So, What Will You Do in November, Conservatives?

Allahpundit has some interesting thoughts on how that might play out:

I’m not saying conservative revulsion at Trump isn’t real. It is, and I think when it all shakes out in November that Trump will have seen more Republicans stay home for him than stayed home for either Romney or McCain. But I don’t think there’ll be a third party and I also don’t think that some sliver of conservatives staying home will doom Trump’s candidacy. Given Hillary’s weakness and his own appeal to independents and Reagan Democrats, it’s possible that he’d find the votes he needs to win in the center. That would be the final indignity to the conservative movement after having its impotence laid bare for more than a year — staging a mass boycott of Trump on election day and discovering that Trump can win anyway…

I think he’s right – because Trump will pull into the GOP far more people than stay home or write in a candidate. He’s not just going to get the storied “Reagan Democrats”, he’s going to get the “Trump Democrats”…people who normally vote Democrat but will slide over to Trump because (a) Hillary is just horrible and (b) Trump’s brand of populist nationalism is deeply in tune with their overall worldview. Last night I engaged in a (very polite) argument with a conservative on Twitter over the prospects of Trump winning Pennsylvania. That State, like Michigan, is one of those States the GOP should win fairly easily – and yet, year after year, we keep losing them. Win PA and MI and the GOP could still lose FL and thread the Electoral College needle to victory. The conservative I argued with was certain – Trump will never, ever win PA…the Philly suburbs would reject him. Which is likely correct – but I’m thinking that Philly, itself, might generate more votes for Trump than anyone suspects. Meaning that what Trump might lose among upper class white voters in the ‘burbs could be more than made up for by winning the votes of working class white (and minority) voters in the cities.

Just a net switch over to Trump of 155,000 PA votes in 2016 annuls the 2012 result. 225,000 does it for Michigan. 50,000 does it for Ohio. 50,000 does it for Florida. 55,000 does it in Virginia. Flip those States from 2012 and Trump has 302 electoral votes. But even if Hillary hangs on in PA and MI, Trump is still at 266…think he can’t win any of NV, CO, NM, IA or WI? Any one of those States would hand the election to him. But it might get worse than that – Trump’s appeal to cross-over Democrat votes might find Hillary having to defend herself in odd places like New Jersey, Maine, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Oregon.

Of course, on the other hand, we can rely upon the good sense of the American people to reject a vulgar demagogue like Trump. Sure we can. The same nation that made the Kardashians rich and famous is sure to see right through the Trump scam…

60 thoughts on “So, What Will You Do in November, Conservatives?

  1. Shawny Lee February 23, 2016 / 5:44 am

    I think we will vote on what we believe is the most critical, immediate issue facing us besides the collapsing global economy and who we think may take the actions necessary to reverse our present suicidal course. You, of course, may have a different set of priorities but please consider some of the data provided in this presentation. It outlines political and cultural changes impacted by illegal immigration without even touching on the national security aspect.

    • Amazona February 23, 2016 / 10:18 am

      And here we go again. acting as if Donald Trump is the only candidate to address the immigration problem. I am fascinated by the phenomenon of seeing Trumpkins scurry to find a “reason” for their passion, and they seem to have hooked onto this immigration thing as if THIS is the reason they are so passionate about Trump.

      Can any of the Trump fan club truly believe that HE is the only potential candidate who realizes the problems of unrestricted immigration? Really? That is nonsense. Not only is Trump new to the immigration issue—at least new to this side of it—his appeal has never been the vague plan he came up with after he was challenged to produce something less cartoonish than I’LL DEPORT THEM ALL !! and I’LL BUILD A WALL AND MAKE MEXICO PAY FOR IT !!. No, it’s been the visceral reaction some had to his ridiculous posturing. These people didn’t just have thrills running up their legs, they were a-tingle top to bottom. And loving it.

      The most bizarre thing about this latching on to the “immigration issue” as the justification for Trumpmania is that what he says doesn’t make any sense. Oh, the impact of illegal immigration makes sense, always has, but this is not new to Trump and it is silly to act as if HE, the Mighty Trump, was the first one to realize it. We’ve been talking about the economic impact of low-wage workers, the economic impact of flooding our health care and educational systems, the cost in human lives of people dying to get here across deserts or packed into shipping containers and box trucks, etc. I’m just baffled by the impression some people seem to have that it took TRUMP to see this.

      As I said in another post, there are so many questions that need to be answered, just about the “deporting them all” claim, but Trumpets don’t ever ask them. They don’t ask Trump and they don’t seem to ask themselves or each other, either.

      “How?” “Just how would that work? Will you herd millions of people onto cattle cars headed south? What about their possessions? Their assets? Will we ship their possessions for them? Will we just reimburse them for what they have to leave behind? How much would that cost? What about their children who were born here? Their pets? Where would you send them? Is just “across the border” good enough? What if they have no homes to return to? Will they need documentation to be able to go back to their native lands? What if they don’t have any documentation? What if their native countries won’t accept them? Who will do the deporting? How many people will have to be hired to do the deporting? Will they be able to use force? Will they be armed? Trained? Who will train them? How much expansion of the federal government would this require? What about illegals who are not Latino? Air fare? What would this cost?”

      Sorry, but I am just not buying the new claim that what gets people behind Trump is that he is the one who understands the immigration problem and has a plan to fix it.

      Ditto for the trade argument. Yes, we have some stupid plans in place. But have any Trumpites bothered to do a quick calculation of the cost to the poor and middle class if the prices on goods manufactured in China suddenly rise by 45% ? Duh. Serious problems call for serious solutions, not sound-bites.

      • Retired Spook February 23, 2016 / 10:37 am


        The Matt Walsh piece you linked to in a previous post is far and away the best skewering of Trump supporters I’ve seen. I’m guessing most of them won’t read it because, just like liberal Democrats, their minds are made up, and they don’t want to be confronted with the facts.

      • Shawny Lee February 23, 2016 / 2:28 pm

        Alright, so you don’t agree that immigration is as critical an issue as I do and that without strong and immediate measures being taken to actually enforce existing laws nearly all of the other issues are mute. Or perhaps you believe that Rubio or Cruz’s stated plans to “fix immigration” will be sufficient. Many do not see in their Congressional voting record or campaign statements that they acknowledge the tipping point we’ve allowed ourselves to approach and that the politics of compromise and any kind of amnesty is not going to fix it. Now apparently Cruz is saying he’d deport illegals but to my knowledge this is the first time he’s indicated that so how convinced should we be? I don’t know.

      • Amazona February 23, 2016 / 7:47 pm

        “Alright, so you don’t agree that immigration is as critical an issue as I do and that without strong and immediate measures being taken to actually enforce existing laws nearly all of the other issues are mute (sic).”

        Shawny, just an FYI–completely restating/misstating what someone else said, so you can argue what you want to argue, is not only quite annoying, it pretty much diminishes your own position.

        Nowhere did I say, state, hint or imply that I do not consider immigration “as critical an issue” as you do. That statement is so baldly false, and contradicted by the very post you seem to be responding to, I have absolutely no idea where it came from..

        Actually, yes I do. It came from a need on your part to continue the charade that your support for Trump is based on his stance on immigration—presumably you are so smitten with his stance that it serves to outweigh the vast amount of negatives the man not only carries around with him but adds to nearly every time he opens his mouth or gets close to a computer keyboard.

        (And the word is “moot” not “mute”.)

        I have posted what may very well be the strongest arguments against illegal immigration seen on this site, citing the things I mentioned in the post you are presumably responding to. I have discussed the impact on the American economy due to competition with America workers. I have discussed the impact on the American economy due to the burdens placed on our health care and educational systems. I have discussed the impact on American culture in having a whole unassimilated subculture which does not speak our language or respect our laws. I have discussed the impact on our society in having different laws for different groups of people, citing the fact that traffic citations are often not issued to people who are not here legally because, after all, why bother. I have discussed the inhumanity in having a system which encourages poor and desperate people to risk their lives to get here. I have discussed the national security problems inherent in having porous borders. I have sharply disagreed with those who have liked the idea of eventual citizenship for illegals. So do NOT tell me I take this less seriously than you do.

        What I DO think is that many other people have taken it quite seriously, many other people have given it a lot of thought, many other people have worked to come up with reasonable and workable solutions. And most if not all of them are a hell of a lot smarter than Donald Trump, who is, as I said, quite new to the topic—at least on this side of the issue. Until he decided how best to pander to the conservative voter, he was all about amnesty and fretting about the stupidity and cruelty of deporting people who had been here for years. (I provided his own quotes, which you evidently found unworthy of your attention.)

        “…perhaps you believe that Rubio or Cruz’s stated plans to “fix immigration” will be sufficient. Many do not see in their Congressional voting record or campaign statements that they acknowledge the tipping point we’ve allowed ourselves to approach and that the politics of compromise and any kind of amnesty is not going to fix it.”

        Since you seem to have studied the ideas of Rubio and Cruz, why don’t you tell me why they fall short of what YOU would like to see.

      • Amazona February 23, 2016 / 8:16 pm

        I don’t want to try to quote Cruz or Rubio. Let me tell you what I would do, if I could make the rules.

        First, I would pass legislation making it a felony to be here illegally, Now it is a misdemeanor, with about the same legal impact as a traffic ticket. Donald Trump, by the way, has not addressed this, and to me it is vital part of any meaningful reform. As I have often said, a law without a penalty is pretty much like no law at all.

        Second, I would establish strong border control program. It would not be possible to implement it all immediately, but work should begin immediately.

        Third, I would establish a time period in which illegals would be required to register. Let’s say 90 days. After that time has passed, any alien who is not properly documented and is not registered is a felon. Those who have registered are given temporary conditional visas, so at this time, and for some time, they are here legally.

        Each registered person must pass an investigation. This includes running fingerprints through a data base, to see if the person has been arrested and printed but did not appear for trial. It would include looking to see if there is any other documented criminal history. It would serve to find out if the person is employed.

        I believe at this point many would choose to go home. Knowing that you will be imprisoned if you are caught here without your temporary visa in place, knowing that your fingerprints are going to show that you have been picked up and ducked out of the legal process, these are things that will strongly encourage people to get out before the excrement hits the ventilator. Over time, attrition would take out most of the unwanted illegals. It took decades for this problem to get to where it is now, and it will take a while to fix it.

        When a person has passed the investigative process—that is, has shown that he or she is a lawful person (aside from breaking our feeble immigration laws) he or she would be eligible for a long-term work visa, with the first year a probationary year. By the end of the first year, the person will have to show basic proficiency in English and must pass tests on how to function in our society—how to find and use private health care, why we think leaving toilets unflushed is disgusting, and so on. When a person has shown that he or she has the tools to assimilate, and has not violated the strict regulations of the probationary visa (such as DUI, etc.) he or she is then given a long term work visa.

        Here is where I would allow that dreaded bogeyman word to intrude—-AMNESTY. As amnesty doesn’t mean any of the things people associate with it, such as citizenship, but merely means being forgiven the penalty for an act, I would at this point forgive the measly thousand or two thousand dollar fine for the very minor, in terms of the law, misdemeanor of being here illegally. I think that after someone has registered, been fingerprinted and DNA tested and had retinal scans done, been investigated, taken English lessons, and gone to classes on how to function in American society, he or she has shown a degree of commitment, and I think forgiving the fine would not only be appropriate but let the Right OWN the word “amnesty” without ignoring law breaking.

        Near the end of the extended term work visa, the person would have to make a decision—go home or apply for permanent residency. There is no citizenship—ever. Speaking or acting against the United States, such as supporting programs such as La Raza and Reconquista, would result in immediate revocation of a legal right to be here. Being in a gang is cause for immediate deportation.

        And no one who has been deported can return, ever, for any reason. No extended family inclusions. If you are legal, you can go home to see your family.

        Keep in mind, this would apply to all illegals, not just latinos.

        Now you may think that coming up with this shows a lack of interest in the immigration problem, and/or a casual attitude toward it, and/or a lack of information about it.

        But I think it is a reasonable balance between a heavy-handed storm trooper Trump approach, which carries with it the questions I asked which you just ignored, and recognizing that some of these people have contributed to this country and can continue to do so. I think it balances a very stern and serious attitude toward illegal immigration while showing humanity and compassion. And it says, and would spell out, IF YOU WANT TO LIVE HERE YOU HAVE TO RESPECT THIS COUNTRY AND ITS LAWS, AND YOU HAVE TO BECOME PART OF ITS CULTURE AND SOCIETY.

        And by the way, English would be the only official language of the country. You can speak your native language anywhere you want, but you can’t expect any official documents to be in anything but English. And no translators at voting places. If you can’t speak English well enough to vote, you probably aren’t a citizen, as naturalization requires passing a basic English proficiency test.

      • Amazona February 23, 2016 / 8:20 pm

        The only time I would allow a “path to citizenship” would be for honorable service in any branch of the military.

      • Amazona February 23, 2016 / 8:23 pm

        BTW, the new Cruz position, unless it is different from the sound bites, makes me respect him less. It is hard to believe that he just tossed out a Trumpish position and I would like to know what he really said, all of it.

        He took a principled stand on ethanol, in Iowa of all places, and I hate to think he can’t do the same on immigration reform.

    • Amazona February 23, 2016 / 12:09 pm


      Over the summer (2012) he (Trump) explained his reservations about a hardline immigration policy popular among some Republicans.

      “For people that have been here for years that have been hard-workers, have good jobs, they’re supporting their family — it’s very, very tough to just say, ‘By the way, 22 years, you have to leave. Get out,'” he said during an appearance on Fox News. “I’m one of the world’s very conservative people, but I have to tell you on a human basis, how do you throw somebody out that’s lived in this country for 20 years.”


      … back in 2012, weeks after Mitt Romney last the election, Trump spoke to Newsmax and, well, said all this:

      Whether intended or not, comments and policies of Mitt Romney and other Republican candidates during this election were seen by Hispanics and Asians as hostile to them, Trump says.
      “Republicans didn’t have anything going for them with respect to Latinos and with respect to Asians,” the billionaire developer says.

      “The Democrats didn’t have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants, but what they did have going for them is they weren’t mean-spirited about it,” Trump says. “They didn’t know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind.”

      He said Romney’s “crazy policy of self deportation” cost him the Latino vote and the Republican party in general needs to “take care of this incredible problem that we have with respect to immigration, with respect to people wanting to be wonderful productive citizens of this country.

      Of course that is just what he thought then, and he thinks something different now, and we’re pretty sure he will keep thinking this even after the gets into the White House. ‘Cause this guy TELLS IT LIKE IT IS.

      Of course, “how it is” can change. And has.

  2. Retired Spook February 23, 2016 / 10:30 am

    A lot of what happens in November, as well as throughout the Democrat primary, depends on how many people like this show up to vote. Now the good news is that GOP primary voting numbers have way above average while Democrat numbers are off 30% from 2008.

    • Retired Spook February 23, 2016 / 6:14 pm

      Sorry — senior moment. I meant 2008.

      By contrast, Democrats’ turnout has tumbled from its 2008 records in all three contests, including Saturday’s caucuses in Nevada. About 80,000 voters took part in the caucuses, with was 33 percent less than 2008’s level.

  3. Bob Eisenhower February 23, 2016 / 10:42 am

    Trump will easily win Pennsylvania for the same reason he easily won New Hampshire, it is his own backyard.

    I was really hoping to see SC reject him like Iowa did, which would show he only works for home crowds, but I guess that didn’t work out.

    Brace yourselves. President Trump is coming.

    • Amazona February 23, 2016 / 11:39 am

      The Republicans are in a bind they created, and worked very hard to reinforce.

      The biggest problem right now is the determination of both Cruz and Rubio to ride this out as long as they can, each one thinking he will outlast the other, while Trump rakes in the benefit of having the 60 to 70 % of Republicans who can’t stand him splitting their votes between Cruz and Rubio..

      Some of us were talking, off-blog, about what a Rubio surge would mean. We agree that we could vote for Rubio without having to hold our noses—he is not our first choice, but he is acceptable. We also talked about Cruz having a greater impact on this country as a Supreme Court justice than as a president, as long as who we do get is not Trump. Personally, I would prefer a President Rubio, Vice President Fiorina, and Supreme Court Justice Cruz, not because I think Rubio would be a better president than Cruz but because I think Cruz, at the age of 45 (next year when the appointment would be made) could have a solid 40 years, or more, helping reform the Supreme Court into what it was always supposed to be.

      Or I would if it were not for the problem of Natural Born Citizenship. Because of this, and only because of this, I think Rubio should step down and throw his support to Ted Cruz. Trump, in his mad rush to the White House, (and I mean “mad” in its traditional sense, not “angry”) is going to trample everyone and everything in his way, glorying in the “beautry” of being vicious and mean, and he will throw everything he has at Rubio on this Natural Born Citizen thing. Sadly, in this case I think Trump is right, and I think it was a reckless gamble that put the whole election in peril for Rubio to hope he could just bluff his way through this.

      During the Super Bowl game, my cousin pointed out, after a series of stupid penalties by the Broncos, that the only team that beat the Broncos this year was the Broncos. I think of that when I look at the self-destruction of the Republican Party. It’s as if Republicans are waving off Dems who want to take us down, saying “Don’t worry, guys—-we’ve got this”.

      When I look at the three top contenders in the GOP field, I see two who are willing to risk everything to get what they want—Trump and Rubio—and one who just wants the country to recover from its flirtation with disaster.

      Trump, if he wins, is going to destroy the Republican Party and create a hybrid that is much closer to the Democrat Party. It’s almost as if a Trump victory would result in three parties—the Republicrat Party in the middle, pretty much a Bill Clinton kind of party, the Socialists on the Left with Bernie and Hillary and their followers, and the Conservative or Constitutional Party on the Right. Trump wants his place in history, and I think it is assured—as the Spoiler, the guy who s**t in the Cheerios.

  4. Amazona February 23, 2016 / 11:47 am

    “Of course, on the other hand, we can rely upon the good sense of the American people to reject a vulgar demagogue like Trump. Sure we can. The same nation that made the Kardashians rich and famous is sure to see right through the Trump scam…”

    That is so funny. Trump really is the Kardashian/Springer candidate.

    Bob said “President Trump is coming” and with him, presidential tweets.

    #President: Someone at the summit said Putin is a p***y. I don’t say he is, but someone else thinks so.

    #President. Do you have to be gay to ride horses with your shirt off? Not saying so, just wondering.

    #President. Met Merkel at the summit. Woof. Had to look at that face all day. What a loser.

    • Bob Eisenhower February 23, 2016 / 2:18 pm

      @President: Putin shirtless again. Looks like he’s been Putin on the pounds, if you catch my drift. #ManBoobs #amirite

      @President: Malala Yousafzai, what a waste. All that Nobel Prize money and none spent making that face presentable. #WhoWants72VirginsThatLookLikeThat

      @President: Just saw NSA photos of Saddam’ palaces. Gold walls. Sculptures that pee in the pool. I like this Saddam guy, he’s a classy guy. #SuckItGoodTaste

      • Amazona February 23, 2016 / 8:44 pm

        Good contributions, and thanks for updating me on the format. I refuse to engage in social media and didn’t take the time to check out what tweets look like.

        We should have a competition, or at least encourage contributions. Someone did a computer-generated Trump insult app that was not only funny, it was frighteningly accurate. Well, I guess if you are really predictable it’s not that hard to be anticipated.

  5. Shawny Lee February 23, 2016 / 3:11 pm

    These are strange times indeed. There are several things I disagree with Trump on, like his not defending states rights, something I believe is critically important to shrinking the size of federal government and his defense of the government surveillance programs and perhaps the more and more militarized police state. But I do believe we need someone who will staunchly defend our second amendment rights and stem the tide of illegal immigrants which has already dragged our culture so far to the left that the conservative values I was raised with are now seen as extreme, radical. Likely none of the candidates are as conservative as they would like to convince us they are. But then neither of the Democrat candidates are Democrat as much as they are collectivists, progressives (socialists) who will continue down the destructive path we have been on. So whoever the Republican nominee is, they must also be able to win the general election at all costs. The best I can figure is that it must be a whole lot easier to trash Trump and demean his base than convince them why they should vote for someone else. There are other blogs, even a few liberal ones which seem more willing to discuss the issues and agree to disagree.

    • Amazona February 23, 2016 / 8:29 pm

      “The Rubio campaign, though, said it never told organizers he would not attend, and that it simply hasn’t been able to commit to anything because its March schedule has yet to be determined beyond the Republican presidential debates.

      We want to do it, but can’t commit to a specific date or time yet,” tweeted Alex Conant, the Rubio campaign manager.”

      • Shawny Lee February 23, 2016 / 8:36 pm

        Thanks for posting. I thought it sounded strange.

    • Amazona February 23, 2016 / 8:34 pm

      BTW, CPAC did not call Rubio a rookie, but said that not attending would be a “rookie mistake”. (1) that is just the opinion of the person speaking, not exactly a real definition, and (2) he didn’t say he wouldn’t be there.

      I’ve been to CPAC (quit going after attendance hit 12,000+ and it was just too crowded.) I know that Rubio knows how important it is. He has run a campaign that has had a pretty good handle on optics, and he is not a dummy, or a “rookie”.

      We want to do it, but can’t commit to a specific date or time yet,” tweeted Alex Conant, the Rubio campaign manager.”

      • Amazona February 23, 2016 / 9:35 pm

        I got a very nasty email from CPAC repeating the story but with such a strong odor of anti-Rubio sentiment it made me angry.

        “Take me off your mailing list. I’m not interested in CPAC any more after this hit piece on Rubio. He is not my first choice for president but that doesn’t mean I don’t want him treated fairly.

        Today the Rubio campaign informed ACU’s chairman that their candidate is unwilling to make time to meet with activists and answer their questions at CPAC 2016. Not true, and you know it, and you knew it when you sent this out.

        Sen. Rubio cannot have it both ways: he cannot hope to be the inspirational leader of conservatives and at the same time hide at the very moments when activists who comprise the heart and soul of the movement assemble and organize. Accusing Rubio of “hiding” is downright vicious and untrue. He deserves better than this and so do we. Your mailout reeks of bias and it puts the ACU in a very ugly light.

        You suck up to Donald Trump, who is doing more to destroy conservatism and the Republican Party than any other so-called Republican, and you call a legitimate candidate a “rookie”. As far as I am concerned, you no longer have any credibility. Shame on you.

  6. M. Noonan February 23, 2016 / 5:33 pm

    Meanwhile, a life-long GOPer I know (and probably the most intelligent man I’ve ever met – lawyer, CPA, business owner, etc), donated money to Bernie…

    We’re in for a bizarre 2016…

  7. Shawny Lee February 23, 2016 / 9:45 pm

    Not sure what I said wrong but since one of my posts was deleted from the thread, think I’ll refrain from making further comment. It listed a couple of things I disagree with Trump on.

    The deletion of your comment was some kind of glitch and not intentional. I’ve tried to restore it without success, so I’m pasting it into this comment//Moderator

    These are strange times indeed. There are several things I disagree with Trump on, like his not defending states rights, something I believe is critically important to shrinking the size of federal government and his defense of the government surveillance programs and perhaps the more and more militarized police state. But I do believe we need someone who will staunchly defend our second amendment rights and stem the tide of illegal immigrants which has already dragged our culture so far to the left that the conservative values I was raised with are now seen as extreme, radical. Likely none of the candidates are as conservative as they would like to convince us they are. But then neither of the Democrat candidates are Democrat as much as they are collectivists, progressives (socialists) who will continue down the destructive path we have been on. So whoever the Republican nominee is, they must also be able to win the general election at all costs. The best I can figure is that it must be a whole lot easier to trash Trump and demean his base than convince them why they should vote for someone else. There are other blogs, even a few liberal ones which seem more willing to discuss the issues and agree to disagree.

    • Amazona February 23, 2016 / 10:41 pm

      I didn’t see it but so far I have never seen anything from you that I thought called for deletion—even if you called me a big poopy-head I think you would have gotten one strike first.

      I don’t know what it is you dislike about Trump but I have to wonder why you think what you DO like outweighs it. There are things I don’t particularly like about Cruz, but I always come back to his stellar record in fighting for what I think is important.

      I am not saying that what Trump says is necessarily wrong. Sometimes it is, but not always. It’s just that he SAYS the right things, but they are wildly different from what he said before, often recently. My main concerns about him are his unpredictability and his ongoing love affair with things I simply find unacceptable. Single payer health care is a biggie for me, possibly the biggest. He loves it, always has, and it is simply incompatible with wanting to downsize the federal government. How anti-ACA people can turn around and say they want Trump for president simply does not compute, not in a rational world. He is a recent convert to the pro-life sentiment, and doesn’t seem all in on the subject. He uses the term but has some loopholes, and still supports Planned Parenthood. And when he was still open about advocating pro-choice, he was also in favor of late term abortion.

      One of the big concerns of the people, including conservatives, is crony capitalism. Trump is the poster boy for crony capitalism, and has bragged about it. It’s “just what you have to do”. You make big contributions to politicians who have the power to vote in ways that benefit you. You try to use the power of the government to force people off their property, so you can have it, and you proudly say that you “love” eminent domain. I don’t want a president with that attitude toward the use of government to advance businesses in exchange for financial support.

      I understand that it is painful to be criticized, as a person, for supporting someone. But Shawny, when you support someone who stands for pretty much the opposite of the values and principles and policies that define conservatism, you can’t be surprised if you are taken to task for it. For every Obama/Biden bumper sticker you ever saw that made you think “what a moron” I can guarantee that there will be plenty with the same reaction to a Trump sticker.

      As for the immigration issue, surely you realize that the president simply does not have the power to really do anything about illegal immigration, other than rescind the Executive Orders of Obama that encourage it. Not unless you want him to be another tinpot dictator, legislating from the Oval Office. Unless it comes to vetoing something, the president who respects and follows the Constitution can only set the tone for the debate and support those in Congress he agrees with. So when it comes to dealing with the immigration issue, I think we are much better off working to get the right people into Congress, and trying to get a president who is committed to restoring constitutional rule in this country.

      As far as that goes, I hate and always have hated the demand that our presidential candidates are required to take positions on things over which they have no constitutional authority. We always do it, and we always force these people into saying things they know they can’t change. So while I despise abortion and think any position on it reflects an important aspect of a person’s character, I care less about how a president feels about it than I do about how he will choose his Supreme Court justices. And even then I think it highly inappropriate to use abortion as a litmus test, because the only thing I care about is whether he or she will apply the Constitution, with as little interpretation as possible and that based on the original writings of the Founders, and not rule based on personal agendas.

      Abortion law,immigration law, any law has to come from Congress, and only then through the president for signing. But we make the presidential election about things that are really not in the president’s scope of authority. So saddling the nation with a loose cannon uncouth buffoon because he said the right things about something he really has no authority over anyway just strikes me as foolish. And very very dangerous.

    • Shawny Lee February 24, 2016 / 5:29 am

      Thank you, much appreciated.

      I’ve not seen this kind of glitch before. When I deleted Rusty’s comment that preceded yours, it sent his to the trash and yours to the comments archive. The same thing happened to one of Retiredspook’s comments//Moderator

  8. Amazona February 23, 2016 / 10:58 pm

    “Trump claims to be a multi-billionaire, and Forbes rates him No. 212 in its 400 richest Americans, worth in the neighborhood of $4.5 billion. But Forbes also wrote in June 2015 that Trump exaggerated his own net worth by 100 percent. That’s double.

    When Brian Williams exaggerates stories about helicopters and Iraq, which affect nobody but his own barstool stories and other people’s perception of him, he gets removed from NBC Nightly News. Oh, and we call it lying.

    But when Trump says he’s worth $9 billion in his own campaign announcement, his followers would never call that a lie–it’s just gilding the truth, huh?

    One of the biggest moments of the conference was when Trump unveiled his claim that he has a net worth $8.7 billion, which he said was put together by a top notch accounting agency that he didn’t mention by name. That is more than double the $4.1 billion estimate Forbes put together during our latest billionaire issue in March. Trump’s claim lacks specific details and includes a $2 billion value for such amorphous assets as his personal brand.

    This isn’t the first time he’s told a whopper. Ian Tuttle documented some other shenanigans over at National Review (yes, those people who dedicated an entire issue to point out why Trump should not be anywhere near the White House, never mind its occupant).

    Trump’s wealth-related lies abound. Did he actually receive $1 million for a 2005 speech, as he told Larry King?? No. He was paid $400,000. He lumped in promotional efforts on behalf of the address to inflate his compensation. Was Trump actually $9 billion in debt in the 1990s, as he said in two of his books? No. The New York Times reported that Trump later declared the claim a “mistake”: “I don’t know how it got there.”

    I guess Trump makes a lot of mistakes dealing with money. For a man who makes great deals, that should be troubling.

    So here’s a suggestion. Since Rubio’s credit card use and Cruz’s form are so important, let Donald Trump establish what his real wealth is. You see, he’s never (as in never, ever, not once) allowed an independent, third party audit of his finances or his company. He’s produced CPA-created balance sheets, but they were always based on his own financial books.

    Trump has never had his books audited for anyone else to examine independently of his own opinion.

    Why can everyone else be accused of lying but Trump is taken at his word? No, I think the best deal we can have is for Mr. Trump to agree to have his wonderful company, the company where everyone loves him, and all deals make money; the reason he should be elected leader of the free world; he should agree to an independent and unbiased audit to determine how much he’s really worth.

    And Trump’s supporters should be glad to put this troubling issue to rest. If Trump is really worth all the billions he says he’s worth, he should put his words to the test.”

  9. Shawny Lee February 23, 2016 / 11:56 pm

    I agree with you on the many things that a president can’t and shouldn’t change. In the case of immigration laws, it is those candidates who want any kind of amnesty or a different “pathway to citizenship” than the broken one which already should have been fixed who are talking about making law. The one who is talking about enforcing the existing laws passed by Congress is Trump. Will Cruz or Rubio take the oath of office to faithfully execute the laws even if they don’t agree with them or have campaign platforms which conflict with existing law? I don’t know but it seems less likely. Those laws were passed with the support of the majority of Americans and had they been enforced would not still be a bargaining chip issue now. You can pick the candidate which most closely agrees with your opinion of how the immigration system should work but his job is still to enforce the existing laws. In the world of our founding fathers, we shouldn’t have to worry about his religion, his stance on abortion, gay marriage etc. as long as he enforces existing laws. But as Dorothy would say “we’re not in Kansas any more”.
    I am concerned about the choice of Supreme Court justices, but not nearly as much as I am with a Congress which abdicates it duty and has allowed the Supreme Court to make law or change law as with ObamaCare. The same with the Executive orders and agency regulations standing as law for which there has been little to no oversight, much less resistance from our elected representatives. If that doesn’t change they might as well go home and we might as well give up. Have you ever in your life seen so many lawsuits from so many states against the federal government as we now have? It’s because the states, as well as the people, sense that they no longer have representation.

    • Amazona February 24, 2016 / 12:43 am

      I don’t agree that Trump is the only one who has said he would enforce existing laws. For one thing, it is not up to the president to “enforce” anything, though as the DOJ is part of the Executive Branch I suppose the president can legally have something to say about what is prosecuted. But unless we have federal laws, which are rightfully in the scope of the federal government, these are state laws, and all the president should be able to do is back off and let the states enforce their own laws. As far as federal laws go, they should be enforced, period. I’m not sure I would score a candidate down for not making a point of saying he would enforce any law. That should be a given. I have no idea what could possibly make you think that Cruz or Rubio would have a problem taking an oath of office which includes faithfully executing the laws of the land as well as protecting and defending the Constitution. Unlike Trump, they already have. Cruz has been adamant about no path to citizenship. He has been adamant about no amnesty. He has been adamant about the necessity for strong border control. He has stood up for these things while many of the others, like Kasich and Bush, had some compromising ideas. He’s been called mean for it, and inflexible.

      Cruz has been consistent on strong immigration law enforcement. He has not been in favor of amnesty, or argued against deportation, while Trump was paying huge amounts of money to support Democrat amnesty proponents, hiring illegal workers, and talking about how cruel it would be to deport people. “For people that have been here for years that have been hard-workers, have good jobs, they’re supporting their family — it’s very, very tough to just say, ‘By the way, 22 years, you have to leave. Get out,’” he said during an appearance on Fox News. “I’m one of the world’s very conservative people, but I have to tell you on a human basis, how do you throw somebody out that’s lived in this country for 20 years.”

      Rubio sided with some Dems and Rinos on some cockamamie amnesty thing, but even then he never said he would not enforce an existing law, he only voted to change the law. There is a big difference there. And as president he couldn’t even vote to do that. I am not sure which campaign platforms you think might “conflict with existing law”. You know what IS within the scope of presidential power? Exactly what Ted Cruz has pledged to do, when he said that on his first day in office he would rescind every Executive Order of Obama’s that exceeded presidential authority. That alone would re-establish a lot of the immigration enforcement that has been stymied by Obama. And that IS within the scope of presidential authority. It would also take care of those states’ lawsuits you mentioned.

      I think the SCOTUS appointment could be even more important, over the long run, than the presidency. A president is empowered by one of two things: Congress or his violation of the Constitution. And a strong and willing Congress can rein in the second, if it has the backbone. All you need to do is look at all the Liberal agendas that have been put into law due to a Liberal bias on the SCOTUS. From Roe v Wade to Kelo to the ACA to gay marriage, what the Court says turns out to be the law, no matter how much the Court has expanded its powers since its inception. A Supreme Court can have more influence than a president. It’s a lifetime appointment, and unless a justice is impeached, that’s just the way it is. A bad justice, like Kagan or Sotomayor, can be on the Court for 40 years or more, through several presidential terms. An even worse justice, such as Trump’s radical abortion-promoting ultra-Left-wing sister, would be worse than any of them. Take a look at her record, at the verdicts she has overturned, and imagine what she could and no doubt would do on the Court.

      • Amazona February 24, 2016 / 12:46 am

        Senate Oath of Office:

        I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

      • Amazona February 24, 2016 / 12:48 am

        President’s Oath of Office:

        “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

      • Amazona February 24, 2016 / 12:50 am

        It looks to me like the oath of office of the Senate is a little more demanding than that of the president, and both Rubio and Cruz have taken it.

  10. Amazona February 24, 2016 / 1:16 am

    This afternoon in Sparks Nevada. Donald Trump told voters that all the candidates had left the State of Nevada in the morning, and were unworthy of their support. Here is Trump saying it: (see video in link)

    It is true that Marco Rubio and John Kasich are not in Nevada for the running of the caucuses. Rubio is in Michigan, and Kasich was in Georgia. But there’s a problem for Trump. Trump strongly reacted to the Cruz campaign using a media report in the Iowa Caucuses against Ben Carson, calling Cruz’s victory a fraud.

    This time it was Trump himself saying that Cruz had left the state and was not worthy of voters votes for doing so. Multiple tweets from reporters show Cruz in Nevada, speaking at caucuses.

    An hour later as caucusing is well under way, Cruz is still in Nevada:

    Will Trump hold himself to his own standard?

    – See more at:

  11. Amazona February 24, 2016 / 1:23 am

    Ted Cruz clarified his immigration policy on The O’Reilly Factor Monday night. The liberal and some conservative media are in a frenzy claiming he flipped his position on deportation.

    Here’s the part of the interview that has sparked controversy: (see video in link)

    When the Dallas Morning News put their liberal spin on the comments, some on the conservative side bought into the false narrative.

    Here’s what the liberal media is saying about Cruz’s plan to deport the 12 million illegals living in the country: (see video in link)

    Ted Cruz has always supported enforcing the existing deportation laws using ICE and a biometric exit-entry system.

    Michelle Malkin cut through the smear narrative and blasted O’Reilly and those who fell for the spin:

    Malkin explains that if people were actually listening they would know Cruz never flipped:

    At CR’s Conservative Convention, Louie Gohmert reminded conservatives, once again, that Ted Cruz has always been strident and consistent on illegal immigration, despite what other campaigns or the media claims.

    – See more at:

  12. bardolf2 February 24, 2016 / 5:59 am

    “If this were Germany in the 1930s, Trump fans would seriously be voting for Hitler”- Matt Walsh

    • Retired Spook February 24, 2016 / 9:15 am

      Bardolf, do you have a link to the article or Tweet or whatever in which Matt Walsh said this? I happen to like Matt Walsh. His piece that Amazona linked to in a previous thread, that I re-linked to earlier in this thread, is right on the money.

      • bardolf2 February 24, 2016 / 9:16 am

      • bardolf2 February 24, 2016 / 9:19 am

        It’s from Matt’s twitter feed where he also self describes as a bourbon enthusiast. That makes him a classy Republican, not like those brake mechanics and long haul truckers who drink swill like Budweiser.

      • Retired Spook February 24, 2016 / 10:18 am

        Had he said Mussolini instead of Hitler, I’d tend to agree with him. Hitler is a stretch, a BIG stretch.

      • Bob Eisenhower February 24, 2016 / 11:09 am


        I don’t know about that. An ardent populist with no government experience who makes outrageous comments the public eats up. That sounds more Hitler than Mussolini.

      • Bob Eisenhower February 24, 2016 / 11:10 am

        (Not that I think Trump is Hitler, just his popularity and some of his style)

      • Amazona February 24, 2016 / 11:27 am

        No, Hitler is the right analogy. People are so gun-shy of comparing anyone to Hitler, because then the mind automatically goes to the Holocaust, SS troops and world domination. But the comparison to the early Hitler days when he preyed upon the fears and concerns of a troubled Germany, and made extravagant promises while using an oratory style that enflamed peoples’ emotions, is quite appropriate. (To be honest, some of the Trumpertantrums are also a little reminiscent of the “Hitler Reacts” fad, particularly this one where Hitler calls people “losers”. )

        While there are time a reference to Hitler IS an effort to demean or defame someone by implying he is “just like Hitler” the fact is that there is a lot to be learned from Hitler’s sway over the German people and his manipulation of their emotions, and this lesson can’t even be discussed because of the reaction to the use of his name.

        Bob is right, (choke, hack,. That’s OK, I’ll get over it. It just kinda stuck in my throat there for a moment 😉 )

      • Retired Spook February 24, 2016 / 11:42 am

        I’m listening to Glenn Beck on the radio describe the Cruz rally he was at in Nevada that was crashed by Trump. As he described the ugly and irrational demeanor of many (not all) of the Trump supporters, I’m thinking the Hitler analogy may not be that far off, at least not in his effect on people’s emotions. The anger he’s playing to is reaching a fever pitch, and that’s just not a good position from which to make a rational decision.

      • M. Noonan February 24, 2016 / 12:07 pm

        Other places apparently had a large contingent of Trumpkins…my caucus site didn’t. There were Cruz and Rubio signs and people, nary a sighting of Trump…but when we arrived nearly half an hour before the doors opened and the line was already hundreds of people long, I knew Trump was going to have a good night. Had to be – there’s no way that this many people would show up for something as irritating as a caucus at the behest of someone in the normal, political process. Turns out, I was right in my feeling.

        Now, there are a lot of stories out there – the most extreme being the claim that two hooded Klansmen showed up at a site (I’m figuring either sick jokesters or Progs pretending to be KKKers) – but at my site, at least, everyone was calm and in a good humor and ready to rock…but it was, I believe, anger which got them there. This is the wages of 30 years of continual deception on the part of our Ruling Class…

      • Amazona February 24, 2016 / 11:42 am

        dolf, are you saying that joking about someone drinking zinfandel is a cruel personal attack but not your comment on bourbon-drinking Republicans, and/or that “…those brake mechanics and long haul truckers who drink swill like Budweiser…” is not a sneer at “working class stiffs”?

        I think we may already be back to the good old days, when I seldom knew what you were talking about.

      • Amazona February 24, 2016 / 11:43 am

        Spook, you nailed it. It is that Trump is playing to, and off, peoples’ anger.

      • Bob Eisenhower February 24, 2016 / 1:30 pm


        First off, oh-my-gosh! oh-my-gosh! Amazona said I was right! I am now printing this thread and having it laminated.

        Second, I agree with Bardolf. Implying he – or anyone for that matter – drinks Zin with Brie is beyond the pale. Apologize!

      • Amazona February 24, 2016 / 10:36 pm

        Just “laminated”? Hell, boy, we’re moving into the Age Of Trump. You need to getcherself some of that genuine imitation gold spay paint and some glitter, and Trump it up!

        The Kennedys had the Cultural White House, LBJ had the BarBQue White House, Clintons had the Trailer Trash White House, Obama has had the Gangsta/Jayzee White House, and now we can have the Trump No Such Thing As Too Much Gold Plate Bad Taste White House. Some red flocked wallpaper, lots of glitz, kind of Las Vegas on steroids.

        You can’t have some cheap little laminated thingie in the Brave New World of Conspicuous Everything. Biggest boobs hanging out of lowest-cut tightest dresses, why wear ten diamonds when 40 will do, doesn’t Rolex make a bigger watch, not the place for a quietly dignified laminated comment. At least make it glow in the dark!

      • bardolf2 February 25, 2016 / 5:48 am


        I am pro-working class, pro long haul trucker, pro brake mechanic, anti anti-Trump supporters. I don’t plan to vote for Trump, but it’s clear the contempt the establishment GOP has for blue collar work.

        I ask what is the purpose behind Matt’s writing “If this were Germany …”? He obviously knows that it’s not going to change Trump supporter opinions since they’ll just add Matt to the establishment heap. It’s to sneer down at the white trash and show he is above them.

        I’m saying a guy who says people Trump voters would have voted for Hitler is a douchebag. Support for his douchebaggery is everywhere on his twitter feed and in his writings.

        Exhibit 1″Matt Walsh is a blogger, writer, speaker, and professional truth sayer.”
        Exhibit 2 He’s the ex-bad boy with the tattoos and cigars to prove it!=douchebag
        Exhibit 3 It’s clear that the bourbon enthusiasm is one more way for him to separate himself ‘intellectually’ from the brake mechanics and long haul truckers, i.e the people I grew up with and still consider the salt of the earth.

        I took your zinfandel comment in the same spirit. A pretense to wisdom. You’re classy Amazona, not as classy as say Amy Schumer, but classy.

        My favorite current sneer is when Trump, after saying he won with those with a lot of education also won with those who had little education. He said ‘I love the poorly educated’. In context that meant he didn’t hold a person with a PhD as more honorable than a high school degree. BUT HAHAHAHA did Trump’s denigrators love that one.

      • M. Noonan February 25, 2016 / 10:36 pm

        It is true that a good deal of the top of the GOP harbors contempt for blue collar people…but does Trump really respect them?

        I don’t think any of them have a clue what blue collar is even like.

      • Bob Eisenhower February 25, 2016 / 10:49 am


        I accept your exhibits as proof of sushi-grade douchbaggery but I think you’re reading more into Walsh’s tweet than I.

        While Hitler never won any elections outright, a lot of people voted for him. They liked his message and the charisma behind it and disregarded the bad rumors of brownshirts and the like. It doesn’t seem a stretch to say Trump supporters like him for the same reason and ignore his negatives (nowhere near as bad as brownshirts, of course).

        I did not read in any distain for the lower class in the tweet, really. Maybe I am naive.

        And for the record, I DEMANDED an apology from Amazona for the zin/brie comment and I am holding my breath until it comes. You are welcome.

      • Amazona February 25, 2016 / 10:51 am

        Oh, dolfie dolfie dolfie, you are a sour little pickle, aren’t you?

        “…it’s clear the contempt the establishment GOP has for blue collar work…” is just more of you knowing something that is not true. I know Republicans from literally all walks of life, and most are blue collar workers, or at least on the bottom rung of white collar. The only “class” not well represented in the Big Tent is the Dependent Class.

        Oh, and ivory tower high-noses.

        What’s this obsession you have with douching? As a well-traveled bon vivant so conversant with many cultures, even speaking to them in their own languages, surely you know that in Europe a “douche” is merely a shower. In the United States it tends to be limited to the cleansing of lady parts, which seems to generate in you such curled-lip distaste you feel compelled to use it as a pejorative and furthermore to repeat it fairly often, even inventing new forms for it. Not trying to get too Freudian on you here, but perhaps this is significant ??????

        As we have seen, you are not a man given to, or even tolerant of, teasing or whimsy or banter, which may explain the rigid and narrow field of reference you seem to apply to Hitler. As I thought was made very very clear here, the reference was to a man who, in a nation distressed by economic blight, paranoid and feeling put-upon and resenting people they thought did not belong in their country, was cunning enough to tap into those fears and resentments and desire for someone to just take over and fix it all. Someone they could feel actually HEARD them and spoke to their fears and concerns. The fact that this man later went on to be responsible for the slaughter of millions and a costly attempt at world domination is not the only thing that describes or defines him. Personally, I thought that the comment about voting for the Hitler of the 30s made that pretty clear. If one, even one presumably of vast education and worldliness, has such a limited and somewhat cartoonish view of Hitler that he can only see him in the context of his later career, I suppose this paragon of knowledge might get the heebie-jeebies at any reference to him and snap to a default preoccupation with feminine hygiene. That had not occurred to me before reading your post, but I see it now.

        I’m still not quite sure what it is about the bathing of lady parts that you think can be transmuted into an insult. Is it disgust with the washing of lady parts, or is it just lady parts in general?

        As long as they are not bourbon drinkers, people with tattoos, and people who smoke cigars (still smarting after being so soundly spanked by the Count, I see) the little people are probably grateful that you still consider them “the salt of the earth”. Or are you saying that drinking bourbon (or posturing as a bourbon drinker) is really an effort to create the impression of not being part of those “poorly educated”? As usual, I have no idea what you are talking about, but I’m sure Donald appreciates your effort to make his comment less condescending. After all, the best way to offset a sense that someone is a snob is for him to explain that he “loves” the poorly educated salt of the earth.

        Just curious—do you by any chance see the disconnect between you whingeing about how mean and insulting people on this blog are and then coming back with nothing but gratuitous insults? (Did you catch that? I’m pretending to be British again. Ta.)

        Oh, BTW, Amy sends her love.

  13. Amazona February 25, 2016 / 11:18 am

    I wonder, now, if my bourbon collection is really a subconscious effort to deny my blue collar roots? Would it help if I dropped a shot glass of bourbon into a mug of beer? (Yes, in my misspent youth I did indulge in a boilermaker or two.) What does it mean if I prefer The Balvenie to Laphroaig or Talisker? Do I redeem myself if I admit to having quite a bit of zinfandel in my wine rack, even if I drink it with a sharp cheddar instead of brie? Is there some hidden meaning in an occasional craving for an appletini? Is there a class distinction between a mojito and a Cuba Libre? A political distinction? Am I supposed to capltalize mojito? Am I truly a snob if I know the difference between sparkling wine and true Champagne? Should I care? Would it be too too precious if I pursue an interest in Molecular Gastronomy and serve guests their cocktails formed into spheres?

    Clearly if dolf is planning to continue to bless us with his presence, I need some guidance on the secret meaning of alcoholic beverages.

    I’ll cc Amy.

    • Bob Eisenhower February 25, 2016 / 3:39 pm

      Is “I’ll cc Amy” like Britney Spears’ “If you seek Amy.”

      I know saying Britney’s title aloud comes out as “f.u.c.k me” but I can’t figure out what obscenity you are spelling out, Amazona.

      And don’t think I haven’t noticed your lack of remorse at the brie insult. Still holding my breath. Turning blue. OK, I’m dead. That’s what you have done, you have killed me. Deal with it.

      • Amazona February 26, 2016 / 12:41 pm

        Come on now, Bob, you have already commented on my willingness to spell out a profanity.

        Good catch on the reference, though. I have like, you know, like NO Britney Spears references in my mental library, so I guess I have to depend on pop culture mavens to keep me up to date and point out things I have missed.

        Don’t think of the zin/brie comment as an insult—the role of finding insults under every verbal stone is taken, and it will be hard to compete with the guy who is doing that job now. Think of it more as analogous to telling someone he has spinach in his teeth—-a kindly comment meant to avoid future embarrassment.

      • Bob Eisenhower February 26, 2016 / 3:32 pm

        Really? Now you’re gonna insult the upstanding spinach farmers of America?

      • Amazona February 26, 2016 / 4:37 pm

        Bob, please stop trying to out-dolf dolf. Trust me, it can’t be done.

    • bardolf2 February 26, 2016 / 11:19 am

      Yes, your bourbon collection is a mental condition that makes you believe you’re better than your blue collar roots. Any arm chair psychologist would tell you that. It’s an easier diagnosis to make than the battered wives syndrome in Shawney that you did a great job with in the other post. a

      The real giveaway to your notion of superiority is spending thousands of dollars on H1-B visas to hire immigrants all the while pretending you just couldn’t find any hard working American who would do the job. That’s Trump worthy slinging.

      “What does it mean if I prefer The Balvenie to Laphroaig or Talisker.” – Amy It means that you don’t know to go to and watch his whiskey reviews and instead continue to spend money on the most expensive whiskey that your farm hands can buy at Sam’s club.

      If I had to give you advice regarding alcohol it would be to follow Trump’s lead and not drink at all. If you insist on drinking so excessively, you might consider the recent scientific news that drinking more coffee during the day appears to offset some of the effects of alcoholism, especially with the internal organs.

      • Amazona February 26, 2016 / 1:17 pm

        My goodness, dolf, you had to put in a lot of overtime to find so many things to know that are simply not true. Liking bourbon is, quite simply, liking the taste of bourbon. Some are better for mixed drinks, such as Manhattans or Old Fashioneds. Some are best with a couple of ice cubes and a splash of water, on a hot day. Some are better neat, for sipping slowly in front of a fire. There is nothing to psychoanalyze there, any more than liking raindrops on roses or whiskers on kittens, so haul yourself out of your armchair and find something useful to do. It is no more an effort to deny my blue collar roots or assume an air of superiority than your swanning around Europe and bragging about how you speak so many languages is about you feeling superior to those “working stiffs” you grew up with.

        I also don’t need to “pretend” that I couldn’t find Americans to do the jobs in question. There is no pretense. I guess I should have said that I advertised in many publications, including trade papers and big city newspapers, and not a single person answered my ads.

        Oh, wait a minute. I did say that, didn’t I? So I guess you just like calling me a liar, even when you have to prove yourself a liar to do it. But really, what you said is just something else you know that isn’t true.

        Oh, I do understand that as a smug self-styled “intellectual” who has never started and run your own business, you might have a distorted view of why business owners do what they do, but I can assure you they do not spend money they do not have to spend. Perhaps I should have pointed out that I not only had to spend many thousands of dollars to get these visas that have your panties in a wad, I also had to pay the people I hired at least as much as I would have had to pay an American.

        Oh, wait a minute. I did say that, didn’t I?

        Thanks for sharing your opinion that I should have someone tell me what to like. But, silly me, instead I spent three days touring the Whisky Trail in Scotland, and asking Scottish bartenders and waiters to recommend their favorites, so I could develop my own tastes and my own opinion. One night at the Crammond Inn just south of Edinburgh my husband and I were talking about how hard or easy it would be to tell the difference among some of the single malts if you didn’t know what you were drinking, so after dinner we went into the lounge and I asked the barmaid to set up a blind tasting. She thought it looked like fun, and pretty soon we had other people at the bar joining in.

        Not as efficient as just asking Internet Ralfy, but hey, different strokes….

        And by the way, Scotch is “whisky”, not “whiskey”. But dinna fash yourself, laddie—ralfy probably doesn’t know either, and if ralfy doesn’t know it seems like a sure bet you don’t, either.

        Oh, golly gee, I just found something ELSE that you know that isn’t true! (To the tune of “The Beat Goes On”, it is “And The List Goes On…”) I not only do not drink to excess, I drink very little at all. That is why I insist on the best, as when I do drink alcohol I do it to savor the aroma and flavor. As I have never said, hinted, or implied that I do drink, as you so charmingly put it, “excessively” I guess this snark of yours falls into that other growing category of things you invent so you can be rude and insulting.

        You know what is really funny? When you came back here you were complaining that this blog was just a place for people to call names and hurl insults, and all you have done since then is hurl insults and make false accusations.

        The rest of us talk, for the most part, about politics and culture (though Bob seems to have a thing about geniuses) and sometimes there is a little good-natured banter.

Comments are closed.