On Behalf of Nevada, I Apologize Open Thread

My goodness – about 75,000 people participated in the GOP Caucus yesterday. Doesn’t sound like much? Well, 31,500 participated in 2012…and Trump got more votes last night than there were 2012 participants.

I think we’re all a little stunned this morning – at least, I know I am. It is becoming real, now…Trump is almost sure to be the GOP nominee. And with Trump being able to gin up turnout numbers like that, I really, really doubt “expert” opinion which says that he’s a sure loser in November. Whenever Hillary and Bernie go at it hammer and tongs, the number of Democrats who show up has gone down, not up. Declining number of voters vs rising number of voters…who do you think is better able to win, in the end?

UPDATE: If I had to put my finger on it, I’d say that it was Jeb Bush’s candidacy which nailed it all down for Trump…here was the Establishment writ large immediately raising buckets of money and people started to feel, “damn; they’re going to force us to pick Bush and it will be Bush vs Hillary”. It appeared to me the Walker was sitting atop the polls until Trump got in…and provided the absolute anti-Establishment voice…he immediately crushed the life out of the Walker campaign (and what small amount of life there had been in the Jindal campaign) and left us with a collection of pure Establishmentarians or outsiders who, thus far, haven’t had what it takes to bring down Trump…but if Bush hadn’t got in, I think it would have gone very differently.

70 thoughts on “On Behalf of Nevada, I Apologize Open Thread

  1. Amazona February 24, 2016 / 1:03 pm

    At least Robert Reich will be thrilled.

    Seriously—this comes from a hardcore Democrat activist, adviser and pundit. It is well worth watching. And now has even more meaning, as Robert et al are undoubtedly celebrating the Trump victory.

  2. Amazona February 24, 2016 / 1:09 pm

    Remember all our complaining about the Complicit Agenda Media pushing their favorite candidates and pretty much ignoring the rest, or rushing to publicize negatives about them? Well, now it has happened on the “conservative” side of the aisle, with Fox giving Trump so much free air time.

    When fingers are being pointed at whoever saddled us with Trump (or with Sanders) Fox should be at the top of the list.

  3. Bob Eisenhower February 24, 2016 / 1:33 pm

    The real question is, now that Trump as (pretty much) the de-facto nominee, will conservatives (as a class) back him?

    • Retired Spook February 24, 2016 / 6:47 pm


      I think Trump would get votes from an entirely different group than any GOP candidate in recent memory has gotten. He’ll lose a lot of people like me, but he’ll pick up a lot of independents and blue collar Dems. A Quinnipiac poll released in early November did reveal that 25 percent of Republicans could “definitely not support” Trump — the highest percentage received by any Republican candidate. If Trump wins the nomination and that number holds, he’s going to have to make up that ground somewhere. The presidential election has, more often than not, been between the lesser of two evils, and this year appears to be no exception to that.

      • M. Noonan February 24, 2016 / 8:02 pm

        And that is where I think his victory will come from – as I pointed out, the margins of Democrat victory in a lot of States, even with Hope and Change at the top, was pretty slim…States which the GOP hasn’t won since 1988 might be in play with Trump as the nominee. Of course, I do understand that it could end up being a 58/42 blowout in favor of Clinton, as well…but I think it more likely that Trump swamps her than she swamps him.

        As for me – if Trump is the nominee, I re-register as Independent…

      • Bob Eisenhower February 24, 2016 / 8:34 pm

        As Reagan said (sorta), we didn’t leave the party, they left us.

  4. armstrong460 February 24, 2016 / 5:38 pm

    Wrong, it wasn’t Bush and his lame candidacy. It was the base finally having someone that represented what their true views are. Maximal anti-illegal alien animus, protect our social security and medicare from people who didn’t earn it, protect us from those jihadists and nationalism. The base doesn’t really care about shrinking government, taxes cuts, over regulation, abortion or strict constitutional fealty. They want an authoritarian that is as angry as they are and Trump is it.

    • Bob Eisenhower February 24, 2016 / 7:15 pm

      I fear you may be right. The base – a nebulous description at best – is fractured. The development of the Tea Party revealed that and now large swaths of that base do not hold true to the ideals that formed the base.

      • Retired Spook February 24, 2016 / 8:02 pm

        It’s called political re-allignment. The question is, how long will it last when that re-alligned base realizes that the person they put all their faith in has lied to them yet again?

      • M. Noonan February 24, 2016 / 8:05 pm

        Might be a long time – Juan Peron ruined Argentina and yet Peronists routinely win elections in Argentina…in spite of sending the nation into bankruptcy ever other decade or so.

      • M. Noonan February 24, 2016 / 8:04 pm

        Parties are always diverse coalitions…and they used to be far more diverse (there really used to be conservative Democrats). But I don’t see Trump as just showing up a fractured GOP base…he’s showing up a fractured United States electorate (Bernie is doing the same thing, in a lower key, among the Democrats). No one likes things as they are…left and right feel cheated (and they have been – though the right far more than the left).

      • Amazona February 24, 2016 / 9:58 pm

        …now large swaths of that base do not hold true to the ideals that formed the base. That is what really disgusts me about Trump fanbots., Matt Walsh summed it up brilliantly in that piece I linked to. Donald Trump represents literally every single thing conservatives have said they are against, yet hundreds of thousands of self-defined conservatives are swanning along in his wake giddy to be part of his parade. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

        I’ve heard all the excuses, all the explanations, and they simply do not compute. They might make a little more sense if there were no other Republican candidates strong on immigration, strong on the economy, strong on terrorism, strong on the Constitution, but Trump is so much weaker in every single area than his competition, it is clear that his fevered fans have simply set aside reason because they,for some reason, simply adore him.

        There is a tipping point in every relationship, whether a friendship or a marriage or a business partnership or just a bridge partner where enough is enough, and there is no going back. This is how I feel about Trumpbots. I do not respect them. I think they are hypocrites and I don’t trust them. They say one thing and do another. Sometimes I flip to the USA channel because they used to have some really good shows on, and I like to catch a rerun when I can, and sometimes I forget that Monday nights are WWE for a couple of hours. When I get a glimpse of the kind of people who shriek in delight at the bizarre spectacle of big time wrestling, I now think I am really looking at a Trump rally. Just as I would think of someone as a racist if he supported a racist, I can only have one opinion of people who flock to someone who is as blatantly low class as Trump. And they not only want to be part of his fawning entourage, they insist on foisting him off onto the nation, so the whole country can be represented by a sleazy unprincipled huckster.

        So from now on, if someone complains about crony capitalism and corporate corruption, all I have to do is ask “Did you vote for Trump?” Because if that person voted for Trump he voted for crony capitalism and corruption, and has no standing to complain about it now. If someone claims to be pro-life, well, “Did you vote for Trump?” If you did, shut up and go away because you voted for someone who was supporting Planned Parenthood IN THE RALLIES YOU ATTENDED, who has been a supporter of late term abortion, and who by that time has probably put his abortion-loving sister on the Supreme Court. “I am sick and tired of the attacks on Christianity and family values.” “Did you vote for Trump?” “Then you voted for a serial adulterer and hound dog whose third wife has nude photos all over the Internet, and who defines his faith as not having to repent or ask for forgiveness for anything, so don’t even bother to tell me about how committed you are to family values.”

        Trump talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk and I just don’t see how any of his followers can claim to be any different. I have heard complaints about people “demeaning” Trump supporters, and my position is that they demean themselves by BEING Trump supporters and we just take note of it.

        And just FYI—we had some potential candidates I didn’t think were all that great, but I could understand how someone, anyone, could favor any one of them. I could understand supporting Bush even though I didn’t. I could get a Kasich fan even though he is not my favorite. In the debates I could see the appeal and advantage of every single person on that stage—until it got to Trump, where it disintegrated into incoherent platitudinous babble. So just in the interest of full disclosure, i have not been able to truly understand how ANYONE could think Donald Trump is even remotely acceptable, much less desirable, as our president. I simply do not get it. For years now I have thought he was one of the most disgusting, vulgar, obnoxious people I have ever seen, and I simply do not see a single redeeming quality in him. And I can’t come up with many difference between the people who make excuses for Hillary and those who do the same for Trump.

    • M. Noonan February 24, 2016 / 8:00 pm

      But I believe that the Bush candidacy crystallized it all…here he was, racking up tons of campaign cash and ready to just swamp a divided Conservative base…people looked at that and got depressed…along comes Trump and he speaks to what is on their minds and, presto!, he’s top of the world…

    • Amazona February 24, 2016 / 10:22 pm

      I don’t know who “Armstrong” is but he makes a point, at least partially,when he says “The base doesn’t really care about shrinking government, taxes cuts, over regulation, abortion or strict constitutional fealty. They want an authoritarian that is as angry as they are and Trump is it.”

      I say “partially” because anywhere from 60 to more than 70 per cent of “the base” can’t stand Trump and cringe at the thought of him being considered the leader of the Republican Party and the President of the United States. To them/us it is like a bad dream, something so distasteful and bizarre it is hard to imagine it is actually happening.

      But that smaller percentage DOESN’T care about cutting the size, scope and power of the federal government. Hell no! They want an authoritarian, as you pointed, out, who wants the government to expand so it is big enough to “pay for everything” and have enough of some undefined, unexplained, forces to be able to rip l2 million people out of their homes and ship them off to, well, anywhere but here. They don’t even want to ask the obvious questions of who, exactly, is going to be doing this, or how it will work, or what it will cost, or who will pay for it, or what it will mean regarding even more expansion of the size, scope and power of the federal government. They are fine with raising taxes, because they have been gulled into thinking it will all be so “beautiful” and then we will all be “so happy”. Abortion? They’re agin it till they want to elect someone who is for it, and then, well, he was only FOR it a few months ago but he’s not now and they can tell he isn’t now because he said so but he still loves Planned Parenthood (and they love him) and some abortion is OK and his sister’s radical pro-abortions stance is fine with him, so abortion is one of those things that can just be set aside as an important issue right now.

      The constitutional role of the executive branch? Screw it. They don’t need no steenking Congress with SuperDonald at the helm! They love him because he said HE would do this and that and the other, so if the constitution tries to get in the way, screw it. Are his promises even DOABLE by a president? Well, no, but it just feels so great to have that big tingle they get when he plays to their anger and fear and gets them all stirred up, so there is really no reason to wonder if any of it is possible. He SAYS it, and that’s what matters! It just feels so damned good to get angry in a room full of angry people, and stomp their feet and howl at the moon.

      • Shawny Lee February 25, 2016 / 2:21 am

        Thanks, but I think some of us can speak for ourselves, (most of Nevada included) regarding my reasons for supporting a candidate you find so distasteful rather than, first, allowing the GOP establishment to make another lame choice for me (I held my nose and voted for McCain who is now even more gung ho for arming terrorists than Obama), second, allowing another Democrat candidate to continue the living hell the left has delivered for us the last 8 years. I’m not angry, haven’t howled at the moon lately nor do I get a tingle up my leg for any candidate, And you know what? I’m not ignorant nor a moron no matter how much Gruber and gang would like to believe it. So if that’s the way you want to frame the discussion too, well, at least the left being in power has conditioned me for it. The broad brush painting of a very large group of people from all walks of life, along with the dismissive and condescending (reminds me of liberal elitist) treatment of Trump supporters isn’t helping your case. Not sure any of them are as angry, frightened or presumptive as you folks seem to be. I’m very concerned and what I’m hearing from folks here is speculation on what they think Trump might or might not do, without knowing. It’s as destructive and divisive as what the Liberals and establish Republicans are saying but what have either delivered for us in decades under either party? The status quo hasn’t exactly been working out for anyone. Those who are convinced that Cruz or Rubio would be a better choice may be right, but who will they owe for their victory and what have they done in Congress to garner support for their bills and ideas, or unite lawmakers on their solutions? Trump has outlined some policies he would like to implement and actions he would like to take. Most that I’m familiar with are within the role of the executive branch, such as enforcing existing immigration laws (and if you or Congress don’t like the existing laws, Congress needs to change,). He’s on the same page with Cruz on eliminating Obama’s executive orders which needs to be done and I hope he dump some Bush ones as well. He wants to dump Obamacare and Congress has already passed that a number of times to Obama’s veto. So, yes he can. He wants to renegotiate treaties to our advantage (which is within his authority) and if Congress doesn’t agree with his deals they need not ratify the treaties. He wants to strengthen our military and take care of our Veterans. Much of our military supports him, what a C in C needs. We have suffered greatly from the class, color, sex, ethnic origin, political, religious and even academic divisiveness in this country and Trump seems to be a uniter across those divides and may also be with Congress. Don’t know. Trump has met and negotiated with many world leaders. Think he was ignorant of the proper protocols and that they think he’s a buffoon? Rather he’s a well known celebrity, and not just here. Rubio? Cruz? Big question mark. Maybe they’ve done some world class negotiations with the governors in their states, maybe not. Then, we have a majority of establishment Republicans in both the House and Senate, so how likely is anything that is outside the authority of the executive going to just get rubber stamped by them unless it’s what they want, including Supreme Court appointments, treaties etc. No one was sure who was going to get this nomination but most thought whoever got it would be better than Clinton or Sanders. If you think that’s not still the case then do whatever your conscience or stubbornness dictates but don’t try to convince anyone you care about this country. If the hatred continues he won’t live long enough for you to worry about what he does. This is supposed to be Blogs for Victory and it looks like that’s exactly what we’re going to get this time when we could be getting another classy commie.

      • Amazona February 25, 2016 / 9:24 am

        Shawny, others have the same concerns and ideas that Trump has. So the only conclusion that I can come to is that Trump’s appeal is his Trumpness. Every single thing anyone has said about why he or she will vote for Trump is a reason to vote for Cruz, so spare me the rhetoric about what Trump “will do”, and PUHLEEEZE spare me the melodrama of how he is so frightening to so many he may become a martyr.

        No, it is not Trump’s message that wins people over, because it is the same message as that sent out by Cruz and to some extent by Rubio. It is TRUMP. He has, like all good con men and hustlers, identified the emotion that will create a bond between him and the crowd, and he has played that emotion till it has built up into a frenzy. Your (and here I mean a plural “you”) loyalty is not to a cause, or a principle, but to a man. If it were to a principle, two things would happen: you would be willing to accept what is evidently so harsh a reality that you simply deny it, which is that Trump has only assumed your principles to set up a bond between you and get what he wants, and that there are many others with the same principles you claim to have who have held them for a long time and can probably do a much better job of putting them into action.

        I want to be wrong, I desperately WANT to be wrong. I hope more than anything that in a couple of years I can come back here and say Shawny, I apologize, you saw things I could not see and you were right and I was wrong and Trump is doing a wonderful job as president. But right now I think I am more likely to blame you for foisting this crude, rude, unprincipled, lying, immoral braggart and egomaniac on this nation.

        Your post does tell me one thing, though, and that is that although the crassness and creepyness of Trump slams many of us in the face, many of you don’t defend it so much as simply not see it. I don’t think you people really know what we are talking about. His persona must be coming across to you much differently than it is to us.

      • Amazona February 25, 2016 / 12:19 pm

        Shawny, for all your denial that Trumpmania was not founded on and is still fed by anger, the fact is that Trump people have been consistently describing anger as their motivation for supporting him.

        You say “…what I’m hearing from folks here is speculation on what they think Trump might or might not do, without knowing..” Thank you for making my point. WITHOUT KNOWING. With Cruz, there is a record of not only believing in but fighting for (and winning) on conservative principles. With Cruz, there is not that question. With Rubio, while there has been some wobbling, he seems to have firmed up his conservative beliefs and actions after brief experimentations with less focused conservatism.

        You are completely 100% correct that we simply do not know what Trump will do. THAT IS THE POINT. How can we know, when what he says now is 180 degrees from what he has been saying, and doing, for the last decade or two? That is what we keep trying to say to you people, and it is what you resolutely refuse to consider.

        “Trump is pro-life.” Why do you think that? “Because he says so.” But until he started to run as a Republican he was all about supporting abortion, even late term abortion, and even now he supports late term abortion in some cases and continues to support Planned Parenthood. “But now he says he is pro-life and I have decided to believe what he says to get my vote instead of his history and his record.”

        “Trump is for strict immigration enforcement and deportation of all illegals.” Why do you think that? “Because he says so.” What about his other statements that it would be wrong to deport people who have been here for a long time, and his record of hiring illegals? What about the millions of dollars he has spent to support Democrat advocates of amnesty? “That was then and this is now and I have decided to only look at now.”

        “Trump is against crony capitalism and corruption.” Why do you think that? “Because he says so.” How about his history of being part of crony capitalism and corruption, his open admission of basically bribing politicians to get what he wants and his excuse that that is just a part of doing business? “I don’t care, I like him and I think now he believes what he says.”

        And so on.

        If there was any faith, faith that could be based on his history and record, not only a record of actions but a record of honesty, there would be far less criticism of Trump. But the history tells us we can only hope he is honest now, and that is a big leap of faith when dealing with someone who cheerfully admits to lying, to lying on purpose to close deals, to saying what he has to say to get what he wants.

        If the Trump we are seeing now is the same Trump we have been seeing for the past ten or twenty years, I for one would be less upset at the thought of him knocking out serious, principled, proven conservatives. But the Trump we are seeing now is a brand new Trump, newly created, newly vested with all new ideas and principles and agendas. The Old Trump is still there, though, showing through the veneer, as when he admits that a description of Bernie Sanders sounds just like him, when he objects to Obamacare not because it is an improper expansion of the size, scope and power of the federal government but because it doesn’t go far enough and he wants the government to “pay for EVERYTHING”, when he can’t bring himself to criticize Planned Parenthood, etc.

        So you are not only right when you say we don’t know what Trump will do, you have put your finger on the biggest reason so many of us fear a Trump presidency. It will be a crap shoot, from Day One, not knowing which of the many many Trumps we have seen will show up in the Oval Office on any given day.

  5. Amazona February 24, 2016 / 9:10 pm

    If Cruz and Rubio don’t pull their heads out in the next few days and quit playing chicken with the party and the nation, and we ARE looking at either Trump or one of the pretty much indistinguishable Dems, we need to refocus on our Senate, House and governor races to try to build a firm wall around whichever moron gets into office, to force restraint and rein in excesses and ego trips and so on. We didn’t have the will to do that with Obama, having been so thoroughly cowed by the RACIST !!! howls, but with any of the Three Stooges who are looking like the nation’s choices at least we won’t have race baiting to make the weaker members of Congress pee down their legs when we asked them to DO something.

    Never has the line between the prospective GOP candidate and the prospective Dem candidate been so blurred. Even Donald, when read a description of the plans, policies and preferences of Bernie Sanders, said that was really describing him. But people who would never vote for Bernie can’t wait to vote for Trump.

    And never has the line between two types of Republicans been so definitive—the Atticus Finch type that calls for calm and reason and dignity and the other type that is eager to form a lynch mob and is howling in the streets when their leader yells “Get a rope!”

  6. Amazona February 25, 2016 / 11:58 am

    Publius, the pseudonym for the writer, or writers, of the Federalist Papers, had a warning we should heed today,

    ” “History will teach us” that “dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people.” He ends the paragraph with a warning: “of those men who have overturned the liberty of republics, the greatest number have begun their career, by paying an obsequious court to the people . . . commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

  7. Amazona February 25, 2016 / 12:37 pm

    I might be wrong, but I got the impression from Shawny’s post that objecting to lying, whoring, cursing, personal attacks calling dissidents liar and losers, bribery, crudeness, crassness, corruption, inconsistency, hypocrisy, rudeness. pandering and vulgarity is not just “elitism” but LIBERAL elitism. Not sure if that shows political confusion or semantic confusion or what.

    I wonder what word would be appropriate for someone supporting and admiring a person defined by lying, whoring, cursing, personal attacks calling dissidents liar and losers, bribery, crudeness, crassness, corruption, inconsistency, hypocrisy, rudeness. pandering and vulgarity. That person sure couldn’t be called an “elitist”.

    • Shawny Lee February 25, 2016 / 8:41 pm

      You can label them (Trump supporters in general or myself in particular) whatever your little heart desires. I only said I’m used to it because of the liberal environment we’ve been living in and that it doesn’t help your case, assuming your case is trying to convince anyone that they should vote for your candidate instead. Could I just see a show of hands for anyone who believes that Cruz really didn’t know he still held Canadian citizenship, could have run for office in Canada until 2014? How about the votes in favor of fast tracking the TPP from both Cruz and Rubio? Anyone here who doesn’t understand that significantly increasing the number of H-1b visas that both Rubio and Cruz have said they support is directly costing American jobs? Anyone applauding Glenn Beck for supporting Cruz or wondering why Sarah Palin who helped put Cruz in office is supporting Trump instead? Would “crass” include carpet bombing ISIS or do ya think Cruz was just blowing smoke up our skirts to sound tough? I’m a “peace through strength” kinda old gal so what Trump says about that appeals to me. Color me a moron or a brown shirt for wanting someone, who loves America and wants to defend our national sovereignty. I would have voted for Allen West if he were running too as he also recognized what the threats to this country are, from within and without. There were a lot of establishment Republicans who trashed him, just as they have Cruz, and would still be if Trump was not more of an immediate threat. I know you’d prefer to think this is blind admiration but this ain’t my first rodeo. I do appreciate the respectful responses Amazona.

      • Amazona February 25, 2016 / 9:40 pm

        Let me tell you about H1-B visas, Shawny. I have spent many thousands of dollars to get four of them–or maybe five, as for two people I had to go through the process twice when they decided to come back to the U.S to work.

        First I had to prove that the job could not be filled by an American. Believe me, I would have preferred to hire an American, but the few who could do the job were in business for themselves. So I had to work with an attorney and fill out plenty of forms. Then I had to advertise in several publications nationwide, trade-type papers as well as general big city newspapers. I had to offer the going rate for the position. Only when I got NO response could we move forward. Then there was the investigative period. One employee’s visa got held up because one letter in his mother’s name was different on her birth certificate than on her baptismal certificate.

        I then had to guarantee that I would pay the foreign worker at least as much as I would have paid an American, if I could find one. And I had to provide documentation of the salary.

        So while it is catchy to complain about H1-B visas as if they are taking away jobs from Americans, it just ain’t so. And BTW I also had to agree to have my people train Americans if anyone wanted to learn. People who understand the process understand that these visas are a great help to some businesses with specific labor needs, understand that they are set up so they can’t take jobs away from qualified Americans, and for damned sure do not exist so Americans can get cheaper labor.

        Therefore when you say “Anyone here who doesn’t understand that significantly increasing the number of H-1b visas that both Rubio and Cruz have said they support is directly costing American jobs? “ the answer is no, no one CAN understand that because it simply is not true. Sadly, this is one of the themes that has been accepted at face value and repeated by sincere but wrong people.

        I didn’t know that Sarah Palin “helped put Cruz in office” and as far as her now supporting Trump, no I don’t wonder and no, I don’t care. My opinion of Sarah Palin has nosedived in the past few years and I don’t care what she does or doesn’t do. I don’t think “crass” has anything to do with “carpet bombing” and I suggest you find out what that really means instead of reacting to what it sounds like. And no, it does not mean randomly bombing a large area. “Crass” is calling your opponent a pussy and doing it in the sneaky and sleazy way Trump did it. “Crass” is going on Twitter and calling people dogs or losers, “crass” is making fun of a woman’s face, “crass” is threatening people who are critical of you. It’s another way of saying low-class.

        I don’t think believing that Trump would be a terrible president is in any way related to loving this country less than you do, or being less concerned about national sovereignty.

        Yes, there is absolutely no doubt that if Ted Cruz gave it a moment’s thought he would have remembered that he had never renounced his Canadian citizenship. Also, being quite a Constitutional scholar, he would also have realized it didn’t matter, knowing that the Constitution does not say a presidential candidate cannot simultaneously have citizenship in another country. Is that really supposed to be an argument against Cruz’s honesty? And what the hell does the fact that theoretically he could have run for office in Canada have to do with anything? It is silly and irrelevant but I have a feeling it is a Trump line. It sounds like the kind of thing Trump would say. Is someone saying he lied about not realizing he still had Canadian citizenship? It seems to me that the subject would never have come up unless he wanted a Canadian passport or something. ?????

        I just keep coming back to my original questions. Why don’t Trump’s history or character matter to you, and why are you so convinced that he is the only one who sees the problems that bother you and has a plan to deal with them? Because every single thing you say completely ignores the problem of his history and his character, and every time you bring up something that sounds like only Trump cares, or only Trump has an answer for, it turns out that everyone else has addressed it, too.

        Of course, Trump is the only one who gets unlimited free air time on Fox and probably any other station he wants to go on, and he is the only one who can get hosts to agree to not ask him tough questions, so it might be easy to believe that he is the only one who understands the problems of illegal immigration, for example, if one has not taken the time to found out what the other guys think.

        And another thing has been ignored by Trump fans, which is that people who do not want conservative views to dominate American governance all want Trump to be the president. I don’t know about you, but THAT gets my attention. When media who are not friendly to the conservative cause are trashing Cruz and praising Trump, I have to wonder why. Can it really be that they are finally concerned about what it best for conservatives? Really?

        This ain’t my first rodeo, either, and when I see such a concerted effort from so many sources all trying to herd conservatives into supporting one candidate, I automatically wonder what’s in it for them. I have said this over and over again, and Trump supporters just make humming noises and look off into the distance, because there is no answer. OK, I can understand that if you really really like the guy you don’t want to talk about all the skeletons in his many closets, but surely you have to understand that the various media who are pushing him so hard now all have all this dirt, nicely organized and cataloged, to bring out starting the day he is nominated.

        Since when have media refrained from dishing the dirt on Republican candidates? Never, is when. But they are oddly, and I think ominously, silent about the sordid history of Donald Trump, his federal investigations for bribery and corruption, his Mob connections and business dealings, his many business failures, his lying about how much money he has, and of course his complete turnaround on serious issues such as abortion and illegal immigration and deportation. His morality will be a topic of ridicule on every late night TV show–“Ever wonder how all these people with family values suddenly think it’s OK to be a serial adulterer with a wife whose nude pictures are all over the Internet”? Conservatives will be branded as hypocrites, and with good reason. You want to talk about someone being divisive? We will have more than half of all conservatives saying “Hey, don’t blame ME, I can’t stand the guy” and there will resentment like you can’t believe if we are having to sit back and watch the various media gleefully dishing out what Trump supporters refused to acknowledge.

        It will take less than one news cycle for the various media to start savaging him, once we are stuck with him as our nominee,, and we won’t be able to do a damned thing about but sit back and watch the carnage.

        Did you watch the Reich video? He is saying what Liberals have been saying for months now. They are saying it because it is what they are thinking. If you are a Liberal, a Trump nomination will be the gift that keeps on giving. They’ve got nothing on Cruz, other than what cannabalistic Republican opponents have said about him, which is that he is a liar (though the allegations never pan out) and that he is not very “likable”. Well, I don’t care if people like him or not. This is not a junior high class president race, and it shouldn’t be a popularity contest, I don’t want to date him, I want to hire him.

      • Amazona February 25, 2016 / 10:00 pm

        And Shawny, I never considered that I might be able to change your mind. I have had too many friends defend abusive husbands or mooching boyfriends to think any mind can be changed by anyone who is not equally charmed, or taken in, however you want to put it.

        I just want to make it clear the kind of hell you Trumpkins are going to get when he destroys our chances to win this election. I don’t want any of you to be able to make the Big Eye and stammer “but…but….but I just didn’t KNOW!”

      • M. Noonan February 26, 2016 / 12:03 am

        True – we don’t want to be mean about things, but plenty on the right are sending up massive distress signals about Trump. No one can claim ignorance.

        Tonight, people watching the Debate (I wasn’t one of them – can’t stand the format) said that Rubio deftly ripped into Trump. Maybe it’ll shake things up – I don’t know; every time people say Trump lost a debate, he’s risen in the polls. Be that as it may – if Trump does win then I want everyone who reads this blog to understand that I and many others have said that Trump will be a disaster. If its 2020 and things are going great for the USA, I’ll be the first to admit that I got it wrong…but if I’m right…

    • Amazona February 25, 2016 / 9:57 pm

      Nice hit piece on Republicans, Armstrong. Love the tactic of starting out pretending to be about how Trump is destroying the party but quickly segues into a nonstop litany of hatred coming from a seriously biased point of view. Cute

      • armstrong460 February 26, 2016 / 11:01 am

        I didn’t read it that way. I read it as how because of the tactics of the Republicans for the last 8 years or so has brought about the rise of Trump. They built this monster but now can’t control it. If you want to call it a hit piece. Fine. Bob Kagan is neo-con in good standing with the Republican Party.

      • Amazona February 26, 2016 / 12:31 pm

        Yet the characteristics attributed to Republicans in this “analysis” are pretty much word for word the same mud-slinging tactics the Left has been using to demonize “the Right”. The article basically says that because all of these things are true, the GOP created Trump, and I say these things are not true.

      • armstrong460 February 26, 2016 / 3:40 pm

        Since those things aren’t true, then why is Trump the overwhelmingly front runner? LIV’s?

        Also, Kagan was aide to Kemp and Reagan.

      • Amazona February 26, 2016 / 4:30 pm

        I don’t care if he was an aide to Kemp and Reagan. I took offense at much of what he said because it sounded like it came straight from the pages of Slate or from the Daily Kos.

        He defined Republican objections to out of control budgets as “…the party’s wild obstructionism..” and then trivialized the objections as nothing more than “..policy and legislative disagreements..” He characterized calling for consistency as “..insistence that compromise was betrayal;..” and dismay at squishiness in the face of Democrat intimidation as “…internal coups against party leaders who refused to join the general demolition …” He frets that, according to him, “…Republican voters (were taught) that government, institutions, political traditions, party leadership and even parties themselves were things to be overthrown, evaded, ignored, insulted, laughed at..”

        In other words, he is totally pissed off at rebellion against the party establishment, and in striking out at the rebels is damning the whole party.

        But wait—he gets nastier. He clams Republicans engaged in “…accommodation to and exploitation of the bigotry in its ranks…” or at the very least “enabling” bigotry. On what does he base this accusation? On what he calls “..attacks on immigrants—legal and illegal—long before Trump arrived on the scene..” I’ve been a keen observer of the illegal immigration problem, and don’t remember the party attacking immigrants, legal or illegal. Illegal IMMIGRATION, yes—not the immigrants themselves. He defines efforts to halt ILLEGAL immigration as “..the party’s anti-immigration forces..” Broad brush, anyone?

        His bias is clear when he whines that Marco Rubio was working on what he calls “…plausible means of dealing with the genuine problems of immigration..” till the poor man was forced (his word) to COWER AND ABANDON HIS PRINCIPLES.

        “What did Trump do but pick up where they left off, tapping the well-primed gusher of popular anger, xenophobia and, yes, bigotry that the party had already unleashed”. Yes, he cites what HE sees as xenophobia and bigotry as the basis for wanting to curb illegal immigration. Sound familiar? If it doesn’t, check out the Loony Left sites for plenty of examples. Yes, Armstrong, Kagan is castigating Republicans for not wanting amnesty, and using this as the basis for his claim of bigotry.

        Well, as the basis for SOME of this bigotry he claims to know of. There is also the racial bigotry, as Kagan explains that Republicans exhibited “..Obama hatred, a racially tinged derangement syndrome that made any charge plausible and any opposition justified…” Yep, according to Kagan opposition to Obama policies were not really principled objections to Obama POLICIES, but were just “..hatred—-a racially tinged derangement syndrome..”

        Republicans have contributed to the rise of a populist demagogue like Trump not because of all these horrible things Kagan has accused the party of doing, but because the party didn’t do what it should have done. Kagan not only has it all backwards and upside down, he is so bitter and hateful that he can’t wait to tell the world how vicious and brutal and racist and xenophobic Republicans are.

        The party finally had someone willing and capable, with a history of fighting for the things conservatives have said they think are most important, and they have turned their backs on him because there is a big loud shiny disco ball screaming for their attention. It is promising the same thing the solid and proven conservative is saying, but with so much more glitter and more appeal to emotions rather than thought. We are not ready for a strong, principled, steady voice for the conservative cause. We still want a circus, as far as I can tell.

        So as for why Trump is leading, anyone who has read any of my posts knows that I have no answer to that because I simply cannot explain how so many people can be so eager to turn away from the principles they have espoused, so loudly and so often, when beckoned by a shiny huckster. It is a complete mystery to me, and if you want a well-written article on this mystery read the link to the Matt Walsh article.

      • armstrong460 February 26, 2016 / 6:26 pm

        You can’t answer the question even though the answer is staring you in the face. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make her drink.

      • Amazona February 26, 2016 / 7:16 pm

        Then I don’t know what you are talking about. I don’t think Kagan’s hit piece is true, and I can’t figure out why Trump is ahead. I can’t make it any clearer than that.

        Before you start giving me reasons why Trumpets like Trump, don’t bother—I have heard them all before and find them feeble. It is because ONLY TRUMP (fill in the blanks) hears us, cares about us, speaks for us, recognizes the dangers of illegal immigration, is willing to do anything about illegal immigration, TELLS IT LIKE IT IS !!!, sees problems in our trade agreements, etc. I have heard them and am not convinced that they tell the real story about his support, because others, Ted Cruz in particular, have the same basic message. It is more coherent, it is not frantic and emotive, it depends on an intellectual comprehension of what he is saying instead of the thrill of screaming in ecstasy, but Trump is not only the only one recognizing the problems and promising to address them though he IS the only one who is doing it like a carnival huckster.

        So, as I have said, if I have to try to figure out why people are sucked in by him, the only thing I can come up with is that they are susceptible, for one reason or another, to this kind of cheesy appeal.

        If you think you have found some message in Kagan’s hit piece that I have missed, please just go ahead and tell us.

        BTW, Trump is only the front runner because the other 60% of the vote is split so many ways.

      • tiredoflibbs February 29, 2016 / 2:01 pm


        “Armstrong” is good ol’ crusty in disguise.

        His hit and gotcha pieces are nothing new.

      • Amazona February 29, 2016 / 9:00 pm

        Tired, I am not surprised. There has always been a certain odor emanating from “Armstrong’s” posts and the jeering “you can’t even answer the question” was another tipoff, as the “question” had been thoroughly answered, though obviously not the way he wanted it answered. Thanks for your confirmation.

        I wonder what it is about this topic that has the roaches crawling out of the woodwork, We have had casper and bardolf, Crusty and Fake Crusty, and mersault all appearing at approximately the same time. I think it is funny to see that they just can’t help themselves even when they are confirming our suspicions that they are hanging around like the louts who got kicked out of the party, always on the outside looking in.

        Only a troll could link to the Kagan hit piece and pretend he didn’t know, or think, it was a hit piece. The fact that it touched on the favorite Liberal lies about conservatives made it pretty obvious.

        If they were half as smart as they think they are they would be twice as smart as I think they are.

  8. bardolf2 February 26, 2016 / 10:56 am

    “And Shawny, I never considered that I might be able to change your mind. I have had too many friends defend abusive husbands or mooching boyfriends to think any mind can be changed by anyone who is not equally charmed, or taken in, however you want to put it.” Amazona


  9. bardolf2 February 26, 2016 / 11:31 am

    “As for me – if Trump is the nominee, I re-register as Independent…” – Mark

    I recall when Neocon was saying he wasn’t sure if he could get excited enough to vote for a likely loser like McCain (McLame in his neologism). That McCain represented the establishment and his potential presidency wouldn’t change things for the better. Blogsforvictory called Neocon petulant. Said he was like a little kid that when his candidate didn’t win, wanted to take his ball and go home.

    Good times. Good times.

    When the GOP frontrunner is nominated this summer, Mark will re-register, then the GOP frontrunner will schlong Hillary in November. At that point, Mark should rename the blog once again. Blogsfordefeat.com is available.

    • Amazona February 26, 2016 / 12:28 pm

      You sure do like the imagery of “schlonging” don’t you? Once again, hmmm.

      Oh, BTW, Mark did not say he would not vote. He has already said, several times, that he will vote for Trump if he is the nominee.

      Mark can register as an independent and still vote for Trump. Or anyone else. Seriously—-check it out.

      • bardolf2 February 27, 2016 / 5:30 am

        I do like the imagery of Hillary getting schlonged by Donald. I really do. If you want to do your Lucy van Pelt psychoanalysis go ahead, but the 5 cents will not be arriving.

        Oh, BTW, I didn’t say above that Mark wouldn’t vote for Trump did I? Nope. You just made that up out of nothing. In fact Neo wound up voting for both McLame and Mittens. I said he was labelled as petulant for merely suggesting his lack of enthusiasm. If you don’t think Mark titling a Post ‘I’m sorry on behalf of Nevada’ isn’t a sign of a lack of enthusiasm then you’re delusional. Unhinged in the words of Michelle Malkin.

        I really like when fair weather GOP losers and donors apologize for the frontrunner or announce to the world that they are staying home in November. They can form their own circling the drain party or run 3rd party. Wait, wait they already are looking into it.


        top keks

      • Amazona February 27, 2016 / 11:33 am

        Thank you for repeatedly sharing your favorite imagery, of people getting “schlonged” and of armchair psychologists. Those preoccupations, combined with your hostility, are showing a pattern.

        BTW, it didn’t take this post for me to realize Mark has no enthusiasm for the Republican establishment. He has made that quite clear, for quite some time, and is in good company as his “lack of enthusiasm” is shared by everyone I have seen posting on this blog, at least in the past couple of years. None of us do. That is why we are all looking for replacements for said establishment. Our only points of contention are who that person should be.

  10. Tim February 26, 2016 / 11:51 am

    Buh bye Mark. You were a better donktard anyway.

    • Amazona February 26, 2016 / 12:32 pm

      Buh-bye? You going somewhere? Or are you offended at the lack of loyalty to the Republican Party? Gee, I don’t remember you as being so defensive of the GOP.

      • bardolf2 February 27, 2016 / 5:34 am


        Tim actually fought in Bush’s MidEast wars for advancing democracy. He defended the GOP establishment with his life. That’s not the same as defending the GOP with some extra money he had laying around after buying a new piece of property or fancy car. He did more for the GOP warmongers than you and everyone on this blog combined.

      • Amazona February 27, 2016 / 11:47 am

        My goodness you are just plain determined to find something to gripe about, aren’t you? Nice though desperate stretch, to try to shift my comment about Tim being defensive of the GOP Establishment (which, by the way, he has always criticized) as a slight on his military service. I hope you got enough satisfaction out of your petty sniping to justify the effort.

        But wait—immediately after your snippy little whinge about buying new property or a fancy car (note to newcomers: I have posted about selling my ranch and buying a different property, and about buying an old Mercedes at a great price and really liking the engineering, both of which evidently got under dolf’s skin and festered) you do a 180 and sneer that Tim’s honorable military service actually “… did more for the GOP warmongers than you and everyone on this blog combined…” which really looks to me like an insult to Tim.

        Whatever. As usual, it is tiresome to try to figure out what the hell you are talking about, I will say, though, after viewing your recent “contributions” to the blog, your move to Italy has not improved your disposition or done anything to moderate that free-floating anger and hostility that have always marked your posts.

  11. Tim February 26, 2016 / 11:55 am

    The politicians go to Dee Cee and become scumbags. We are going to take the chance that a scumbag will go to Dee Cee and not be a scumbag.

    That is how it is rolling these days.

    • Bob Eisenhower February 26, 2016 / 3:46 pm


      It seems more along the lines of “we’re sending a (semi)-scumbag to DC on a chance he won’t go full-on scumbag”

    • Amazona February 26, 2016 / 3:58 pm

      No, we are thinking of sending a proven scumbag who is now an allegedly reformed scumbag to D.C. on the chance he won’t revert to his prior, well-established, thoroughly documented, scumbagginess.

  12. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) February 26, 2016 / 2:25 pm

    So, why is Donald Trump winning? Because we asked for Donald Trump, we prayed for Donald Trump, we spoke to the Gods and they answered Donald Trump!

    All I hear is that little voice in the back of my head saying, “We need to destroy them, play by their rules, don’t bring a knife to a gun-fight. The Left plays for keeps; we need to play for keeps. When they speak don’t argue, it’s not worth it, mock them-ridicule them-make them wet themselves. We have to street-fight like them, in the gutter like them, beat them to a pulp using their tactics.”

    Mr. Karma, meet Donald Trump.

    What does he believe in? Who the hell knows? He’s a Republican street-fighter.
    What will he do if he wins? Who the hell knows? He’s a Republican that plays like they play.
    Are we better off now that we learned how to play on their turf? Who the hell cares? We got exactly what we deserve; when we abandon principals to win at any cost we get the government we deserve.

    Donald Trump; America’s last best chance for a Third Party.

    • Amazona February 26, 2016 / 3:32 pm

      Good to see you back, Count.

      “What does he believe in? Who the hell knows? He’s a Republican (this week) street-fighter.
      What will he do if he wins? Who the hell knows? He’s a Republican (this week) that plays like they play. Are we better off now that we learned how to play on their turf? Who the hell cares? We got exactly what we deserve; when we abandon principals to win at any cost we get the government we deserve.”

      Just had to tweak your comment a little bit. He reminds me of a very coarse joke with the punch line “I’m not really a Texan, I just found this hat”.

      I think some people work from a set of principles, including a concept of what is the best blueprint for governing the country, upon which they build some ideas of how to fix what has gone wrong, the totality of which drives them to run for office so they can try to put it all into practice.

      And some start at the other end—-I want to have an important office, so what do I have to do, to get there—and then start to work backwards. So once the goal of being president is established, the next thing is to come up with some “answers” that will appeal to people, then to figure out what principles of government need to be created to establish an identity.

      I believe, always have believed, and always will believe that Donald Trump is the latter. The most recognizable building in the country doesn’t have TRUMP !! on the front of it. It is the big prize, the ultimate ego trip, but getting there involves a lot of reverse engineering. And that is what I have been seeing—reverse engineering. It is a classic case of creating a brand. It is what Trump has been doing his whole life.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) February 26, 2016 / 7:25 pm

        Trump’s motivation is obvious. He is, after all a petulant child who had never been refused.

        The question is why is his support so strong that every gaff and misstep only strengthens his followers’ obstinacy.

        To me the answer is we. We have been so angered and so disappointed and so frightened by those who sought to represent us only to fold like a cheap suit at the first sign of resistance. We, who elected the (R)s believing they would stand up for small government and individual rights and freedoms only to foist upon us an ever-increasing burdensome government. We who gathered and shouted and voted and sent money; spent time and treasure pushing the candidate du jour to tilt at the windmills in vain desperation, only to have them turn-tail and run; complaining to us that the battle is joined if only we keep heart (and send more).

        We, who have said for years that if someone-anyone were to speak loudly, with vigor and resolve – punch and counter-punch – and bloody the noses in valiant battle, if we had such a champion we could have the field.

        We said we’d cheer such a champion and now are surprised he behaves like a buffoon / a boorish bully / a coarse ruffian who flings personal insults with a hooligan’s aplomb – He doesn’t care the carnage in his wake, by G-d he has cleared the field.

        And we rue the day we asked for such a champion.

        Problem is, our political Rottweiler doesn’t recognize his master or his enemy; equal treatment for any and all that oppose him.

        I wonder, should I vote Hillary? There’s a better than even chance the Dimocrat Felon will be incarcerated and the country will forget the childish churl that lost the election and once again embrace the (R)s.

        Nah …

      • Amazona February 26, 2016 / 8:07 pm

        But what about the WE who have stood fast, and looked for and waited for someone who would be the UnClinton, the NotBernie, the one we could look at with pride and say “Yes, he/she speaks for me.” The ones who have been holding out for someone whose candidacy would show that we are serious, we are smart, we are principled, we know what we are talking about, and our guy is so much better than theirs. We’re the ones who are being betrayed by those who don’t care that our guy is no better than theirs. I truly think that to a lot of people, Trump represents glamour and sophistication and maybe even style, and they are drawn to that, so much so that the ugliness doesn’t faze them.

        I see that you are saying we sent the message that as long as we had a stalwart champion we wouldn’t care if he sh*ts in the Cheerios and plays Pull My Finger. As long as his message is OUR message, we wouldn’t care if his zipper was slippier than Bill Clinton’s or his business dealings have more of a Tony Soprano quality than even Hillary’s. I don’t agree. Yes, we said we wanted someone with a backbone, but we also wanted (or at least in my naivete I THOUGHT we also wanted) someone with integrity, someone who actually stands for the values we keep saying we hold so dear, someone who doesn’t make us cringe in shame at his coarse antics.

        Maybe some had the Old West attitude of it takes a gunslinger to run the bad guys out of town, but I never thought that was the idea. I can’t get behind the attitude of “yes, he’s an a**hole, but he’s OUR a**hole”.

        Mostly I am distressed at the prospect of seeing the conservative movement, which has picked up some momentum and started to coalesce as a legitimate and powerful political voice, be so thoroughly trashed. And it will be. The voices are silent, now, because they don’t want to distract us from our self-immolation, but they will be there as soon as we are stuck with Trump as our nominee, and they will be loud, and they will be right. When we choose someone who has advocated for all abortion, including partial birth abortion, until he needed a different message to take out on the campaign trail, we no longer have much standing to say that the sanctity of human life is a major priority. Because if it is, how can we support Trump? When we nominate someone who is a lifelong whoremonger, serial adulterer (keeping in mind that adultery is not just about illicit sex, it is also about betrayal and constant lying to the one who should be able to trust you the most) who crassly brags about his conquests, we pretty much lose the higher moral ground as far as those now-abandoned “family values” are concerned. . Because if we are serious about this, how can we support Trump?

        Remember when the TEA Party was about, among other things, getting rid of crony capitalism? Can’t make that argument any more after nominating the King of Crony Capitalism. We won’t have much standing to say we think the country should be governed according to its constitution, after nominating someone who is quite blatant (to shrieks of hysterical applause) about going it on his own, handling all these things by himself. There’s not much room to argue that conservatives are all about a federal government strictly limited as to size, scope and power if we have millions of so-called conservatives drooling in anticipation of voting for the guy who thinks Obamacare doesn’t go far enough, who thinks the insurance companies need to get out of the way and just let the government “pay for everything”.

        And what really strikes me is the pious posturing of people who say they want a “uniter” and then follow along in the path of the single most divisive figure in the Republican Party’s history.

        It’s not just Trump, the man. It is Trump, the Phenomenon, that is dragging the entire conservative movement into the muck with it, because some people don’t have the integrity to take a harder look at Trump now that so much is coming out about him. You are right, a lot of it is just plain bullheadedness. It’s “My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts”. But this is more important than how some people might feel if they would have to admit they jumped the gun and got on the Trumpwagon before they had all the facts. There are enough of them to drag us all over the cliff, and I can’t pretend it doesn’t sicken me to watch it happen.

      • Amazona February 26, 2016 / 9:05 pm

        Count, you are not the only one with the theory of “we need a bad guy” theme. Allahpundit over at Hot Air had this to say: emphasis mine

        “Here’s a radical theory for the “my party would never knowingly condone this” crowd: Maybe the Trump’s-a-dirtbag attacks would never have worked because his fans like that he’s a dirtbag. His sales pitch, after all, is that he’s going to do for them, and America, what he’s been doing for himself for the past 70 years. Fleecing innocent people of their savings via a bogus real-estate “university”? Sure, that’s scummy … but what if he puts those skills to work fleecing Mexico by getting them to pay for a wall? Some core part of the anti-Trump argument boils down to “this is ruthless and immoral” and some core part of the response seems to be “we need someone ruthless and immoral to make America great again.

        Yet the reason Trumpets don’t like Cruz is because he is ruthless, or so they say. As I say, go figure.

    • Amazona February 26, 2016 / 3:41 pm

      I’m all about battering the Opposition when they play dirty, but I would just rather do it with a scalpel than with a battering ram. Churchill more than Rambo.

      My husband and I used to go to England pretty often, and liked staying in old manor houses converted into boutique hotels. One afternoon we drove up a lovely tree-lined drive through a majestic park with deer grazing and huge sweeps of daffodils in among the trees, and thought we were in for a treat. And oh, we were. The place turned out to be owned and run by Danny LaRue, the British vaudeville cross dresser who made Benny Hill look classy. Inside it was a nightmare of flocked red wallpaper, garish light fixtures, gilt everything. I’ve never been in a New Orleans whorehouse but if I had to design one for a play I would base it on Danny LaRue’s bastardization of a once-lovely manor house.

      When I think of a Trump presidency I think of the office of the presidency as done by Danny LaRue.

      • Bob Eisenhower February 26, 2016 / 3:48 pm

        First brie, then spinach, now Danny LaRue. You just like to watch the world burn, don’t you?

      • Amazona February 26, 2016 / 3:56 pm

        Oh, yeah. Gimme a match.

        But don’t get me wrong—-I like spinach and I LOVE brie. Give me a nice runny double cream or triple cream cheese, some sourdough bread and an apple, and I am one happy farmer.

        Garish bad taste, not so much

  13. Amazona February 26, 2016 / 7:24 pm

    Trump’s boycott of Apple lasted about a week—probably about the projected life span of his newly minted “conservative” views.

    I find his tweets so asinine, juvenile, and downright creepy I started to wonder why he isn’t afraid his fanbots will be turned off by their oafishness and crudity. And then I remember—-his fanbots are turned off by NOTHING about the Shiny One. He is just throwing raw red meat to his adoring followers, and they eat it up. “YEAH!! Choke on THAT, you choking choker Rubio!”

    The worse he is, the more they love him. Go figure.

  14. dbschmidt February 26, 2016 / 9:04 pm

    Serious Question

    As I see it today being 14 days out from casting a vote in the primaries–I have several options, all of which could be write-ins as I am a registered Libertarian.

    Donald Trump — only way I would vote for a narcissistic to replace the existing narcissistic is if he ended up being the nominee. “We are going to make America great again” is a slogan–not a policy.

    Ted Cruz. — no real opinion. Like him but do not know enough as of yet.

    Rubio — problem child as in establishment and squishy. On on hand (left) is the gang of eight and on the other (right) — he is the only candidate to mention a possible convention of the States.

    Kasich — no chance but a “nice” guy.

    Carson — (and Fiorina) were my two choices off the bat but once again…do not see a future except, with hope, in the next Republican’s cabinet.

    Yes, I like the mindset of Rand Paul but the country is not ready for that until we right the existing ship and kick all of the “it’s too tough. You mean I have to earn a living” cry babies off the port bow.

    Question is–do I, here in NC, vote for “not my first choice” in an effort to keep my “not my choice” from gaining the nomination?

    What would you do?

    • Amazona February 26, 2016 / 9:46 pm

      I’d vote for Cruz. At least you would retain your dignity and know you TRIED to do something for the country.

      BTW I have been following Cruz pretty closely ever since I learned that the Left fears him even more than they hate him. He is pretty impressive. He has argued, and won, constitutional cases in front of the Supreme Court. He has never wavered on his commitment to constitutional governance.

      The Left LOVES Trump. Jimmy Carter thinks he is wonderful because as president he would be so “malleable” while Cruz would not bend at all to the Left. Go to the very first post in this thread and watch the short video to see what Robert Reich has to say about Cruz v Trump. The Complicit Agenda Media are all mum about Trump’s sordid past, multiple investigations, etc. because they don’t want to call attention to his shortcomings, and are being pretty blatant about telling us all in big headlines that he IS the nominee, it’s all over so we might as well just give in and vote for him.

      The significance of that seems to have gone right over the heads of the Trumpets.

    • Amazona February 26, 2016 / 9:52 pm

      As a Libertarian, Trump’s narcissism should be the least offensive of his qualities. He thinks health care should be single payer with the government “paying for everything”. He loves eminent domain, and tried to use it to get an old widow off her property because HE wanted it. Not for a road or a hospital or school, but for limo parking for one of his casinos. He loves Planned Parenthood and just defended them, in spite of claiming (for now, anyway) to be suddenly pro-life. He’s about as un-Libertarian as you can be without being Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, and when he was asked who was described by Bernie Sanders’ positions he said it sounded like Donald Trump to him.

      • M. Noonan February 26, 2016 / 11:39 pm

        I’m still a little hopeful that people are waking up to what Trump is – or, more accurately, isn’t. I don’t even mind so much that he’s not conservative…I can see the appeal of rip-roaring Populist Patriotism, after all. But Trump is clearly just following a script to gain a block of voters neither full right nor full left…and he’s saying just enough left and just enough right to make it all sound credible. As long as you don’t look to closely, that is. It is, as we’ve all pointed out, just a re-do of Hope and Change which just a bit more carnival barking.

      • Amazona February 27, 2016 / 12:28 am

        I, too, could see the appeal of “..rip-roaring Populist Patriotism..” What I just can’t understand is how anyone can be sucked in by someone so blatantly fake. If a reasonably normal guy with a history of conservatism happened to rise into public view and then catch the attention of the conservative public, I could easily understand that. I might even be caught up in the groundswell of enthusiasm. I know when I first started to pay attention to Ted Cruz my feeling was that finally we had someone to speak to the concerns of the conservative base, and I was starting to feel really upbeat and happy that conservatism finally had a voice.

        But as happy as I was about this, if I had learned that Cruz had a sordid history of serial adultery, bragging about sexual conquests, making crude sexual statements, had been investigated several times by the federal government, had a history of very questionable connections, had a history of several failed business enterprises, and most significantly had a history of both supporting causes and agendas that are absolutely antithetical to conservative principles as well as a well-documented history of lying, I would have walked away from my original enthusiasm for Cruz, no matter how excited I might have been at the beginning.

        It’s not that I don’t understand the appeal of a new face and a new voice that represent the hopes and dreams of conservatives. I do. It’s that it took so little time to learn that the whole persona is just plain bogus, and that this particular voice is only saying what it has to say to feed a massive ego.

        I think Matt Walsh wrote a very clear and precise outline of the sudden veering away from conservative principles that is necessary to support Trump. I might not agree with a supporter of Kasich, for example, or even of Bush, but I could understand his appeal. I just don’t know how you can claim to value the lives of the unborn and still support Trump, whose sudden “pro-life” position is 180 degrees from his pro-abortion stance. Now he is all about mass deportation, after criticizing Romney for his relatively mild self-deportation comments and coming out very strongly against the idea of deportation at all. Now he is all about sending all illegals “home” and is even touting the self-deportation idea of Romney.

        Basically, liars lie. Trump lied, in two books he allegedly wrote, about his financial worth, and when Forbes pointed out he had basically doubled his real worth he said he didn’t know how that figure got into those books. In other words, he not only lies, he then lies about lying. He won’t even take responsibility for his lies. It is lying that means a person is a liar, and liars lie. Trump is a liar. He is a blatant, unrepentant, liar, the kind of liar who when he gets caught just tries to get out of it by telling another lie. And this is documented, and what I cannot understand, cannot wrap my head around, is why his supporters just don’t care.

      • M. Noonan February 27, 2016 / 12:35 am

        The closest parallel is Andrew Jackson – he, too, was a populist demagogue who had a bit of a shifty background but was swept into office in a fit of anger on the part of the American people…furious with what they correctly saw as the increasing corruption of American political life. That Jackson went on to found the political “spoils system” (whereby whoever won the last election simply replaced all government officials, high and low, with his cronies) just didn’t get into the heads of his supporters…who thumpingly re-elected him. At least Jackson, though, had genuine military success to his credit…what Trump has escapes me.

        I admit to being a bit Jacksonian, myself – but without illusions regarding what Jackson actually did.

        I think that democratic governments periodically need to be purged – the purge can take a lot of different forms, the most extreme being a civil war, but after a while any popular government will become a mere clique of people battened upon the nation, enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else. And we’re overdue for such a purge…probably should have happened a could decades ago. I hope it doesn’t work out the worst way – I hope that in the aftermath of Trump, however that plays out, a Washington or Lincoln will rise among us.

    • dbschmidt February 27, 2016 / 7:37 pm

      Actually need to correct myself. I meant “for a narcissistic to replace the existing narcissistic” should have been “for a megalomaniac to replace the existing narcissistic”

      Anyway, what I have researched on Ted Cruz today makes me feel comfortable about voting for him. It would not be “throwing” away a vote. Just wondering now about how long it will be before this country returns to its origins which made us great. Not Donald Trump great–really a great country.

      Before I pass from this great life–I would like to vote for someone (like Reagan) and not picking the lesser of all presented one more time. Actually, Ted Cruz might be that vote.

      • Amazona February 27, 2016 / 8:57 pm

        I think a vote for Cruz is a vote for constitutional government. I just read that when you break down the SC vote by age, Cruz won the youngest age group and was tied, I think, with Trump in the overall 17-44 age group. It was the older voters who went for Trump. Go figure. I thought that a little experience would make it easier to see through a con job.

        There are two things that I think really set Cruz apart from Trump—aside from the whole fraud, whoremongering, multiple business failures, ego, lying, history of supporting radical Liberal causes and politicians, etc.—he is realistic, and he is consistent. He is a process guy. He knows process, he understands process, he has been successful through process, and he is a methodical kind of person. He is not a SHAZAAM !! candidate.

        You know, someone who suckers people in with SHAZAAM!! promises. “Elect me and SHAZAAM!! a border wall will be built and miraculously someone else will pay for it, the Mexicans will all be gone, we’ll slap a 45% tariff on everything made in China and (again miraculously) the poor will not suffer when prices go up by the amazingly coincidental amount of 45%, the economy will be fixed, and it will all be so beautiful and everyone will be so happy. And then, SHAZAAM!! America will be great again.

        Ted Cruz wants to remove the barriers to greatness that have crippled this country, so it can find its way back to greatness. Donald Trump wants to be the guy who MAKES America great. When he’s not being persecuted for his deep religious beliefs, that is.

      • M. Noonan February 28, 2016 / 12:19 am

        Black lady on Twitter noted yesterday that talking to friends and family down South, she’s finding a lot of interest in voting for Trump among them. Now, to be sure, they haven’t been blanketed by ads screaming “RACISM!!!11!” about Trump, yet…but, then again, they might not be…most of those States will go GOP in November come what may. But I do find it interesting that a lot of at least Democrat-Leaners are open to Trump’s candidacy…and the more I hear Trump, the more I see his plan on this.

        It may well be true that as many as two million GOPers stay home or vote Third Party for President come November (could be more than that, but I suspect that when push comes to shove, most GOPers will pull the lever for Trump, if for nothing else than to firmly register an anti-Hillary vote). Two million is a lot and that would drop the GOP vote to about 59 million (though given rise in population, the total number might be higher…but, still, proportionally let’s just call it that). If Hillary holds on to Obama’s 2012 voters then she wins it in a walk over – getting 66 million votes to Trumps 59 million. But here’s the thing – it is highly unlikely that Hillary will keep that much of Obama’s coalition together. Even Obama couldn’t keep the Obama coalition together…he lost 3.5 million votes between 2008 and 2012. If Hope and Change dropped that much, we should presume that Hillary! will drop at least as much, again. But even with that, Hillary would still win (call it 62 million to 59 million)…unless Trump can convince some of those 2008 voters who dropped off over an 8 year period to show up for him. And that is, I think, precisely what he’s trying to do.

        That is about 7.5 million votes, and Trump only needs to convince 3.5 million of them to vote for him to secure victory, even if 2 million GOPers sit it out (and, remember, 2 million is a lot – it might be significantly less than that). And if Trump can get 4 or 5 million of them to come his way? Boom! And given where they’ll come from, it might be an electoral college wipe out even if Trump is only getting 52 or 53% of the overall vote.

        Now, can he do it? No one can or will know before the votes are cast. Well, scratch that a little – if we’re sitting here in mid October and the Real Clear Politics averages of polls shows Hillary with, say, a 6 or 7 percentage point lead, then she’s almost certain to be elected President. But even then, it is “almost certain”, not absolutely certain…because I don’t think polling is going to be much use in 2016. We’ve already seen some really bad polling over the past few years – as more people switch to cell phones and just refuse to answer pollster questions, it is getting harder and harder for the pollsters to get a firm read on things. But add to that the fact that Trump’s whole game plan is based upon pulling into the system people who don’t normally vote, or who usually vote for the other side. That makes polling extremely tricky – and it might prove impossible for 2016. If the candidates are 5 or less percentage points apart in mid October then give it up…flip a coin, because no one is going to know until the votes are counted who is the next President.

        Now, let me be clear (and not in the Obama sense) – Trump is not a stupid man. Yes, he’s a stupid, vulgar man, etc…but not stupid in the sense of not knowing what he’s doing. I noted that it appears Trump started gearing up for this thing right after the votes were counted in 2012. Remember, back then he was looking at a GOP field which was going to be the strongest, ever – just in Jindal and Walker he was going to be facing off against some extremely high-caliber Republicans. It didn’t daunt him in the least. I believe that Trump is working from a script – from something worked out long in advance. He has the money to hire whatever talent he needs to crunch whatever set of numbers he likes…and he has massive experience in advertising, has a strong stage presence (though no real debating skills) and knows how to manipulate the media and through them, the public (and heck, he might have even just gone out and talked to people…just talking and listening – hard as it is to imagine Trump listening to anyone – can tell you a lot of what you should do…what words and phrases will help you make a deal). From what I can see, his plan all along was to run against both left and right…of course, for the moment, he’s running against the right, because that is what he has to beat down in order to get the GOP nomination (and don’t think he’s the only guy who thought that – Jeb did, as well…he just wasn’t successful at it). If he gets the nomination, you just watch…he’s going to go gang-busters against the left. But not in it’s entirety (just as he hasn’t gone against the right in it’s entirety). He going to attack the aspects of the left that most Americans don’t like, or at least don’t understand or trust; meanwhile, he’s already setting “middle of the road” markers (such as his pledge to never touch Social Security) to reassure quasi-Liberal, Democrat-Leaners that a President Trump won’t go after the things they care about.

        Now, will it all work? Beats all heck out of me. The Conventional Wisdom is that Trump is doomed to a Goldwater-style loss in November…and if it works out that way, you won’t see my shocked face. But you also won’t see my shocked face if Trump rolls up a 1980 Reagan-style victory, either.

      • Amazona February 28, 2016 / 12:30 am

        This is something I didn’t know, from the 40 reasons to not vote for Trump article I linked:

        “He won’t be financially competitive in a general election: Hillary Clinton and the Super PACs supporting her will probably spend north of 2.5 billion dollars against Donald Trump. Trump has no Super Pacs and has made not taking money from big donors a centerpiece of his campaign. If you take away the value of his name, Trump would probably have to liquidate his entire fortune to compete financially with Hillary. Even if that were possible, which it’s not, Trump has been very reluctant to spend his money. He even admits that he doesn’t know how he’d fund his campaign in a general election.”

      • M. Noonan February 28, 2016 / 1:28 am

        That is the big unanswered question – of course, a substantial portion of GOP money would come his way in the general election just as a matter of course, but he is bound to be out-spent by Hillary by a significant margin. But, Jeb just proved that money doesn’t buy elections, necessarily.

      • Amazona February 28, 2016 / 10:34 am

        True, money doesn’t buy elections. But it does buy campaigns, and it does buy ads. Hillary already has a very well-organized ground game, and runs a much smarter campaign than just tweeting that her opponent is a loser.

        Going back to that post about the media supporting Trump till the day after the nomination and then unloading all the negatives they have stored up to make him radioactive, one or two billion dollars spent over two or three months to get that message out and hammer it home will call for vast amounts of cash to try to counter the tsunami of destructive facts. While I am not sure that any amount of money would be able to offset that kind of deluge of information, a small war chest will just mean less defense.

        And there is the fact that the man who would be president came into this race without a plan. He’s been winging it from Day One. It has come out that he started to seriously consider running at least four years ago, but evidently even with all that time to put something together the “plan” was to set himself up as being above normal politics, being the un-politician who is not beholden to anyone because he is self-funded, and then when he gets the nomination, well………..something. For one thing he will then start a belated fund-raising flurry, because once he has the nomination, has the party in the bag, he doesn’t need that self-funding pretense any more. Then he’ll take federal money. The Trumpbots won’t see this as a betrayal or proof he lies, because they will continue to be immune to criticism of The Donald, but he needs more than 30 or even 40 per cent of registered Republicans to win. Those already in the fold are in for the long haul, but it will be harder to lure in new voters when he starts backpedaling on his promises.

      • M. Noonan February 28, 2016 / 11:52 pm

        That is the theory – and why most expert opinion holds that Trump will be crushed in November…which wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

        On the other hand…

        Hillary’s sleaze, while not as raunchy as Trump’s, is in some ways much worse and while Trump’s negatives are very high, Hillary’s aren’t anything to write home about. It will be two people despised by a vast chunk of the American electorate vying for the top spot. It’ll be interesting, to say the least.

        We’re going to find out a few things over the next 8 months:

        1. Just how many people in the United States are “ethno-nationalist”. These are people who don’t participate in our politics – they consider it all controlled by enemy forces (15-20 years ago they were calling it “ZOG” – for “Zionist Occupation Government”), they’ve toned themselves down and call themselves “alt-right” these days. They are statists with a strong nationalist bent and a proclivity for overt racism (though not all of the alt-right I’ve come across are definitively racist…though to a man and woman they are anti-foreigner and anti-immigrant, from my experience). How many are there? Even if its a mere two or three million voting age people, it could make a difference if Trump can get them to the polls. And one thing I’ve learned watching them on social media is that they are willing to play a long game…Trump is there guy and they are convinced he’s going to open up the doors to their views…and so they have so far been willing to swallow his luke-warm, pro-Israel statements (anti-Israel – often sliding into outright anti-Semitic – views are also common among these people).

        2. How many committed Conservatives there are in the nation – genuine Conservatives can’t stand Trump: because he’s a big government Progressive who is “quadrangulating” himself to gain support from everyone BUT genuine Conservatives and Socialists. Are there enough Conservatives to vote Third Party, pull the lever for Hillary or not vote at all to deny Trump a win? We’ll find out.

        3. Has it been the serial accusations of racism against the GOP which has kept a lot of moderates from voting GOP? Or is it the perception that the GOP is pro-Rich Guy which has done it? What this boils down to is just how many white Americans who normally vote Democrat will switch over to Trump – in spite of a relentless campaign to paint him as racist by the Democrats between Convention and November – because of his populist appeal? My view is that what keeps the GOP from being a national governing majority on a consistent basis is the perception that the GOP, as a Party, doesn’t care about Average Folks. Racism is a one-trick pony which has been played endlessly and it is probably worn out…as most people aren’t racists and don’t make their decisions based upon Progressive ideology on matters of race. The massive increase in voter turnout in the GOP SC primary – and the collapse of white voters in the Democrat end of the SC primary – tends to confirm my views here. But we’ll just have to see.

        4. Most important – is the majority of American voters in favor of rational government, or just so pissed off at the sorry state of affairs that they’ll knock over the apple cart just to see what happens?

  15. bardolf2 February 27, 2016 / 6:25 am

    “Mr. Karma, meet Donald Trump. What does he believe in? Who the hell knows?”- Bean Counter

    Who the hell cares? Who the hell cares?

    Let’s look what the average GOP supporter of George W Bush was led to understand about ‘Bush’s beliefs’ vs the tangible reality of his time in office.

    1. Bush believed in smaller government and made it much, much larger. NCLB, Medicare, DHS

    2. He was vehemently against nation building and went ahead and did just that, costing trillions of dollars and destroying a fragile MidEast.

    3. He believed that the market should decide prices and then used the government to heavily push the ‘ownership economy’. He’s responsible for the housing collapse which the economy is still suffering from.

    4. He believed that Republicans should get to nominate out-spoken conservatives to the SC just like Democrats did. Then he placed blank-slate John Roberts on the court. That guy upheld Obamacare. Bush could have prevented Obamacare simply by nominating a KNOWN conservative. Instead, he did just like his dad with Souter.

    5. He believed in secure borders and yet somehow millions and millions of illegal aliens wound up in the US under his watch.

    6. He believed in ‘family values’. A wishy-washy nothing that got demolished with the first president after him. Pro-choice became even more firmly rooted under Bush and his nominations. Not surprisingly since even his own wife supported abortion ‘as necessary’ throughout his tenure.

    OTOH one can look at his beliefs that were enacted and endure.

    1. Bush believed in lowering capital gains taxes. That is certainly vital to the average working class schmuck who votes GOP. Not. It does help the donor class though.

    Unbelievably, even comrade Obama couldn’t find a way to undo those mean tax cuts. Truly hard to believe that a communist is more opposed to DADT than to tax cuts for the wealthy. Purely coincidental. Hell, Obama did Bush one up, he got rid of the expiration date on his tax cuts. Weird, like Obama’s main donors are the same as Hillary and Rubio.

    2. He believed in cheap energy.

    Strangely under comrade Obama the price of a barrel of oil is cheaper than a big bucket of chicken.

    3. He believed in NAFTA

    Obama did him one better with TPP.

    • Amazona February 27, 2016 / 11:29 am

      Thank you for the essay on why we have to be more careful of whom we elect and not just count on promises but look for a solid record of supporting and accomplishing the things now promised

Comments are closed.