order to extract a signal of vanishing weakness from the planet’s omnipresent din.

Weiss wrote up his design in the spring of 1972, as part of his laboratory’s quarterly progress report. The article never appeared in a scientific journal—it was an idea, not an experiment—but according to Kip Thorne, an emeritus professor at Caltech who is perhaps best known for his work on the movie “Interstellar,” “it is one of the greatest papers ever written.” Thorne doesn’t recall reading Weiss’s report until later. “If I had read it, I had certainly not understood it,” he said. Indeed, Thorne’s landmark textbook on gravitational theory, co-authored with Charles Misner and John Wheeler and first published in 1973, contained a student exercise designed to demonstrate the impracticability of measuring gravitational waves with lasers. “I turned around on that pretty quickly,” he told me.

Thorne’s conversion occurred in a hotel room in Washington, D.C., in 1975. Weiss had invited him to speak to a panel of NASA scientists. The evening before the meeting, the two men got to talking. “I don’t remember how it happened, but we shared the hotel room that night,” Weiss said. They sat at a tiny table, filling sheet after sheet of paper with sketches and equations. Thorne, who was raised Mormon, drank Dr Pepper; Weiss smoked a corncob pipe stuffed with Three Nuns tobacco. “There are not that many people in the world that you can talk to like that, where both of you have been thinking about the same thing for years,” Weiss said. By the time Thorne got back to his own room, the sky was turning pink.

At M.I.T., Weiss had begun assembling a small prototype detector with five-foot arms. But he had trouble getting support from departmental administrators, and many of his colleagues were also skeptical. One of them, an influential astrophysicist and relativity expert named Phillip Morrison, was firmly of the opinion that black holes did not exist—a viewpoint that many of his contemporaries shared, given the paucity of observational data. Since black holes were some of the only cosmic phenomena that could theoretically emit gravitational waves of significant size, Morrison believed that Weiss’s instrument had nothing to find. Thorne had more success: by 1981, there was a prototype under way at Caltech, with arms a hundred and thirty-one feet long. A Scottish physicist named Ronald Drever oversaw its construction, improving on Weiss’s design in the process.

In 1990, after years of studies, reports, presentations, and committee meetings, Weiss, Thorne, and Drever persuaded the National Science Foundation to fund the construction of LIGO. The project would cost two hundred and seventy-two million dollars, more than any N.S.F.-backed experiment before or since. “That started a huge fight,” Weiss said. “The astronomers were dead-set against it, because they thought it was going to be the biggest waste of money that ever happened.” Many scientists were concerned that LIGO would sap money from other research. Rich Isaacson, a program officer at the N.S.F. at the time, was instrumental in getting the observatory off the ground. “He and the National Science Foundation stuck with us and took this enormous risk,” Weiss said.

“It never should have been built,” Isaacson told me. “It was a couple of maniacs running around, with no signal ever having been discovered, talking about pushing vacuum technology and laser technology and materials technology and seismic isolation and feedback systems orders of magnitude beyond the current state of the art, using materials that hadn’t been invented yet.” But Isaacson had written his Ph.D. thesis on gravitational radiation, and he was a firm believer in LIGO’s theoretical underpinnings. “I was a mole for the gravitational-wave community inside the N.S.F.,” he said.

In their proposal, the LIGO team warned that their initial design was unlikely to detect anything. Nonetheless, they argued, an imperfect observatory had to be built in order to understand how to make a better one. “There was every reason to imagine this was going to fail,” Isaacson said. He persuaded the N.S.F. that, even if no signal was registered during the first phase, the advances in precision measurement that came out of it would likely be worth the investment. Ground was broken in early 1994.

It took years to make the most sensitive instrument in history insensitive to everything that is not a gravitational wave. Emptying the tubes of air demanded forty days of pumping. The result was one of the purest vacuums ever created on Earth, a trillionth as dense as the atmosphere at sea level. Still, the sources of interference were almost beyond reckoning—the motion of the wind in Hanford, or of the ocean in Livingston; imperfections in the laser light as a result of fluctuations in the power grid; the jittering of individual atoms within the mirrors; distant lightning storms. All can obscure or be mistaken for a gravitational wave, and each source had to be eliminated or controlled for. One of LIGO’s systems responds to minuscule seismic tremors by activating a damping system that pushes on the mirrors with exactly the right counterforce to keep them steady; another monitors for disruptive sounds from passing cars, airplanes, or wolves.

“There are ten thousand other tiny things, and I really mean ten thousand,” Weiss said. “And every single one needs to be working correctly so that nothing interferes with the signal.” When his colleagues make adjustments to the observatory’s interior components, they must set up a portable clean room, sterilize their tools, and don what they call bunny suits—full-body protective gear—lest a skin cell or a particle of dust accidentally settle on the sparkling optical hardware.

The first iteration of the observatory—Initial LIGO, as the team now calls it—was up and running in 2001. During the next nine years, the scientists measured and refined their instruments’ performance and improved their data-analysis algorithms. In the meantime, they used the prototype at Caltech and a facility in Germany to develop ever more sensitive mirror, laser, and seismic-isolation technology. In 2010, the detectors were taken offline for a five-year, two-hundred-million-dollar upgrade. They are now so well shielded that when the facilities manager at the Hanford site revs his Harley next to the control room, the scientist monitoring the gravitational-wave channel sees nothing. (A test of this scenario is memorialized in the logbook as “Bubba Roars Off on a Motor Cycle.”) The observatory’s second iteration, Advanced LIGO, should eventually be capable of surveying a volume of space that is more than a thousand times greater than its predecessor’s.

Some of the most painstaking work took place on the mirrors, which, Reitze said, are the best in the world “by far.” Each is a little more than a foot wide, weighs nearly ninety pounds, and is polished to within a hundred-millionth of an inch of a perfect sphere. (They cost almost half a million dollars apiece.) At first, the mirrors were suspended from loops of steel wire. For the upgrade, they were attached instead to a system of pendulums, which insulated them even further from seismic tremors. They dangle from fibres of fused silica—glass, basically—which, although strong enough to bear the weight of the mirrors, shatter at the slightest provocation. “We did have one incident where a screw fell and pinged one, and it just went poof,” Anamaria Effler, a former operations specialist at the Hanford site, told me. The advantage of the fibres is their purity, according to Jim Hough, of the University of Glasgow. “You know how, when you flick a whiskey glass, it will ring beautifully?” he asked. “Fused silica is even better than a whiskey glass—it is like plucking a string on a violin.” The note is so thin that it is possible for LIGO’s signal-processing software to screen it out—another source of interference eliminated.
Preparing Advanced LIGO took longer than expected, so the new and improved instrument’s start date was pushed back a few days, to September 18, 2015. Weiss was called in from Boston a week prior to try to track down the source of some radio-frequency interference. “I get there and I was horrified,” he said. “It was everywhere.” He recommended a weeklong program of repairs to address the issue, but the project’s directors refused to delay the start of the first observing run any longer. “Thank God they didn’t let me do it,” Weiss said. “I would have had the whole goddamn thing offline when the signal came in.”

On Sunday, September 13th, Effler spent the day at the Livingston site with a colleague, finishing a battery of last-minute tests. “We yelled, we vibrated things with shakers, we tapped on things, we introduced magnetic radiation, we did all kinds of things,” she said. “And, of course, everything was taking longer than it was supposed to.” At four in the morning, with one test still left to do—a simulation of a truck driver hitting his brakes nearby—they decided to pack it in. They drove home, leaving the instrument to gather data in peace. The signal arrived not long after, at 4:50 A.M. local time, passing through the two detectors within seven milliseconds of each other. It was four days before the start of Advanced LIGO’s first official run.

The fact that gravitational waves were detected so early prompted confusion and disbelief. “I had told everyone that we wouldn’t see anything until 2017 or 2018,” Reitze said. Janna Levin, a professor of astrophysics at Barnard College and Columbia University, who is not a member of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration, was equally surprised. “When the rumors started, I was like, Come on!” she said. “They only just got it locked!” The signal, moreover, was almost too perfect. “Most of us thought that, when we ever saw such a thing, it would be something that you would need many, many computers and calculations to drag out of the noise,” Weiss said. Many of his colleagues assumed that the signal was some kind of test.

The LIGO team includes a small group of people whose job is to create blind injections—bogus evidence of a gravitational wave—as a way of keeping the scientists on their toes. Although everyone knew who the four people in that group were, “we didn’t know what, when, or whether,” Gabriela González, the collaboration’s spokeswoman, said. During Initial LIGO’s final run, in 2010, the detectors picked up what appeared to be a strong signal. The scientists analyzed it intensively for six months, concluding that it was a gravitational wave from somewhere in the constellation of Canis Major. Just before they submitted their results for publication, however, they learned that the signal was a fake.

This time through, the blind-injection group swore that they had nothing to do with the signal. Marco Drago thought that their denials might also be part of the test, but Reitze, himself a member of the quartet, had a different concern. “My worry was—and you can file this under the fact that we are just paranoid cautious about making a false claim—could somebody have done this maliciously?” he said. “Could somebody have somehow faked a signal in our detector that we didn’t know about?” Reitze, Weiss, González, and a handful of others considered who, if anyone, was familiar enough with both the apparatus and the algorithms to have spoofed the system and covered his or her tracks. There were only four candidates, and none of them had a plausible motive. “We grilled those guys,” Weiss said. “And no, they didn’t do it.” Ultimately, he said, “We accepted that the most economical explanation was that it really is a black-hole pair.”

Subgroups within the LIGO Scientific Collaboration set about validating every aspect of the detection. They reviewed how the instruments had been calibrated, took their software code apart line by line, and compiled a list of possible environmental disturbances, from oscillations in the ionosphere to earthquakes in the Pacific Rim. (“There was a very large lightning strike in Africa at about the same time,” Stan Whitcomb, LIGO’s chief scientist, told me. “But our magnetometers showed that it didn’t create enough of a disturbance to cause this event.”) Eventually, they confirmed that the detection met the statistical threshold of five sigma, the gold standard for declaring a discovery in physics. This meant that there was a probability of only one in 3.5 million that the signal was spotted by chance.

The September 14th detection, now officially known as GW150914, has already yielded a handful of significant astrophysical findings. To begin with, it represents the first observational evidence that black-hole pairs exist. Until now, they had existed only in theory, since by definition they swallow all light in their vicinity, rendering themselves invisible to conventional telescopes. Gravitational waves are the only information known to be capable of escaping a black hole’s crushing gravity.

The LIGO scientists have extracted an astonishing amount from the signal, including the masses of the black holes that produced it, their orbital speed, and the precise moment at which their surfaces touched. They are substantially heavier than expected, a surprise that, if confirmed by future observations, may help to explain how the mysterious supermassive black holes at the heart of many galaxies are formed. The team has also been able to quantify what is known as the ringdown—the three bursts of energy that the new, larger black hole gave off as it became spherical. “Seeing the ringdown is spectacular,” Levin said. It offers confirmation of one of relativity theory’s most important predictions about black holes—namely, that they radiate away imperfections in the form of gravitational waves after they coalesce.

The detection also proves that Einstein was right about yet another aspect of the physical universe. Although his theory deals with gravity, it has primarily been tested in our solar system, a place with a notably weak gravitational regime. “You think Earth’s gravity is really something when you’re climbing the stairs,” Weiss said. “But, as far as physics goes, it is a pipsqueak, infinitesimal, tiny little effect.” Near a black hole, however, gravity becomes the strongest force in the universe, capable of tearing atoms apart. Einstein predicted as much in 1916, and the LIGO results suggest that his equations align almost perfectly with real-world observation. “How could he have ever known this?” Weiss asked. “I would love to present him with the data that I saw that morning, to see his face.”

Since the September 14th detection, LIGO has continued to observe candidate signals, although none are quite as dramatic as the first event. “The reason we are making all this fuss is because of the big guy,” Weiss said. “But we’re very happy that there are other, smaller ones, because it says this is not some unique, crazy, cuckoo effect.”

Virtually everything that is known about the universe has come to scientists by way of the electromagnetic spectrum. Four hundred years ago, Galileo began exploring the realm of visible light with his telescope. Since then, astronomers have pushed their instruments further. They have learned to see in radio waves and microwaves, in infrared and ultraviolet, in X-rays and gamma rays, revealing the birth of stars in the Carina Nebula and the eruption of geysers on Saturn’s eighth moon, pinpointing the center of the Milky Way and the locations of Earth-like planets around us. But more than ninety-five per cent of the universe remains imperceptible to traditional astronomy. Gravitational waves may not illuminate the so-called dark energy that is thought to make up the majority of that obscurity, but they will enable us to survey space and time as we never have before. “This is a completely new kind of telescope,” Reitze said. “And that means we have an entirely new kind of astronomy to explore.” If what we witnessed before was a silent movie, Levin said, gravitational waves turn our universe into a talkie.

As it happens, the particular frequencies of the waves that LIGO can detect fall within the range of human hearing, between about thirty-five and two hundred and fifty hertz. The chirp was much too quiet to hear by the time it reached Earth, and LIGO was capable of capturing only two-tenths of a second of the black holes’ multibillion-year merger, but with some minimal audio processing the event sounds like a glissando. “Use the back of your fingers, the nails, and just run them along the piano from the lowest A up to middle C, and you’ve got the whole signal,” Weiss said.

Different celestial sources emit their own sorts of gravitational waves, which means that LIGO and its successors could end up hearing something like a cosmic orchestra. “The binary neutron stars are like the piccolos,” Reitze said. Isolated spinning pulsars, he added, might make a monochromatic “ding” like a triangle, and black holes would fill in the string section, running from double bass on up, depending on their mass. LIGO, he said, will only ever be able to detect violins and violas; waves from supermassive black holes, like the one at the center of the Milky Way, will have to await future detectors, with different sensitivities.

Several such detectors are in the planning stages or under construction, including the Einstein Telescope, a European project whose underground arms will be more than twice the length of LIGO’s, and a space-based constellation of three instruments called eLISA. (The European Space Agency, with support from NASA, launched a pathfinder mission in December.) Other detectors are already up and running, including the BICEP2 telescope, which, despite its initial false alarm, may still detect the echoes of gravitational waves from even further back in the universe’s history. Reitze’s hope, he told me, is that the chirp will motivate more investment in the field.

Advanced LIGO’s first observing run came to an end on January 12th. Effler and the rest of the commissioning team have since begun another round of improvements. The observatory is inching toward its maximum sensitivity; within two or three years, it may well register events on a daily basis, capturing more data in the process. It will come online again by late summer, listening even more closely to a celestial soundtrack that we have barely imagined. “We are opening up a window on the universe so radically different from all previous windows that we are pretty ignorant about what’s going to come through,” Thorne said. “There are just bound to be big surprises.”

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

What About Ted Cruz?

 Thomas B. Edsall NY TIMES

Despite Donald Trump’s victory in New Hampshire, what is the chance that Republicans will nominate Ted Cruz and that he will go on to win the presidency?

The website ElectionBettingOdds gives Cruz a 14.5 percent chance of winning the nomination — his victory in the Iowa caucuses and what looks like a third place showing in New Hampshire notwithstanding. It puts his chances of actually winning the presidency at 4.3 percent.

But let’s say Cruz beats the odds and wins the nomination. One of the most conservative members of the Senate, Cruz would test the argument made by leaders of the hard right that Republicans have lost four of the last six presidential elections because their candidates — George H. W. Bush of 1992, Robert Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney — were insufficiently conservative.
For more than 50 years, Phyllis Schlafly, the right-wing icon and founder of the Eagle Forum, has been a relentless proponent of the nomination of far-right candidates like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

In an Oct. 7, 2015, column, Schlafly wrote:

Establishment candidates have been unable to win the popular vote in five out of the last six elections, and that outcome is not something any Republican should want to repeat.

There is an unusual degree of consensus on the intensity of Cruz’s conservatism among experts in campaigns, elections and partisan polarization.

I asked Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory, just how conservative Cruz is. Abramowitz replied:

Cruz’s positions are on the far right of the Republican Party today which would certainly place him far to the right of past conservative leaders like Reagan or Gingrich during his years as Speaker. In fact, his voting record is among the 2 or 3 most consistently conservative in the Senate. He is very conservative on every issue dimension: economic policy, social policy and national security/foreign policy. He is running on that record — emphasizing his purity compared with his rivals.

Cruz fits the conservative bill of particulars on every count. Edward Carmines, a political scientist at Indiana University, affirmed Abramowitz’s judgment:

What Cruz represents is the embodiment of the hard right; he has extremely conservative positions not just on economic and social welfare issues like social security, health care, affirmative action programs for women and minorities, and taxes but also on social and cultural issues such as gun control, prayer in schools, abortion, and gay marriage.

Cruz’s extremism has been statistically presented by Keith Poole, a political scientist at the University of Georgia. Poole has produced a chart, based on voting records, of the ideological positions of presidential candidates who have served in the House or Senate. The chart shows Cruz’s voting record as substantially more conservative than that of Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham or Bob Dole.
Cruz’s nomination would turn the general election in November into an almost perfect test of the viability of a pure conservative.

The pragmatic wing, which overwhelmingly opposes a Cruz nomination, includes many of the party’s consultants and strategists, much of the Republican lobbying community, and some elected Republicans from blue and purple states. The strategic views of this wing are embodied in the Republican National Committee’s 2013 Growth and Opportunity Project report, a.k.a. the autopsy report, calling for moderation of positions seen as anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-women and as intolerant of religious diversity.

Without addressing the issues of abortion and reproductive rights by name, the report clearly called for moderation of hard-line stands:

When it comes to social issues, the Party must in fact and deed be inclusive and welcoming. If we are not, we will limit our ability to attract young people and others, including many women, who agree with us on some but not all issues.

Cruz has staked out what he calls “courageous conservatism,” and refuses to budge from a hard-line anti-abortion stand. He subscribes to the belief that life begins at fertilization. This position would not only criminalize abortions in the case of rape and incest but would prohibit the use of contraceptive methods that are understood to prevent the uterine implantation of a fertilized egg like the intrauterine device and the morning-after pill.

In 2012, when Cruz was running for the Senate, the Houston Chronicle reported that “Cruz would allow abortion only in cases in which the mother’s life is in jeopardy” and quoted him as saying “I think that every human life is a precious gift from God and should be protected in law from conception until natural death.”

Cruz’s opposition to abortion in the case of rape and incest is well to the right of the vast majority of voters, including most Republicans. One CNN poll found that 76 percent of Republican voters said abortions should be legal in cases of rape and incest; 22 percent said they should be illegal under such circumstances.

Cruz is far outside the mainstream on a host of other issues.

Not only does he advocate overturning the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, but he faulted the Republican mayor of Dallas for participating in a gay pride celebration: “When a mayor of a city chooses twice to march in a parade celebrating gay pride that’s a statement and it’s not a statement I agree with.”

Cruz calls for the partial privatization of Social Security, raising the retirement age and using a new formula to slow the growth of benefits.

Cruz has declared that he is “fully committed to repealing every single word of Obamacare” and has attacked the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, arguing that expansion “will worsen health care options for the most vulnerable among us in Texas.”

During his three years in Washington, Cruz has earned an unprecedented level of animosity from elites on both the left and right. What is really stunning to a longtime observer of Washington is the number of reputable people who have brutally criticized Cruz on the record. The New Republic recently published an extraordinary collection of anti-Cruz quotes that runs from the left through the center to the right. His colleagues are on record as hating him — hate may be too mild a description. First and foremost, he has angered virtually everyone he works with, especially his fellow Republican senators.

A prime example took place on the Senate floor last July 24 when Cruz called Mitch McConnell, his majority leader, a liar, claiming that a McConnell promise about a key amendment was a “flat out lie.”

Even more remarkable than the willingness of, say, Representative Peter King, Republican of New York, to declare that “Cruz isn’t a good guy, and he’d be impossible as president. People don’t trust him.” is the willingness of Republican lobbyists — men and women whose livelihoods depend on good relations with potential presidential administrations — to disparage Cruz.

“Cruz is a leader of the ‘purity caucus’ that is obstinate, grandstanding and very un-Reagan like and very frustrating for his Senate colleagues,” Ed Rogers, chairman of the BGR Group, one of the major lobbying firms, wrote to me in an email. John Feehery, president of Quinn Gillespie Communications, and a former top Republican staffer on Capitol Hill, was more outspoken:

Cruz is an army of one, alienating anybody who is in his path. He advocates losing strategies purely to further his own career at the expense of the party.

The second basis for Republican animosity toward Cruz is the widespread conviction that Cruz would not only lose in a landslide, but that he would bring the Republican Senate majority and many House Republicans down with him.

“If he’s the nominee, we’re going to have wholesale losses in Congress and state offices and governors and legislatures,” said Bob Dole, a former Senate majority leader and the Republican nominee in 1996.
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party.... it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly,...
Cruz, more than any of the other Republican presidential candidates, including Trump, is ideally suited to mobilize every Democratic constituency, including single women, minorities, young voters and socially liberal professionals — with the possible exception of some Hispanic voters who would be drawn to a Cuban-American candidate. With Cruz as the nominee, Democrats could make substantial inroads among moderate and centrist Republican voters as well as married women.

Cruz’s appeal is restricted to core Republican constituencies, most of which are in decline as a percentage of the electorate. Married white Christians have steadily dropped from 80 percent of voters in the late 1950s to fewer than 40 percent now. In 1940, 82 percent of adults were members of the white working class; now that number is well below 30 percent. In the bleak demographic environment facing the Republican Party, Cruz offers little or no prospect of enlarging the party’s base.

Even if Cruz were to lick the 20-1 odds against him and win the presidency, his ability to accomplish any of his policy objectives would be severely constrained not only by Democrats but also by the legions of Republicans who hold him in contempt.

Strategically, many in the Republican establishment had been looking favorably on Marco Rubio as their best — or least bad — choice. Rubio’s disastrous performance in the most recent debate — and his apparent fifth-place finish in New Hampshire — have, however, given renewed momentum to the unexpected willingness of Republican elected officials to back Trump in order to choke off Cruz’s bid.

Charles Black, a conservative lobbyist active in Republican presidential politics for half a century, told the Times before voting began this month that if Cruz were nominated, party leaders would “sit down and try to help Cruz run a better campaign, but he may not listen.” In contrast, “You can coach Donald,” Black said. “If he got nominated, he’d be scared to death. That’s the point he would call people in the party and say, ‘I just want to talk to you.’ ”

For a deeply partisan Democrat, the strategic calculus is different. Hillary Clinton remains the favorite in national polls and can be expected to begin winning primaries starting on Feb. 27 when the battle moves South and she will likely get strong African-American support.

In that case, the best choice for registered Democrats in states holding Republican primaries would be to switch parties and vote for Cruz on the theory that as a nominee he would shrink the Republican coalition.

The Republican National Committee and other conservative groups are attempting a similar approach by supporting Bernie Sanders on the calculation that he would be a much weaker general election candidate than Clinton.

If you think this is paranoia, take a look at the Twitter feeds during the Democratic debate on Jan. 17. Sean Spicer, the communications director for the Republican National Committee, repeatedly posted pro-Sanders tweets, including this one:
This election cycle is the first in recent memory in which both parties are giving serious consideration to candidates like Trump, Cruz and Sanders, who would bring striking liabilities into the general election.

There have been many elections in which one party chose a lemon — Barry Goldwater, Bob Dole and Mitt Romney on the Republican side; George McGovern, Fritz Mondale and Michael Dukakis on the Democratic side — but none in which both parties have chosen candidates with severe electoral liabilities.
In 2016, Republican and Democratic party elders are struggling to reassert authority, with little success.

As a result, the prospect of a general election between candidates whom leaders and strategists see as losers – Sanders versus either Cruz or Trump – is more than an idle fantasy.

The Sanders victory in New Hampshire — and who would have thought that he would have won any state at all when the campaign began? — raises the prospect, however fleeting, of a contest the likes of which we’ve never seen.